Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030519
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The knives are out, or rather even further out, for Jeremy Corbyn.

There's been some discussion on the main EU referendum thread so I've cherry-picked it for further discussion here:

quote:
Doublethink posted:
And now he's said he won'tt actually stand for the leadership - that is possibly even less helpful. I think he would probably have lost - but he could have launched a challenge then put his case and maybe je would have convinced the membership. Niw he's just destablised the shadow cabinet with no apparent further plan (to be clear, yes I know Corbyn sacked him he didn't resign - but he was trying organise a mass resignation in which je would participate.)

What rally pisses me off, is that a) Corbyn deliver 70% of the labour vote for remain, which is comparable to the proportion their vote the SNP were able to deliver b) Corbyn has been consistently talking about the problems of poor communities hit by austerity, crap working conditions and shit housing since he took the leadership - and it is these problems that underly the brexit vote c) a large chunk of criticism about his campaign is that he actually told the electorate the truth, when they felt he should have spun to pretend we could get immigration rates down by by tens of thousand even with free movement c) the plp have been briefing against him since he was elected including *throughout* the remain campaign d) the actual leaders of the remain campaign itself (lord somebody or other - yes lord - nice appeal to the working man or woman there) and the labour remain campaign - Alan Johnson - have been nowhere to be bloody seen.

I saw much online coverage of corbyn doing stuff for remain - can anyone here rember Alan Johnson actually giving a remain speech, or Hilary Benn ? Iam sure it must have happened.
quote:
Rocinante posted:
I actually heard [Alan] Johnson doing a phone-in on Radio 4 and he was very good, giving factual and constructive answers to even the most hostile callers in his usual matey style.

I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.
quote:
Doublethink posted:
There is now a claim he wasn't at the campaign launch circulating on twitter, supposedly sourced from someone working in labour communciations. Presumambly, they'd for gotten this photograph of the launch is findable through google:

http://labourlist.org/2016/05/a-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-is-essential-for-jobs-and-workers-rights-says-alan-johnson/

I believe it is also ion the daily mirror site. Meanwhile Huffpost have a piece claiming he sabotaged the campaign consisting of:



This is very clearly co-ordinated with the cabinet resignations - none of it comes anywhere near an *honest* strategy that would have changed the vote.

The campaign would have functioned better if the plp were not also v obviously manourvering to oust him during the campaign.
quote:
Posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.
Which also meant that no matter how well Corbyn (or anyone else) made the case for the EU based on the rights of workers etc, arguments that should appeal to the traditional Labour voter, those arguments were never going to be heard by the Labour voters he was appealing too. Which may be a result of poor press officers in his office, but it's also possible that the obsession in the press with the issues of the right and the Tory infighting would have made even the worlds greatest press team struggle to get his message reported.[/qb]
quote:
Posted by Doublethink:
Also he [Corbyn] did deliver 70% of the labour vote, realistically how much higher could that really be - if 70% of the entire country had voted either remain or leave we'd have been astonished.
(Apologies to anyone whose contribution I have overlooked.)

Thoughts? Not just on Corbyn's performance in the referendum but in general
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
I lived in Jeremy Corbyn's constituency for 21 years. He is an exceptionally good constituency MP. He is also an exceptionally good leader, which is why the owners of the right wing press and other establishment figures are so scared of him.

We have to remember that Corbyn has been an MP forever. He has been a Labour back-bencher continuously since Margaret Thatcher's day. He's seen it all: all the back-biting, the knife-stabbing, the conspiracies and hate-campaigns that make up modern parliament. He's got great knowledge, extensive experience, a lifetime's worth of contacts and I bet he knows where some skeletons are hidden in a cupboard or two.

So he won't be easy for anyone to get rid of.

More power to his elbow.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
He could have done with storming a few more barns, but it's not his style.

I can't think of anyone else in the current lineup who would be any better.

And the one that could have been is lying dead.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
To me Corbyn looks like a possible way forward for the UK, not so much because of his political views, but because of the political restructuring he has embarked on within his own party. It remains to be seen whether it will survive this test.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
This is a real crisis in the history of Britain. At such times a lot depends on who can command the confidence of the House - e.g. Churchill in 1940, was actually more popular on the Labour benches than in his own party.

Cameron is a laughing-stock and has bowed out. The process of replacing him will be protracted, in the meantime there is a vacuum. Corbyn is a nice enough guy, and I bear him no ill-will, but he doesn't strike me as someone who can assume leadership of the pro-European majority of MPs and at least secure a Brexit settlement that won't trample roughshod over the rights of vulnerable people.

He was supposed to be a leader who would re-connect the Labour party with its "traditional" core voters, but they were the very voters who voted Leave in large enough numbers to land us in this almighty mess. That, I think. is why the PLP have finally given up on him (not that they needed much excuse, they've always hated his guts)

I think he needs to call a "back me or sack me" leadership vote. Very probably, under the present rules, he would be re-elected; but that would at least settle the matter.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What has happened, is that the reshuffle he wanted to do (and only sacked two) and was talked out of cos they insisted he mist be inclusive, has now done itself.

The bbc have a handy who's in, who's out list.

This is just so fucking stupid - if they had a candidate, there might have been a point.

The progressive brexit case is not hard to make, it is basically we weather the fallout and try for a Norwegian style society internally, then everyone has a big argument about immigration.

Probably could compromise on a points based immigration system, basically because it won't cap migration by default - plus could agree a set certain number of points for being an EU citizen with the European Union.

Then every election for the rest of time there will be part of each party's manifesto with how they want the points sytem or its thresholds changed.

[ 26. June 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I cannot see how he can be unseated. He has the votes of members in the country.

Hilary Benn may be right about his lack of top leadership capability, but I think the majority of Labour members like and respect him as a good, decent, principled and serious man. The best thing going for him as a politician is that he is about as opposite in character and nature to Boris Johnson as it is possible to be. The worst thing going for him is that he is utterly and publicly opposed to the racist and xenophobic tendencies which a disturbingly large proportion of my co-citizens either espouse or condone. And many of them live in the traditional Labour heartlands which he will need to recover.

He may indeed be a loser but right at present I do not know what a winner would look like. A Labour racist or fellow traveller is an oxymoron.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cannot see how he can be unseated. He has the votes of members in the country.

He may indeed be a loser but right at present I do not know what a winner would look like. A Labour racist or fellow traveller is an oxymoron.
Precisely. I mean who would they have to replace him ? One of the Blairites who proved their electability by losing the leadership election?

This is Nicola Murray level politics. The Tories are in disarray, Osbourne is AWOL, https://i.imgur.com/CFmbjDY.jpg is the front runner to be PM and the Shadow Cabinet is obsessed with not being on the front page?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I agree with everything Doublethink posted above.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Legislation wise, if I were doing brexit I would aim to focus on negotiatiating the trade deals and EU relationship (which is going to be an involved nightmare in itself)

On leaving, which I imagine we will end up doing before trade deals are completed, pass some single law saying all regs previously governed by the eu treaties stay they same unless explicitly repealed and do one migration law of some sort.

Then in parallel, setup commons comittees to scrutinse different legislative areas and recommend which previous eu regs should be left and which changed. I suspect this bit may still be goining on two decades later.

I would try to resolve some of the ire and issues between our constituent nations by federating the UK, rather than a breakup. Might suggest that devolved govs could choose, within a federated union, to have a Norway style common market agreement if they want to. This would mean we'd need a more defined border with Scotland, which would be a pain, but not impossible.

[ 26. June 2016, 18:09: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
What's happening here?! More agreement with Doublethink [Eek!]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Devolved administrations negotiating their relationship with the single market & free movement of labour makes sense, in the context of tax raising powers and some foreign policy powers being fully devolved in a federated UK. It would also mean the Northern Irish would not need a hardened land border which would be better for the peace process.

It would also give the English a proper devolved government rather than the current pigs ear of a convention about who can vote on what in the national parliament.

[ 26. June 2016, 18:16: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
(Tries for a hat trick.)

[ 26. June 2016, 18:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thoughts? Not just on Corbyn's performance in the referendum but in general
It seems that the Conservative Party has not only lost its leader but is also about to the lose its greatest asset for winning the next general election.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This is the out list' quoting BBC news:

quote:

Sacked: Hilary Benn, shadow foreign secretary

Resigned: Karl Turner, shadow attorney general (not actually in the cabinet)
Lord Falconer, shadow justice secretary
Heidi Alexander, shadow health secretary
Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary
Vernon Coaker, shadow Northern Ireland secretary
Ian Murray, shadow Scottish secretary - and Labour's only MP in Scotland
Kerry McCarthy, shadow environment secretary
Seema Malhotra, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury
Lillian Greenwood, shadow transport secretary
Gloria de Piero, shadow minister for young people and voter registration[/list]


[ 26. June 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And the one that could have been is lying dead.
Since you mention her, Jo Cox had co-written a public letter in the Guardian asking Corbyn to get his act together and provide some leadership.

Not that I have any idea whether sticking with Corbyn would work better for the Labour Party than dumping Corbyn. As you say, there aren't any obviously more charismatic candidates. It could be argued that Corbyn keeping out of the press is more effective than being routinely pilloried in the press as Miliband was.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I doubt she'd have backed Corbyn, but she might have run against him more credibly than some others. To be honest, I reckon their best shot might be John Mann.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt she'd have backed Corbyn, but she might have run against him more credibly than some others.
That was my point. She could have been our Nicola.

Tbh, I cannot fault our First Minister's response - it has been faultlessly liberal and inclusive. Admittedly, she represents a Scotland as it imagines itself rather than, perhaps, it is. But that can work too , we can be the Burnsian nation of

For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
if we believe we are.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
No she couldn't. Truly wonderful as she was. She couldn't. She was a new kid on the block. An MP for a year only. With 20 years experience, yes, loved and respected by at least one crusty Tory. But no.

Jeremy MUST reach out from his principled position.

And Nicola MUST play her hand with a vengeance.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Chris Bryant has resigned.

(Shadow leader of the house, apparently. MP for Rhonda.)

[ 26. June 2016, 21:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Entirely possible, and she'd have been wrong.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Chris Bryant has resigned.

(Shadow leader of the house, apparently. MP for Rhonda.)
Wow, what a rude and vindictive letter he wrote, blaming Corbyn personally for the failure of the Remain campaign.

Funny thing is, Chris, as Shadow Leader of the House and senior Labour figure in the Shadow Cabinet, you were in Corbyn's team. If you think that this was a failure of "Corbyn and his team", that's you that is. What other team was there?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Obviously, I'm simply and outside observer with no opinion, positive or negative, about Mr. Corbyn.

But if people here, and I'm speaking of those who have more or less expressed sympathies with Labour, are concerned about electibility -- the possibility of Labour defeating the hated Tories -- it seems to me Corbyn has a problem. If he's opposed by the more right-wing Labourites, and is firmly and as a man of principle solidly on the left of he party, he's going to lose a portion of Labour's supporters. Where they go I don't know, but they won't vote for his party even if they just stay home. And clearly no Conservatives or UKIP supporters are going to come over to a more left-wing Labour Party.

So where is he going to get the votes from the general public to keep even the seats the party has now, much less increase them to the point where he has a majority at Westminster? No voters means no seats. And it's clear as it can be that no party, either of the left or the right, can win a majority based solely on its own members -- you have to get support from the mushy middle. Can Corbyn do that, given that on this one issue at least, he has notably failed to carry the majority of his traditional supporters with him?

Please note -- I don't know anything about the oolicies involved, or the people. I have no favourites in any race to replace or confirm Corbyn. And I'm going on what people on this site have been writing since Corbyn became leader. I'm simply concerned with how 1+1=2 electorally...or not. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong or principled or unscrupulous...it's a question of who can attract votes.

John
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I'll repeat what I said on another thread:

quote:
As things stand there are really two possibilities. Either he favoured Brexit but didn't have the balls to admit it and campaigned feebly, in which case he was disingenuous or he opposed Brexit and campaigned feebly in which case he was feeble. In either case I think the words of Blessed Leo Amery (PBUH) are appropriate here: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

As things stand there are really two possibilities. Either he favoured Brexit but didn't have the balls to admit it and campaigned feebly, in which case he was disingenuous or he opposed Brexit and campaigned feebly in which case he was feeble. In either case I think the words of Blessed Leo Amery (PBUH) are appropriate here: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".
Just saying it doesn't mean it is true. Under Corbyn, Labour are neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls - which hasn't happened for quite a while under different leaders - and he managed to mobilise the vast majority of labour voters and in particular young voters to back Remain.

This stuff which says he didn't perform and didn't turn up and didn't persuade any Labour voters is bollocks.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

As things stand there are really two possibilities. Either he favoured Brexit but didn't have the balls to admit it and campaigned feebly, in which case he was disingenuous or he opposed Brexit and campaigned feebly in which case he was feeble. In either case I think the words of Blessed Leo Amery (PBUH) are appropriate here: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".
Just saying it doesn't mean it is true. Under Corbyn, Labour are neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls - which hasn't happened for quite a while under different leaders - and he managed to mobilise the vast majority of labour voters and in particular young voters to back Remain.

This stuff which says he didn't perform and didn't turn up and didn't persuade any Labour voters is bollocks.
These are the same opinion polls which predicted that Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister and Vote Remain would win the Referendum.

And, broadly speaking, you cannot claim that Corbyn did well enough if the object of the exercise was to keep us in the EU. To quote Jamie from the Thick Of It, "This is politics, not fucking East Enders". Sincerity is no defence in these matters. Assuming he was sincere, he lost. This has consequences. Preferably short pointy consequences of the et tu Brute variety.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Can Corbyn do that, given that on this one issue at least, he has notably failed to carry the majority of his traditional supporters with him?
Just to note that it's not clear that Corbyn did fail to carry the majority of his traditional supporters. The majority of Labour supporters did vote Remain. He just failed to carry enough traditional supporters.

Also, we've had a lot of Labour leaders over the years who've tried to woo the middle ground in politics. Blair succeeded, but most of the others have failed. The main difference is that Blair was charismatic and came over as believing in what he was saying. So there's no reason to suppose that someone from the centre-left of the party with enough conviction couldn't do better than someone from the right who came over as merely managerial.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Conservative central office couldn't have planned it better. Of the three groups they need to attract (at least two of) they offend all of them.

Hey Liberal Lefties, we don't care for your input so far.

Hey Labour leaver (Ukip tempter), just to remind you that we wanted the opposite from you.

Hey (ex New Labour&) Tory remainer, you may be unimpressed at Cameroon/Boris but don't blame them it wasn't the Tory's fault, it was all ours.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Look. In these dangerous and terrible times, a bit of blunt advice from someone who is not a Labour supporter but is not a member of any other political party either.

Some of you are thinking - this is the moment of the crisis of capitalism - fantastic - our opportunity - get our man in place - then we can seize power and impose the nostra we've always dreamt of on the benighted and ignorant British populace - we know best - we can give them what they really need, irrespective of what they think..

1. You don't know best; and

2. Your man hasn't got what it takes. He may represent your dreams, but he doesn't represent anyone else's. Crucial to charisma in a crisis is the ability to convey competence. He has about as much charisma when it comes to steadying the ship as a mast with no sails on it; and

3. In a crisis, those sort of aspirations are a luxury. Civilisation is a fragile thing. If you can't steady the ship and steer it, you can't do anything else, and you make everything much, much worse.

Cameron by his ineptitude, threw his dice and lost. Somebody now has got to keep the ship off the rocks. That is not the first priority. It is the only one. And your man is not the person to do it. Believe me. Irrespective of the votes of Labour rank and file, he has not got what it takes.

If you want to do your bit for your country, dump your man and choose somebody who can rise to the hour. Alternatively, keep your man and consign yourselves to the dustbin in England as you have in Scotland.

If you keep him and manage to get into any power at all, he'll do even worse than Cameron, and will take less than a month to do it in.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Certainly the impression here is along the lines of John Holding's post - and heaven knows the decent and honourable men who have led the Labor Party here in Federal or State parliaments who have been totally unelectable. Corbyn's appeal to the committed Left did not mean that he would be able to catch those voters needed to gain government. His similarity to Michael Foot and the general extremism of the Labour left in the eighties, was enough to scare them away, his honesty and decency notwithstanding.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I would like to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I don't object to his politics, I object to his general lack of competence. In no particular order:

1. He was elected on a platform of anti-austerity, but we are seeing very few ideas about what an alternative would look like. People's quantitative easing is irrelevant if the Bank of England is not engaged in a quantitative easing programme of any kind.

2. He is going to have to convince at least some of the right, centre-right and centre-left that his ideas are reasonable. Why, then, did he appoint Seamus Milne??? (I'm not saying Mr Milne is a loony, I'm saying he's not capable of convincing the centre-right that he isn't a loony.)

3. You can't refuse to talk to the media and then complain that the media are being nasty to you.

4. (With thanks to betjemaniac.) One of his main ideas is unilateral nuclear disarmament. To achieve this, he suggests building the submarines but not fitting the missiles - which, I understand, is a very stupid idea indeed. Now I personally know nothing about the design of Trident submarines, but I have not devoted a political career to getting them abolished. Mr Corbyn OTOH seems to be the socialist equivalent of the kind of person who battles daily against the scarlet lady of the seven hills but who would be at a loss to explain what ex cathedra means.

5. I'm not impressed at the argument that he has a mandate from Labour supporters, because Labour MPs also hold a mandate from their respective constituents, and I suspect the sum total of constituents who backed Mr Corbyn's opponents is a larger population than the total of Labour supporters who backed Mr Corbyn.

6. Mr Corbyn has a track record of defying the party whip and is at odds with the majority of the PLP. This was always inevitably going to cause problems. No-one seems to have come up with a strategy on how to mitigate them.

7. Sharing or not sharing a platform with someone is about making a statement. It is a non-verbal form of soundbite politics. Consequently, Mr Corbyn should have considered whether 'I will share a platform with the IRA but not with Mr Cameron' was precisely the statement he intended to convey.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Labour has claimed to be, for some considerable time, a democratic socialist party. You appear to be confusing Corbyn with a communist, he's not - and his policy platform is not extreme. All of which is irrelevant to the brexit negotiations as they will be largely technocratic.

You are going to get competing visions of the future, Johnson and co want us to become more like America, Farage and co want us to become a protectionist state with a privileged dominant culture closer to how Australia or New Zealand operate and I think Corbyn's version would be something like Norway's social organisation. We need these ariculated clearly so we can decide which one to vote for.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Two more blunt messages as an afterthought, from a non-Labour Party member.

1. The SNP now occupies the place in Scotland that you should be occupying, but does it better.

2. You may not like this, but until it fouled up over Iraq, Tony Blair and the administration he ran was rather a good one, and had a lot of popular acceptance. He understood something very important which most of the Labour Party know, but would rather close their eyes to.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
8. In a parallel universe in which Mr Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he is at some point going to have to come to an accommodation with unpleasant people whose interests are diametrically opposed to his principles. If he can't even get his own Party on-side, how is he ever going to negotiate successfully with industrial magnates, media moguls, or foreign governments?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
These are the same opinion polls which predicted that Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister and Vote Remain would win the Referendum.
Let's take some of the post election polling:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party-768x558.jpg

Basically Corbyn carried the voters about as well as Sturgeon carried hers. [Okay -- you could of course claim that that poll is inaccurate too - though in that case on what are you basing your opinions on, because .. see below]

quote:

And, broadly speaking, you cannot claim that Corbyn did well enough if the object of the exercise was to keep us in the EU.
Assume only people who voted in the last GE voted in the referendum, in which case Corbyn would have to convince proportionally much more of his voters to vote Remain - simply because the majority of Tories were going to vote Leave by a significant margin. Of course in the event far more people were voting so there are a couple of further points to be made.

There were always people who weren't voting for Labour in those 'traditional Labour heartlands', and at some point those constituencies also had about 5-10% polling for the BNP (when UKIP arrived that percentage magically disappeared). So your point actually seems to be around "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault”.

Furthermore, Corbyn was touring the country, giving speeches in favour of the EU. Insofar as his support may be construed as half hearted it was largely because he was actually being honest about what he felt the shortcomings of the EU were (see his rating of 7/10). I think you may want to pause before arguing against that.

Personally, I think the team surrounding him are rubbish, the media team particularly are terrible at basic mechanics. I wouldn't completely agree with Enoch above, but it's clear that at some point he's going to be replaced. However, it also matters how this is done - the shadow cabinet resigning in a fit of pique whilst not having an alternate and credible leader makes for great headlines, but is the politics of incompetency more than anything else (it's like the worst of The Thick of It).

Finally, this was Cameron's cock up more than anything else - this was a referendum of his choosing, on a timetable he decided, towards which he hardly campaigned.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Doublethink, if that is Mr Corbyn's vision, the rest of us have no reason to suppose that is the case. He has signally failed to communicate it.

Even you say "I think Corbyn's version would be something like Norway's social organisation". That gives the impression to me that you don't know what his version is and perhaps are projecting onto him what you'd like it to be.


There isn't time to do this now. It's too late. We have a crisis. If he has a vision, he wants to win the public to, he should have been stating it in season and out of season since last autumn.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

You may not like this, but until it fouled up over Iraq, Tony Blair and the administration he ran was rather a good one, and had a lot of popular acceptance.
Up to a point (and had he stayed out of Iraq he would may have retained popularity with middle England). However it wasn't because of the stance on the Iraq war that swathes of the North have now vote for Leave, is it?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doublethink, if that is Mr Corbyn's vision, the rest of us have no reason to suppose that is the case. He has signally failed to communicate it.

Even you say "I think Corbyn's version would be something like Norway's social organisation". That gives the impression to me that you don't know what his version is and perhaps are projecting onto him what you'd like it to be.


There isn't time to do this now. It's too late. We have a crisis. If he has a vision, he wants to win the public to, he should have been stating it in season and out of season since last autumn.
When there's an election, there'll be a manifesto. The reason I am saying a version of, is because politicians have been forming policy whilst we were in the eu, and expecting to remain in the eu. Every party's platform will have to be adjusted to fit brexit.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Basically Corbyn carried the voters about as well as Sturgeon carried hers.
This seems to be the case. The people Corbyn failed to carry are the working class "traditional Labour supporters" who voted UKIP in the last election.

Where do we put the blame for that? Thirteen years of New Labour for doing a good job wooing the middle, but a stonkingly poor job selling their vision to a working class who didn't perceive much benefit from a Labour government?

A media which seems to switch its attention back and forth between immigrants, benefit scroungers and the breasts of some Z-list starlet?

Ed Miliband, for presenting such a shockingly inept election campaign that Labour managed to lose ground to the Tories in the middle of austerity?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
8. In a parallel universe in which Mr Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he is at some point going to have to come to an accommodation with unpleasant people whose interests are diametrically opposed to his principles. If he can't even get his own Party on-side, how is he ever going to negotiate successfully with industrial magnates, media moguls, or foreign governments?
Let alone so many of those sitting behind him.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Another three have resigned apparently, but the news isn't telling us who.

[ 27. June 2016, 07:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
3 junior ministers, more are expected later. Corbyn is expected to do a reshuffle today.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

Diane Abbot got health, Thornberry got Hilary Benn's job. I expect the Eagle twins will stay.

[ 27. June 2016, 07:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
From the beeb:
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Legislation wise, if I were doing brexit I would aim to focus on negotiatiating the trade deals and EU relationship (which is going to be an involved nightmare in itself)

On leaving, which I imagine we will end up doing before trade deals are completed, pass some single law saying all regs previously governed by the eu treaties stay they same unless explicitly repealed and do one migration law of some sort.

Then in parallel, setup commons comittees to scrutinse different legislative areas and recommend which previous eu regs should be left and which changed. I suspect this bit may still be goining on two decades later.

I would try to resolve some of the ire and issues between our constituent nations by federating the UK, rather than a breakup. Might suggest that devolved govs could choose, within a federated union, to have a Norway style common market agreement if they want to. This would mean we'd need a more defined border with Scotland, which would be a pain, but not impossible.
That's assuming that states and businesses will rush to make trade deals with us rather than wait till we've clarified our position and decided to actually leave. We're not exactly in a position of strength.

[ 27. June 2016, 07:46: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
That scenario is assuming we leave, have triggered article 50 and are trying to leave.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Where do we put the blame for that? Thirteen years of New Labour for doing a good job wooing the middle, but a stonkingly poor job selling their vision to a working class who didn't perceive much benefit from a Labour government?
I would go along with that - with the modification 'who didn't *receive* much benefit from a New Labour government'.

Blairism's redistribution to more depressed areas of the nation was always relatively weak (there was no industrial development strategy backing things up), and the basic strategy was always likely to run into problems should a future austerian government come into power. Which in fact was the case.

This is why I disagree somewhat with Enoch's evaluation of their success. Even absent Iraq at some point there would have been a downturn (and the GFC would have hit us anyway), at which point another government could have come in anyway, as Blairism's core economic claim was that they had ended boom and bust.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Furthermore, Corbyn was touring the country, giving speeches in favour of the EU. Insofar as his support may be construed as half hearted it was largely because he was actually being honest about what he felt the shortcomings of the EU were (see his rating of 7/10). I think you may want to pause before arguing against that.
He took a week off in the middle of the bloody campaign!

At present, we have voted to Leave. As things stand the pound is in free fall, the stock market is in free fall, RBS and Barclays have had to stop trading, the UK is apt to break up and the bunch of chancers who orchestrated this have no idea what to do about it. Omnishambles doesn't begin to sum the situation up. These were the stakes. At this juncture, with the safety of the Realm in mortal peril, a Labour leader, A LABOUR LEADER, decided the best thing he could do was to take a bit of me time and, when pressed into making the case for not torching the country, decided to equivocate like a sodding Vicar on sodding Thought For The Sodding Day.

He's not up to the job and he should piss off back to his allotment and his copies of the Collected Works Of Enver Hoxha and hand over the job of Leader Of The Opposition to someone who can find his or her arse with both hands.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


He's not up to the job and he should piss off back to his allotment and his copies of the Collected Works Of Enver Hoxha
I'm not sure about you people, but this is exactly what I'll be doing whilst all of the idiots watch Rome/London burn.

Right now, spending my next 30 years watching vegetables grow and trying to understand the complexities of continental philosophy looks like a very attractive option.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Oh, that is priceless, Mr cheesy. Thank you for cheering me up! [Killing me]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
The present goings on in the Labour party remind me of Neil Kinnock's famous conference speech against the militant tendency....

quote:

I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos, you can’t play politics with people’s jobs and with people’s services or with their homes. Comrades, the voice of the people – not the people here; the voice of the real people with real needs – is louder than all the boos that can be assembled. Understand that, please, comrades. In your socialism, in your commitment to those people, understand it. The people will not, cannot, abide posturing. They cannot respect the gesture-generals or the tendency-tacticians.
The pound is at levels from the 1980s , and it seems the Labour Party is right back there too
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This is getting more than faintly ridiculous. Chris Bryant is claiming that Corbyn might have voted leave because he (Corbyn) didn't specifically tell him (Bryant) how he'd voted.

You might be able to infer from my comments here my feelings on the matter, but I'm not going to report how I voted because, y'know, I BELIEVE IN SECRET BALLOTS.


There are a word for people who spread rumours like this, but it isn't very polite.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Ironically, the secret ballot was introduced to ensure that working people could not be threatened with the sack if they voted against the interests of their employers.

Bleakly amusing, that Jez decided to invoke that principle at this juncture.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

Diane Abbot got health, Thornberry got Hilary Benn's job. I expect the Eagle twins will stay.
One of them might.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

Diane Abbot got health, Thornberry got Hilary Benn's job. I expect the Eagle twins will stay.
One of them might.
No, they've both done a runner. What a time....
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
One thing we have discovered this morning is that the vast majority of the resigning MPs are unable to write a sensible and comprehensible letter.

Which is worrying, given all the practice MPs get.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

Diane Abbot got health, Thornberry got Hilary Benn's job. I expect the Eagle twins will stay.
One of them might.
No, they've both done a runner. What a time....
Ah, to lose one could be construed as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

Diane Abbot got health, Thornberry got Hilary Benn's job. I expect the Eagle twins will stay.
One of them might.
No, they've both done a runner. What a time....
Ah, to lose one could be construed as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness.
She's reported to have been almost in tears on The World At One....
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Ironically, the secret ballot was introduced to ensure that working people could not be threatened with the sack if they voted against the interests of their employers.

Bleakly amusing, that Jez decided to invoke that principle at this juncture.
Especially since he's already told Twitter he voted Remain.

Which, though it refutes Mr Bryant's conspiracy theory, doesn't explain why Mr Corbyn thought refusing to answer the question was consistent with his commitment to straight talking.

[ 27. June 2016, 13:22: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
Hilary Benn has emailed members of his constituency:

quote:
Dear Member

A number of you have contacted me about the current difficulties in the Labour Party, following the seismic EU referendum result, and I wanted therefore to write to all of you to set out my view of where we are and what I believe we need to do.

It has now become clear that there is widespread concern among Labour MPs and in the Shadow Cabinet about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of our Party. This was brought into sharp focus by his unwillingness to lead during the EU referendum campaign in which he appeared disengaged and unenthusiastic. As a result, there is no confidence in our ability to win the next election, which may come much sooner than expected, if Jeremy continues as Leader. A recent poll showed that 29% of people who said they had voted Labour in the 2015 general election would not do so again currently.

At this critical time for our country, following the result of the EU referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of our Party – one that is capable of winning public support and that can stand up for the people of Britain in making the case for a deal with the EU to protect our economy.

In a phone conversation with Jeremy on Saturday night, I told him that for these reasons I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the Party and he then dismissed me from the Shadow Cabinet. I thanked him for having given me the opportunity to serve him and the Party as Shadow Foreign Secretary.

This has been a very difficult decision for me and for colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet, a majority of whom have now tendered their resignations.

I did not vote for Jeremy last September, but I willingly served in his Shadow Cabinet because I felt we all had a responsibility to support him as the duly elected Leader of the Labour Party. It is, however, now patently clear that because he cannot offer us the leadership we need, he has lost the confidence of many of his colleagues in Parliament. As I said on Sunday, I know Jeremy to be a good and a decent man, but he is not a leader and that is the problem. Nor is this about his politics or values. It is about our capacity to win back support and to gain the public’s trust and confidence – as we must – if we are going to be able to respond to the concerns felt by so many of the people who voted to leave the EU.

I realise that there will be those among you who disagree with what I and others in Parliament have done, but I think we have a wider responsibility to the Labour party – to which all of us have devoted so much of our lives – to ensure that we are able to help change our country for the better. As you know, I have always sought to say what I mean and mean what I say, and that is what I am doing.

If there is now a leadership election, I just want you to know that I will not be a candidate, but I will give my backing to the person I think can best lead us to victory.

Thank you, as always, for your support.

Best wishes

Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds Central
I wish he'd stand as a candidate. He has a lot of support and he'd be a credible leader.

[ 27. June 2016, 13:25: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Whatever his many issues may have been, Blair was a good communicator and leader, but also had Prescott, a much different figure, as his number two.

Perhaps Corbyn would have worked better as the "traditional left's" representative as number two, with someone else in the top job.

After all, if you compare it to the situation with bookmakers and Brexit, when he first stood he was 5,000-1.

PS - I've just watched video of the Angela Eagle doing the WATO interview. She's either Labour's best actress since Glenda Jackson, or is genuinely devastated by the whole thing.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I wish Hilary Benn would tell the truth rather than damn with faint (and patronising) praise. He has been the focus for the anti-Corbyn faction in the shadow cabinet and the PLP since Corbyn was elected.

As for the 29% of those who voted Labour in 2015 wouldn't do so now, that doesn't take into account those who didn't vote for a tired and uninspiring Labour party in 2015 but might do so now if the PLP supported Corbyn.

[ 27. June 2016, 13:42: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wish Hilary Benn would tell the truth rather than damn with faint (and patronising) praise. He has been the focus for the anti-Corbyn faction in the shadow cabinet and the PLP since Corbyn was elected.

As for the 29% of those who voted Labour in 2015 wouldn't do so now, that doesn't take into account those who didn't vote for a tired and uninspiring Labour party in 2015 but might do so now if the PLP supported Corbyn.
That's wishful thinking. Under Corbyn Labour lost council seats, as a party of opposition, in the local elections for the first time since the miners strike and the UK have just voted to leave the EU. The idea that the nation is going to rally round him if only Hilary et. al. would have confidence in him is misplaced. If there is any chance of the EU referendum being turned around or a Labour government in the near future, he's got to go.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Alan Johnson, leader of the Labour In campaign, has shoved the boot right in. And 57 Labour candidates at the last election have signed a letter saying he should go as they don't get support for him on the doorstep.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
40 Labour resignations at the last count. Cameron is now making a statement in Parliament. The new Labour member for Tooting has just been sworn in and Cameron advised her to keep her mobile phone on because she could find herself in the shadow cabinet soon.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I have been told there is a suggestion that David Milliband might return from the US and stand for Jo Cox's seat. Has anyone else heard this?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I have been told there is a suggestion that David Milliband might return from the US and stand for Jo Cox's seat. Has anyone else heard this?
No, but I'd welcome him.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
I think if the unions hadn't been involved so much last time and David had got the top job instead of Ed, the very least there would have been was no Conservative majority in 2015. And quite possibly a Labour one. In either case, no stupid referendum....

Unions are piling in to support Corbyn though.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Blairites seem to want a kind of liberal party, under the name of Labour. This is fair enough, although I'm not sure what they have to say to the poor and disadvantaged in modern England. I suppose 'we feel your pain, but neo-liberalism is quite good really'.

I feel sad, as my family have been connected with Labour since the 1920s, but now the last remnants of the old gospel are being removed. Time for me to quit, I think.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
"Corbyn urges Cameron to start exit negotiations now" according to the Guardian.

Well I certainly agree with that.

The biggest political difficulty for Labour is the erosion of its core support in the post-industrial heartlands - not just in terms of who they vote for, but in terms of what they believe. If UKIP really represents what many people think better than Labour does, there seems little sense in Labour trying to win them back by becoming more like UKIP.

They need to rebuild grass-roots support, but I'm not sure how.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The Blairites seem to want a kind of liberal party, under the name of Labour. This is fair enough, although I'm not sure what they have to say to the poor and disadvantaged in modern England. I suppose 'we feel your pain, but neo-liberalism is quite good really'.

I feel sad, as my family have been connected with Labour since the 1920s, but now the last remnants of the old gospel are being removed. Time for me to quit, I think.
The Blairites, such as they are, are largely on the back-benches. With the exception of Charlie Falconer everyone who has resigned or been sacked in the last two days is on the soft-left or the Brownite wing of the party.

I'm not, by the way, entirely sure what anyone will have to say to the poor and disadvantaged in modern England if Incitatus wins a snap election in the autumn on a platform winging it and hoping his boyish charm is any kind of substitute for competence.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
"Corbyn urges Cameron to start exit negotiations now" according to the Guardian.

Well I certainly agree with that.

The biggest political difficulty for Labour is the erosion of its core support in the post-industrial heartlands - not just in terms of who they vote for, but in terms of what they believe. If UKIP really represents what many people think better than Labour does, there seems little sense in Labour trying to win them back by becoming more like UKIP.

They need to rebuild grass-roots support, but I'm not sure how.
I don't see how the Blairites/Brownites can do it, since they support neo-liberalism, which is the force which has decimated industry, communities, public services, and so on, and this has been going on for 40 years.

I think Corbyn has been analyzing this quite well, but analysis and discussion are of limited value. What can Labour offer to the poor and disadvantaged, in concrete terms? I think a few simple policies on jobs and services could be powerful, but it ain't going to happen under Hilary Benn or Rachel Reeves.

[ 27. June 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)
I'm sure you can find plenty of corporate sellouts that everyone hates who might manage to scrape over the line if the alternative is Donald Trump. I'd like to hope for something better in a Labour Party leader.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)
I'm not sure about Corbyn being inspiring; I just think he's one of the few Labour politicians who can forensically analyze neo-liberalism, and can also propose that the low-paid need a leg-up, and benefits should not be cut for the disabled, and so on.

Well, OK, that's not enough, but I don't see any Blairite or Brownite coming down the tracks, who can inspire anybody, or even make a few simple points. Rachel Reeves? My cat just laughed.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)
I'm sure you can find plenty of corporate sellouts that everyone hates who might manage to scrape over the line if the alternative is Donald Trump. I'd like to hope for something better in a Labour Party leader.
Sir Keir Starmer? He's only been an MP for a year and has just resigned as shadow Immigration Minister, however, he's well known as the former DPP. He's also very good looking.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
This is a serious situation for the Labour Party. It's likely that a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn will be carried. That the necessary 50 members will get behind another candidate and that the party will run a leadership election, which Corbyn will win again. This is because of the party's rotten to the core method of electing its leaders via the Trade Union vote. When Ed Miliband stood against his brother David, the parliamentary and constituency parties backed David, who would have been a much better candidate in every way, but Ed won because the Marxist dinosaurs who run the trade unions thought he would be redder.

Any party leader who doesn't have the support of his party in parliament should go. It's impossible for him to do his job in those circumstances. If Corbyn had one ounce of integrity and cared about the future of his party and his country he would see this and resign. Labour needs a leader who can represent his party in parliament and those who elect them. It should dump the union vote in electing its leaders and make the process democratic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I find it incredible that with the Tories in disarray, the PLP should launch this attack right now. Well, they have probably been planning it since Corbyn was elected, and are using the referendum as a casus belli. But they are wrecking the Labour party.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is a serious situation for the Labour Party. It's likely that a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn will be carried. That the necessary 50 members will get behind another candidate and that the party will run a leadership election, which Corbyn will win again. This is because of the party's rotten to the core method of electing its leaders via the Trade Union vote. When Ed Miliband stood against his brother David, the parliamentary and constituency parties backed David, who would have been a much better candidate in every way, but Ed won because the Marxist dinosaurs who run the trade unions thought he would be redder.

Any party leader who doesn't have the support of his party in parliament should go. It's impossible for him to do his job in those circumstances. If Corbyn had one ounce of integrity and cared about the future of his party and his country he would see this and resign. Labour needs a leader who can represent his party in parliament and those who elect them. It should dump the union vote in electing its leaders and make the process democratic.
Mate, the Trade Union vote and the electoral college vote was nixed by Ed Miliband who changed the voting system. Basically everybody has to be nominated by a given number of MPs and then the whole thing is put to the vote of party members and registered supporters on an STV basis. Corbyn won because 35 numpties in the Parliamentary Party nominated him because they felt sorry for him or because they wanted to 'widen the debate' whereupon he promptly went and won. The point of the rule about nominations was that the candidates were supposed to have the backing of the Parliamentary Party before letting the members have a look at them. So Labour saddled themselves with someone who had no real support among MPs except on paper. The union barons would have probably supported the appalling Andy Burnham who, although bad, would not have been nearly as disastrous as Jez. So really, the object of the exercise is to ditch Corbyn. Given the parlous state the country is in at the moment I really don't think it matters whether Labour put two sane candidates up or do what the Tories did when they got rid of IDS and arrange for a coronation and a safe pair of hands. Whilst this may make purists clutch their pearls, I think we can probably live with it. Frankly, if we have learned anything from the last few days it is that voting is a seriously over-rated mechanism for decision making.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzlcoatl:
I find it incredible that with the Tories in disarray, the PLP should launch this attack right now. Well, they have probably been planning it since Corbyn was elected, and are using the referendum as a casus belli. But they are wrecking the Labour party.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80's. Veteran leftie Michael Foot was party leader and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Thatcher was Marmite. Loved by some, hated by many more. But she was never going to lose a General Election against Michael Foot. By the same token, Jeremy Corbyn, a natural successor to Foot is just as unelectible as he was, because the British public don't like extremist politicians from either side of the political spectrum. It was his election as leader, by a seriously flawed and outdated system that has wrecked the party. If they dump him they have a chance of rebuilding confidence before a General Election.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzlcoatl:
I find it incredible that with the Tories in disarray, the PLP should launch this attack right now. Well, they have probably been planning it since Corbyn was elected, and are using the referendum as a casus belli. But they are wrecking the Labour party.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80's. Veteran leftie Michael Foot was party leader and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Thatcher was Marmite. Loved by some, hated by many more. But she was never going to lose a General Election against Michael Foot. By the same token, Jeremy Corbyn, a natural successor to Foot is just as unelectible as he was, because the British public don't like extremist politicians from either side of the political spectrum. It was his election as leader, by a seriously flawed and outdated system that has wrecked the party. If they dump him they have a chance of rebuilding confidence before a General Election.
I'm old enough to remember rationing! If they dump Corbyn, that is a turn to the right, and the renewal of the love affair with neo-liberalism, which is the force which decimated industry, communities, jobs, public services, and so on.

How on earth this is supposed to appeal to the poor and disadvantaged, I have no idea. Anyway, it looks unavoidable. I'm off to pastures new.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
I still think you have to question whether an alternative would have worked.

I'm not sure I (not a Labour voter) can even remember the other candidates, so how much impact would they have had?

Isn't Labour likely to end up as an excluded middle under the current (I.e. assuming a successful coup) trajectory?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
A safe pair of hands would be a good move for Labour now. Someone like Alan Johnson, an honest and decent man from a working class disadvantaged background. Or someone younger like Chukah Umunah, a very erudite and clever young man. Or the party's first female leader, someone like Liz Kendall. All these people are true socialists, but not extreme ideologists like Corbyn and McDonald. They would have some hope of uniting first the party and then the country against the new elite which will most likely consist of Boris and Gove.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn won because 35 numpties in the Parliamentary Party nominated him because they felt sorry for him or because they wanted to 'widen the debate' whereupon he promptly went and won. The point of the rule about nominations was that the candidates were supposed to have the backing of the Parliamentary Party before letting the members have a look at them. [..] Frankly, if we have learned anything from the last few days it is that voting is a seriously over-rated mechanism for decision making.
I think perhaps it's more that we've been given some examples of the dangers of playing tactical games with voting.

As you say, the procedure for selecting the Labour leader was intended to present the party with a list of candidates who could each enjoy support from the MPs. Voting for a guy you can't stomach because you think the left deserves a look-in and are expecting your preferred candidate to beat him is precisely as stupid as triggering an EU referendum because you want a narrow victory that you can take back to Brussels and to your own party and use as a stick to hit people.

And as for people who voted to leave the EU because they wanted to stay in the EU, but wanted to teach the EU a lesson - well, they got what they deserved.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Liz Kendall [..] true socialists
Now, that is funny.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I still think you have to question whether an alternative would have worked.

I'm not sure I (not a Labour voter) can even remember the other candidates, so how much impact would they have had?

Isn't Labour likely to end up as an excluded middle under the current (I.e. assuming a successful coup) trajectory?
Who knows. I paid my £3 and voted for Liz Kendall whose pitch to win C1 and C2 Tory voters in Con/Lab marginals was rather wasted on a selectorate who thought that Ed Miliband lost the election because he was too right wing. Yvette Cooper ran on a platform of being a woman who wasn't a Blairite. Andy Burnham did his usual Vicar of Bray thing combined with his fatuous self-belief that he could commune with the mystical soul of England by dint of being a northern football supporter. So none of them were Clement Attlee returned from the Isle of Avalon to save Labour in its time of need.

However, all three would have allowed the parliamentary party to unite behind them, all three would have run a more professional comms operation, none of them would have had to explain away the business of having supported the IRA when they were murdering British troops, none of them would have had the business about would they or wouldn't they sing the National Anthem, and none of them would have spent the Brexit campaign equivocating like a motherfucker. So, yeah, Labour elected the worst possible candidate at the worst possible time. Things, as they say, can only get better.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Nobody who is in favour of keeping Citizen Corbyn in position as party leader has yet explained how the PLP can function when its leader doesn't have its support.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Which I suspect may explain why Labour is finished.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!
I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

Who can disparage a man who, on accusing half the Tory benches of being crooks, and being called upon the speaker to retract, did so by saying "OK, then, half the members opposite are *not* crooks"?

Were it not for his age, for my money he'd make a good contender for leader.

Besides, what's wrong with being a nut? Some of the people whose political judgement I'd most trust are certified nuts.

[ 27. June 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
If Labour get rid of Corbyn, they have already recruited their last member. There is no appetite among the membership for a rehash of neo-liberalism.

Another neo-liberal leader might save the brand, but it would kill the movement.

Hobson's choice, I fear.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!
I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

Who can disparage a man who, on accusing half the Tory benches of being crooks, and being called upon the speaker to retract, did so by saying "OK, then, half the members opposite are *not* crooks"?

Were it not for his age, for my money he'd make a good contender for leader.

Besides, what's wrong with being a nut? Some of the people whose political judgement I'd most trust are certified nuts.
Is it true that Skinner refuses to use e-mail because it puts postmen out of work?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Ironic how the plight of the Labour party seems to mirror that of the country as a whole right now, thrashing around desperately searching for a way out of a godawful mess of its own making.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Liz Kendall. [*] true socialists,
[Roll Eyes] That would be the same Liz Kendall who voted for the welfare cuts - under the Nicola Murray like strategy of 'lets find two policies from the opposition that we agree with'.

You may not like Macdonald, but his economic plan - which includes a set of strong policies around regional development is exactly the sort of thing that is needed to reverse the downward spiral of the depressed areas that have voted Leave over the long run.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!
I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

Who can disparage a man who, on accusing half the Tory benches of being crooks, and being called upon the speaker to retract, did so by saying "OK, then, half the members opposite are *not* crooks"?

Were it not for his age, for my money he'd make a good contender for leader.

Besides, what's wrong with being a nut? Some of the people whose political judgement I'd most trust are certified nuts.
Is it true that Skinner refuses to use e-mail because it puts postmen out of work?
I understand he's not keen on Email, but his reasoning there may be made half tongue in cheek. Having said that, the communication I've had from him has been paper.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
McDonnell has put in some impressive performances as shadow chancellor, after a shakey start. I'll forgive him for the little red book incident: it was a good joke but not the time or place. The problem is, I doubt the PLP would be any more accepting of him as leader.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Which I suspect may explain why Labour is finished.
Que?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
If Labour get rid of Corbyn, they have already recruited their last member. There is no appetite among the membership for a rehash of neo-liberalism.

Another neo-liberal leader might save the brand, but it would kill the movement.

Hobson's choice, I fear.
For the love of mike, what does neo-liberal even mean in this context?

We are on the verge of a national catastrophe. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not up to the job. I have no idea whether anyone else is but it would be fairly difficult to appoint someone who would be worse.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Another neo-liberal leader might save the brand, but it would kill the movement.
Perhaps it's time for a split. It happened after Foot took over the party and the Gang of Four quit. A split between social democrats and the neo totalitarianism of Corbyn's vision. I speak as someone who loathes everything Corbyn stands for. Of course last time Labour regained it's liberal social democracy and the Gang of Four were subsumed into the Liberal Party. But who knows now?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Were it not for his age, for my money he'd make a good contender for leader.
Yeah, I mean what the country really need now is a Leader of the Opposition whose main achievements in public life have largely involved taking the piss out of Black Rod during the state opening of Parliament.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Taking a step back...

I was thinking the other day, off the back, as it happens, of a load of right wing bollocks I'd read, what do I mean by calling myself a Socialist? How do I differ from a free-market neo-liberal.

It's not that I don't think free-market neo-liberalism works - it does, after a fashion. But it has high collateral damage; people trapped on zero-hours contracts, squeezes on wages, massive inequality. How I feel I differ from the proponents of this system is that I believe that the world can and should be better than this. The neo-liberal, it always seems to me, accepts the collateral damage as the price worth paying for wealth creation and prosperity, at least for some, and doesn't dream of a better world without those victims of the free market.

I think Labour's doldrums are because we do not live in an idealistic age. We live in a pragmatic one. We live in a cynical one. It's very hard to sell the idea that things could be better. This is why when Labour has done well it's done well by adopting a modified form of the neo-liberal consensus itself (Blair, Brown). It's why Corbyn is such a divisive figure; on the one side the idealists love him as a fellow-traveller, one who also believes we can do better than this. The Blairite faction of course buy into the cynical pragmatic zeitgeist and don't want the neo-liberal consensus disturbed by dreamers (well, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one) and idealists who from their viewpoint are out of touch, unconvincing to the electorate and therefore a liability.

Those of us on the side of the dreamers and idealists say rather that it is our job to show that our dream is not impossible, that we can do better, and that it's worth voting for the dream because it can be achieved.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Neo-liberal, in this context, means Blairite: more interested in the City and its love of moving money around with no questions asked, and in pursuit of fame and its attributes than in integrity or the interests of inconvenient people with little money and no connections in Washington.

If Labour is going to actually hold onto power and itself at the same time, it needs to remember that its power comes from serving, not from lip service, patronising and betrayal.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Were it not for his age, for my money he'd make a good contender for leader.
Yeah, I mean what the country really need now is a Leader of the Opposition whose main achievements in public life have largely involved taking the piss out of Black Rod during the state opening of Parliament.
It's not a bad start. Skinner's achievements are understated; they mostly consist of being a supportive constituency MP. There's a reason that Bolsover has remained a safe seat long after the coal was sealed underground.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Maybe Tony Blair would be interested in leading the Labour Party again. Whaddya reckon?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What'd be the point? Even if we needed two Tory parties (we don't) they way they're going at the moment we might soon have them.

Well, a man can dream can't he?

[ 27. June 2016, 20:40: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Neo-liberal, in this context, means Blairite: more interested in the City and its love of moving money around with no questions asked, and in pursuit of fame and its attributes than in integrity or the interests of inconvenient people with little money and no connections in Washington.

If Labour is going to actually hold onto power and itself at the same time, it needs to remember that its power comes from serving, not from lip service, patronising and betrayal.
I love the way that neoliberal means Blairite. We have had six years of Cameron and Osborne and we are now on the verge of being taking out of the EU by Incitatus and Gove, but no, the real enemy is anyone in the Labour Party who isn't convinced that a policy of warmed over Bennism is the way to do something to stop the country going to hell in a hand basket. Trust me, our children cowering in the backs of lorries where they will be smuggled into Scotland to work as hop-pickers will look back on the reign of Good King Tony as a halcyon era compared to what is to come unless the Labour party is led by someone credible. Which part of this is a national emergency are people currently struggling with?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Right, let me be a little clearer.

Blairite works as a description because, to my mind, he was/is fundamentally a Thatcherite who wanted to manage hardline free market monetarism slightly differently, and with a few mitigating measures round the edge.

My point is that we don't need a Labour party that does that; the divisions in the Conservative party will cover that base, since it is really a version of the One Nation Tory position.

What we need is someone fundamentally different who, for example, is sceptical about austerity and the prioritisation of corporate interests that it represents, will not use every opportunity to make money for their little friends in public/private partnerships, and generally behaves as if they might know what society actually is.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


We are on the verge of a national catastrophe. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not up to the job. I have no idea whether anyone else is but it would be fairly difficult to appoint someone who would be worse.
Ed Milliband wasn't up to the job either. They can't afford a third mistake. It has to be someone who could win the next election and that means someone who looks and sounds like a world leader and not just a Labour party leader. I can see Keir Starmer having that kind of appeal. I happen to like Hilary Benn too.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Right, let me be a little clearer.

Blairite works as a description because, to my mind, he was/is fundamentally a Thatcherite who wanted to manage hardline free market monetarism slightly differently, and with a few mitigating measures round the edge.

My point is that we don't need a Labour party that does that; the divisions in the Conservative party will cover that base, since it is really a version of the One Nation Tory position.

What we need is someone fundamentally different who, for example, is sceptical about austerity and the prioritisation of corporate interests that it represents, will not use every opportunity to make money for their little friends in public/private partnerships, and generally behaves as if they might know what society actually is.
Oh, FFS, these words all mean something. He wasn't a Thatcherite. He fought Thatcherites in three general elections and beat them handsomely. He wasn't a monetarist. It's an economic doctrine which was pursued by Sir Geoffrey Howe and then quietly abandoned after the 1983 election. He was comparatively right-wing for a Labour leader but he wasn't really a One Nation Tory, either.

Broadly speaking, if you don't like austerity, the main thing to do is to stop Incitatus and Gove in their tracks. If you don't like Public-Private Partnerships, well, I sympathise, but that's really not a priority at present. You may not like corporate interests but, trust me, at the moment the City of London are on our side and if you care about society and solidarity then, presumably, you want the racists who have emerged from under their stones in the last few days to be driven back there. The odds are against us but with a Labour Party led by someone who can appeal to a broader constituency than Momentum we might be in with a chance. But if you are going to define the political spectrum between socialist virtue incarnate in Mr Corbyn and everyone else you can watch everything burn whilst congratulating yourself on your ideological purity. Your call.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Trust me, our children cowering in the backs of lorries where they will be smuggled into Scotland to work as hop-pickers will look back on the reign of Good King Tony as a halcyon era compared to what is to come unless the Labour party is led by someone credible. Which part of this is a national emergency are people currently struggling with?
This is exactly the point. More than a decade after Blair disgraced himself over Iraq, it's easy to forget that he was one of the most popular and successful Prime Ministers of all time. Corbyn never could be, because his brand of socialism, while it may appeal to a certain group, even some represented on this thread, is fundamentally opposed to the naturally liberal tendencies of the British people. Right wing columnist Peter Hitchens often complains that there's hardly any difference between Blair and Cameron. In many ways that's what the British people want. The days of Labour or Tories getting 50% of the vote are long gone.They now get in the 20's. No political consensus will ever form around a politician like Corbyn. Labour needs an electable leader.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You are going to get competing visions of the future, Johnson and co want us to become more like America, Farage and co want us to become a protectionist state with a privileged dominant culture closer to how Australia or New Zealand operate and I think Corbyn's version would be something like Norway's social organisation.
I'd much rather we be like Australia or New Zealand than America or Norway. Way to make Farage sound like the desirable choice!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Those of us on the side of the dreamers and idealists say rather that it is our job to show that our dream is not impossible, that we can do better, and that it's worth voting for the dream because it can be achieved.
I don't object to Mr Corbyn because I think he's idealistic or impractical. I object to him because I think he's incompetent.


Besides, the Leave campaign appealed to many things, but I would not say 'pragmatism' was one of them.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
next Labour Leader betting odds
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Those of us on the side of the dreamers and idealists say rather that it is our job to show that our dream is not impossible, that we can do better, and that it's worth voting for the dream because it can be achieved.
I don't object to Mr Corbyn because I think he's idealistic or impractical. I object to him because I think he's incompetent.
But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.


quote:
Besides, the Leave campaign appealed to many things, but I would not say 'pragmatism' was one of them.
It was pretty hot on cynicism though. All that banging on about unelected bureaucrats. But I wasn't really thinking about the EU referendum here. More the general tenor of UK politics of late.

[ 27. June 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
A little more forensic analysis, then.

Let us detach the people, and the pursuit of power, from the policies supported, and then enacted while in power. Blair did indeed fight Thatcherites in order to win power, but he did it by convincing people that he could implement Thatcherism slightly better than the Thatcherites themselves.

In a country so torn apart by the legacy of Thatcherism that a complete clusterfuck like voting to leave the EU can occur, simply in order to remind the ruling elite that there are whole communities still needing to rediscover a point from the final collapse of mass employment in heavy industry during the mid 1980s, simply reinforcing that ideology will not do as a reconciling force. We need to come out of this process with a stronger society that actually functions better than what we went in with, not merely an immediate solution to the current bind. This involves having politicians who promulgate ideas which make a difference to those left behind, rather than merely placating those whose privilege is already so cemented in place that nothing, not even the current earthquake, will seriously threaten to dislodge it.

I'm not saying that Corbyn is in line for beatification, or that there is no alternative. I am saying that retreating to the policies which did nothing, after 13 years of allegedly Labour government, to touch the sides with these people (this being the process that broke their loyalty, after all) is really not a clever idea. That would result in the final total shattering of our society in a cacophony of competing interest groups whose primary conviction was of their mutual exclusivity.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I love the way that neoliberal means Blairite.
There are a fairly large number of people who would say that the two terms have large areas of overlap.

The problem with your analysis is that if you actually look at the depressed areas of the UK (those 'traditional Labour heartlands'), their circumstances haven't really changed in kind since Labour left office. Yes, there have been the effects of austerity, and I'm not minimizing them - but fundamentally austerity hit those areas so hard because they had very little else going for them. It's not as if they had a functioning economy back in 2007 that has since upsticks and walked.

Blair pursued a generally neo-liberal agenda, parallel to that he had a certain amount of re-distribution of the proceeds from the South East going on (though one wonders to what extent this was Brown rather than Blair). There was no real attempt to revive those post industrial areas at all.

I agree that in the present particular set of circumstances a Blair like figure is preferable to either Johnson or Gove, but there really is no one around with that combination of talent, charisma and drive. (Most of the current crop lack the first two, and the other Milliband seems to lack the last, if his subsequent movements are anything to judge by).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.
FWIW, I think his opponents in the leadership election must take some responsibility for running a joint campaign of 'Corbyn will make us unelectable', instead of 'This is why his ideas are wrong and ours are better'.
quote:
It was pretty hot on cynicism though. All that banging on about unelected bureaucrats. But I wasn't really thinking about the EU referendum here. More the general tenor of UK politics of late.
There seems to be a widespread opinion that all facts and statistics are manipulated for political purposes and that all experts have an axe to grind. Which leads to a weird mix of cynicism and idealism - no point arguing about trade figures because economists don't know what they're talking about, but we can vote out to satisfy some nebulous ideal of 'taking control'.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.
FWIW, I think his opponents in the leadership election must take some responsibility for running a joint campaign of 'Corbyn will make us unelectable', instead of 'This is why his ideas are wrong and ours are better'.

In his autobiography AJP Taylor recalls his experience of denouncing appeasement in the 1930s. He invariably got the same response. "What you say means war. We want peace". Of course, they got war in the end, anyway. Something similar happened to Liz Kendall. Kendall pointed out that Labour lost in 2015 because floating voters stayed with the Tories and set forth policies that might convince them otherwise. People responded: "what you want means Blairism. We want an end to austerity". Thanks to the EU vote and the fact that Jeremy Corbyn isn't a credible leader of the opposition we look set to get levels of austerity that make George Osborne look like Gordon Brown on steroids. Broadly speaking if a politician is offering you the moon on a stick (glares pointedly at the Labour Party and Leave voters) they are almost certainly deluding either themselves or you.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
No Confidence vote:

172 votes against Jeremy Corbyn
40 in support
4 abstentions

Chief Whip and PLP Leader talking with Jeremy Corbyn.

What next?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Crikey he's toughing it out - "Corbyn says no confidence vote has no constitutional legitimacy".

Can a leadership election be forced or not?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
What a fool. He has to go. Not even enough supporters to form a shadow cabinet.
He's got good policies. He is a decent and honourable man (I think). And he is a leader - just not the sort of leader we want or need (more's the pity, I like a leadership that gives space to others and is not authoritarian).
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
All they have to do is pick and nominate a candidate. They did not require a vote of no confidence or the resignation of the shadow cabinet to do this.

What they are trying to do, is to get Corbyn to resign so that a candidate doesn't have to run against him.

The reason they want to do this, is because they know that there is a very good chance he will win another leadership election. Which is a direct attempt to subvert the rules about how the party leader is chosen.

They are now also desperate, because having done this, if Corbyn carries the ordinary members with him they'll clearly think twice about deselecting MPs as candidates who stabbed him in the back, come the next election. An election that may happen quite soon.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
With the party members? I hope so! He's got my vote.

Alistair Campbell was just on, very good rhetoric. He's RIGHT. Jeremy isn't primarily interested in winning elections. GOOD! He is almost single-handedly Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, a job he should have for life.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Crikey he's toughing it out - "Corbyn says no confidence vote has no constitutional legitimacy".

Can a leadership election be forced or not?
I don't think that's the point, is it? In a new contest, Corbyn would win again, unless the rules are changed, which is unlikely.

Well, the Blairites and Brownites have made their coup, but will it work?

I don't really understand their argument, since most Labour voters supported Remain, about the same as SNP voters, I think.

The other stuff is just saying that they don't like him, well, we knew that.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think he is right to force a leadership election even if he loses it, because that is what the process is supposed to be - not deals in back rooms.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, the Blairites/Brownites are trying to avoid a leadership contest, obviously. They would probably lose.

It's all a bit farcical, since everybody knew that most of the plp doesn't like Corbyn.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I also think they have behaved extremely badly, the honourable way to do this would have been for someone to decide to stand, resign from the shadow cabinet if they were in it and run for the office. Paralysing the opposition at the same time was unnecessary and not in the national or party interest.

[ 28. June 2016, 16:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It also pisses me off because despite the way they have plotting, briefing against him and arising about for 10 months - he honoured his pledge of an inclusive cabinet and not trying to stir his supporters to deselect MPs.

And then they indulge in this massive tantrum - as if it had anything to do with the referendum.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It also pisses me off because despite the way they have plotting, briefing against him and arising about for 10 months - he honoured his pledge of an inclusive cabinet and not trying to stir his supporters to deselect MPs.

And then they indulge in this massive tantrum - as if it had anything to do with the referendum.
Yes, the referendum is an excuse, since as I said above, Labour voters voted Remain in the same proportion as SNP.

It is ironic that the right wing should immobilize Labour, just as the Tories are in disarray. I guess they will blame Corbyn for that as well. It reminds me of those famous marital arguments, you made me hit you!
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Well then. If they pick and nominate a candidate, and Corbyn wins again, what will happen after that? Will they secede and form SDP Mark II?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well then. If they pick and nominate a candidate, and Corbyn wins again, what will happen after that? Will they secede and form SDP Mark II?
That is the ball-breaker, I guess. I think it's a ghastly historical reminder of what happens to split-away parties. They become remnants, and the Tories prosper.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Possibly, some will defect - partly because the lib dems are going to campaign for remain and partly because they'll fear deselection by the local parties if he wins. Some may say sod this and resign triggering by elections.

[ 28. June 2016, 16:43: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but Corbyn is the splitter. He made us split.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Whatever the rights of wrongs of calling the no-confidence vote ...

How can HM Opposition carry on under Jeremy Corbyn if he has insufficient MP's to fill his cabinet? If he goes to the Labour Party membership and wins - what then?
It's so stupid. He's got to go.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Whatever the rights of wrongs of calling the no-confidence vote ...

How can HM Opposition carry on under Jeremy Corbyn if he has insufficient MP's to fill his cabinet? If he goes to the Labour Party membership and wins - what then?
It's so stupid. He's got to go.
What is stupid is that half the shadow cabinet couldn't stand Corbyn, and were probably plotting against him from the time he was elected. Maybe they should go.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think we can cope without a shadow leader of the house for a couple of weeks.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Maybe this whole Labour crisis is a clever wheeze to get the Tories to call a snap GE.

No I don't really think that either.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
There's no need for the Cabinet to be as big as it normally is, and there's certainly no need for any shadow cabinet to be as big as it normally is.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
The Tories, who by rights should be divided after the referendum went against a Tory government, probably can't believe their luck! Both the major parties have been kicked in the teeth and with the exception of Cameron falling on his sword a year or so before he might otherwise have done, they are still there and will be until 2020.

Labour. You've fucked up again.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Has a party leader ever managed to carry on after losing a no-confidence vote as badly as 172:40? Like him or not, it's a pretty overwhelming result.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Tories, who by rights should be divided after the referendum went against a Tory government, probably can't believe their luck! Both the major parties have been kicked in the teeth and with the exception of Cameron falling on his sword a year or so before he might otherwise have done, they are still there and will be until 2020.

Labour. You've fucked up again.
The Blairites have fucked up again.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I don't know about that. There is a massive political realignment going on - it is by no means clear which party will end up strongest long term.

What may happen is that the tories split into turbo capitalists, and some version of ukip, the liberals get bigger and labour become more left wing.

[ 28. June 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Whatever the rights of wrongs of calling the no-confidence vote ...

How can HM Opposition carry on under Jeremy Corbyn if he has insufficient MP's to fill his cabinet? If he goes to the Labour Party membership and wins - what then?
It's so stupid. He's got to go.
What is stupid is that half the shadow cabinet couldn't stand Corbyn, and were probably plotting against him from the time he was elected. Maybe they should go.
Well, that sure would give us a Tory government for ever.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Has a party leader ever managed to carry on after losing a no-confidence vote as badly as 172:40? Like him or not, it's a pretty overwhelming result.
But what does it change? Everyone knew that the plp didn't like Corbyn. Watch PMQs, and see the Blair/Brownites glowering behind him, or next to him.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't know about that. There is a massive political realignment going on - it is by no means clear which party will end up strongest long term.

What may happen is that the tories split into turbo capitalists, and some version of ukip, the liberals get bigger and labour become more left wing.
Well, it's FPTP that screws it up. Otherwise, smaller parties would get a decent number of MPs, and you would get coalitions.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If someone can survive the kind of rebellion that Corbyn is currently undergoing then whose to say he doesn't possess the necessary character to lead the country through these difficult times?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If someone can survive the kind of rebellion that Corbyn is currently undergoing then whose to say he doesn't possess the necessary character to lead the country through these difficult times?
It's positively Churchillian!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What is amusing in a sort of dark way, is that some of the right-wing are complaining about chaos in the party. Yes, you've brought it on with your plotting.

They forgot one of Napoleon's great maxims: never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake.

[ 28. June 2016, 17:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Still struck by how much all this is dependent upon the lack of elasticity in ridings results.

You can act however you want because your riding always votes for your party.


Ya'll need a lot more "independents" over there, instead of "labour voters" or "Tory voters" or whatever voters. Would keep your pols in line.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's civil war time in the Labour Party. There will be an leadership election. And this is a lot more complicated than some kind of binary New Labour v Old Labour battle.

Constituency MPs represent everyone in their constituencies, so they hear stuff at grass roots level, not just activist level. Maybe some are just running scared about an early election? But I'm sure that's not all of the 172. I think many of them really believe the party is in real trouble.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.
Me neither. I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about. I've written to all my local Labour Party MSPs (I know they don't have a vote) and MEPs to add another one to the pile in Corbyn's favour.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's civil war time in the Labour Party. There will be an leadership election. And this is a lot more complicated than some kind of binary New Labour v Old Labour battle.

Constituency MPs represent everyone in their constituencies, so they hear stuff at grass roots level, not just activist level. Maybe some are just running scared about an early election? But I'm sure that's not all of the 172. I think many of them really believe the party is in real trouble.
But they've been itching for a fight agin Corbs, haven't they? First, the by-election results would be bad, then the local elections would be bad, ah, here we are, the referendum results are bad. Just as the Tories completely fuck up.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about.
Ah, yes, how unlike Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'd also like to come back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There were always people who weren't voting for Labour in those 'traditional Labour heartlands', and at some point those constituencies also had about 5-10% polling for the BNP (when UKIP arrived that percentage magically disappeared). So your point actually seems to be around "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault”.
Except that Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Interestingly The Canary is reporting that the attempt to oust Corbyn is being managed by Portland Communications.

(A PR company involved with various people who failed to get elected office in the Labour Party.)

[ 28. June 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'd also like to come back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There were always people who weren't voting for Labour in those 'traditional Labour heartlands', and at some point those constituencies also had about 5-10% polling for the BNP (when UKIP arrived that percentage magically disappeared). So your point actually seems to be around "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault”.
Except that Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.
This really doesn't follow. What we know, is they voted out.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Canary were reporting in March that a plot was brewing in the summer. The plotters needed a casus belli, and they have found a rather feeble one, only 64% of Labour voters voted Remain. Under Dan Jarvis, that would be 65%!

[ 28. June 2016, 17:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It seems to be a link between Portland Communications & the Fabians.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.
This really doesn't follow. What we know, is they voted out.
What we know is that he didn't persuade them. It's quite likely that Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tom Watson or Angela Eagle wouldn't have perduaded them either, but none of those people are sold to us as The Only One Who Can Connect With The Disaffected And Marginalised.
quote:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either.
Constituents elect representatives, not delegates. An MP is elected because they are judged to be the best person to make decisions on behalf of their electorate. (And most of them were elected under Miliband, which prima facie implies their constituents want a Milibandish rather than a Corbynist party.)

Local parties are irrelevant because MPs' mandates come from their constituents, not their local parties.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Ricardus wrote:

quote:
What we know is that he didn't persuade them. It's quite likely that Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tom Watson or Angela Eagle wouldn't have perduaded them either, but none of those people are sold to us as The Only One Who Can Connect With The Disaffected And Marginalised.
Well, in the Oldham by-election, the Labour majority went up. But Oldham voted Leave, so here we have a contradiction apparently. But I think it's quite complex, not just about immigration.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
If Jeremy Corbyn is such a winner, why do you think most Tories want him to stay?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

What they are trying to do, is to get Corbyn to resign so that a candidate doesn't have to run against him.

The reason they want to do this, is because they know that there is a very good chance he will win another leadership election. Which is a direct attempt to subvert the rules about how the party leader is chosen.
Quite. They screwed up at the point where a bunch of the PLP decided to nominate Corbyn (a man they didn't want to be the leader) because they thought that there should be a candidate from the party's left, because it would give a better impression when their preferred candidate won.

And it got them about as far as voting for Brexit as a protest against austerity.

This is the vote that will decide the future of the Labour party, I think.

If Corbyn loses, Labour goes back to being a Blair/Brown vaguely-lefty-in-the-right-light party.

If he wins, then the knives will be out for the Blairites.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Arguably, brexit is not a pure party issue. The country is split very narrowly on this. To see this as vote on the whole of the labour platform is a mistake I think.

The clearest correlation in the vote, is between poverty and the out vote. I believe an anti-austerity platform can definitely be convincing to this constituency. And Corbyn has been promoting this for a long time.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There aren't enough knives.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Could somebody who doesn't share my opinion of Jeremy Corbyn please explain something I'm not understanding. With such huge odds against him in the PLP, how does he propose to function as Leader of the Opposition? It's quite possible he could get elected again by the party's ridiculous voting methods, though I'm far from convinced he would, but until the local parties have rooted out all moderates and replaced them with Corbynistas, these are the people he needs to work with. His members. And they've made it clear they won't work with him. So why won't he resign? I suspect that he's like all extremists. Give them a whiff of power and you can never get rid of them. He's a disgrace.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Well firstly he appoints to the main cabinet posts - which he has largely done. Then they do their jobs. Whilst there are divisions in the plp, they still have a lot in common policy wise. If the tories, for example, tried to move to a health insurance model of the NHS (which the main leavers are quite pro) they will try to vote it down.

It is conference that finalises policy, which it will do.

What we may see, from this referendum, are loser party ties across the house.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Could somebody who doesn't share my opinion of Jeremy Corbyn please explain something I'm not understanding. With such huge odds against him in the PLP, how does he propose to function as Leader of the Opposition? It's quite possible he could get elected again by the party's ridiculous voting methods, though I'm far from convinced he would, but until the local parties have rooted out all moderates and replaced them with Corbynistas, these are the people he needs to work with. His members. And they've made it clear they won't work with him. So why won't he resign? I suspect that he's like all extremists. Give them a whiff of power and you can never get rid of them. He's a disgrace.
I think the hope is that if he kicks the backside of their chosen challenger, the PLP might stop behaving like spoiled children and get on with doing their jobs. The members of the Labour Party elected Jeremy Corbyn and in the process rejected the "brightest and best" the so-called moderates could come up with. If the PLP can't stop being petulant little cry-babies then they can resign their seats and fight as independents and we'll see how they do without a red rosette. HINT: most of them won't make it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, in the Oldham by-election, the Labour majority went up. But Oldham voted Leave, so here we have a contradiction apparently. But I think it's quite complex, not just about immigration.
There are plenty of Corbyn supporters who voted leave - there's a strong tradition of left euro-scepticism going back to Tony Benn who see the EU as a rich man's club. I think support for Remain is pretty much orthogonal to support for Corbyn.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the hope is that if he kicks the backside of their chosen challenger, the PLP might stop behaving like spoiled children and get on with doing their jobs.
The Labour Party is in danger of collapse and fragmentation. Perhaps it's not the PLP which needs to behave, but the man who's ego is causing this problem.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
You really think this has anything to do with his ego ?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If Jeremy Corbyn is such a winner, why do you think most Tories want him to stay?
After the events of the last few days, are you seriously suggesting that the UK Tories are actually competent thinkers?
[Paranoid]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well firstly he appoints to the main cabinet posts - which he has largely done. Then they do their jobs. Whilst there are divisions in the plp, they still have a lot in common policy wise. If the tories, for example, tried to move to a health insurance model of the NHS (which the main leavers are quite pro) they will try to vote it down.

It is conference that finalises policy, which it will do.

What we may see, from this referendum, are loser party ties across the house.
This is all getting a bit "When Gruppenfuhrer Steiner breaks through the Russian divisions in Berlin tomorrow the tide of the war will be turned".

Corbin is the leader of the Parliamentary Labout Party which, was founded to give Parliamentary representation to the Labour movement. So having the confidence of one's Members of Parliament is kind of a bit key to doing your job properly, really. Usually, if you lose the confidence of the Parliamentary Party you resign no matter how convincing your mandate is. Mrs Thatcher went in 1990, Mr Duncan Smith went in 2003, Mr Blair went in 2007. Bleating about the disloyalty of the PLP in this instance is somewhat to miss the point. In any event Mr Corbyn can hardly complain. He routinely voted with his conscience against the platform to which, as a Labour Member of Parliament to which he had been elected. Since his election to the House in 1983 the only British party leaders to whom he has been consistently loyal are himself and Mr Gerry Adams. He can hardly complain if Labour MPs return the compliment.

However, I have a horrible feeling that Operation Valkyrie is going to go Tits Up here. An ordinary democratic Parliamentarian would make a dignified concession speech at this point and leave the stage in a dignified manner. Mr Corbyn is not such a politician. He is the spokesman for a revolutionary vanguard which exists primarily in his head but which, insofar as it does exist, can be found in constituency Labour parties. If he hangs on there will be a challenge. Given that 40 MPs, apparently, still have confidence in him he may well pick up the nominations. The conspirators appear to have settled upon Angela Eagle as their candidate. Whilst she has a number of qualities Mr Corbyn lacks she did support the Iraq war which, until recently, could be considered the worst foreign policy decision by a British Government since the Suez Crisis. During the election campaign Lord Chilcot is going to release as report on the subject which will, probably, in grave and measured terms, describe said war as a complete and utter unmitigated clusterfuck. Mr Corbyn will endeavour to try and turn the Leadership contest into a referendum on the Iraq war, enough gormless fuckmuppets, blithely oblivious to the abyss in which we are apt to fall will vote for Corbyn and the old fool will return to Parliament in triumph. The Labour Party will fall to pieces just at the time when a viable party of opposition would be rather helpful. It would be rather as if the Labour Party had put George Lansbury in charge, just in time for the outbreak of World War II.

So the economy is going down the pan. Racism is rapidly becoming socially acceptable again and the United Kingdom is apt to fracture and we are likely to be led into the catastrophe by the most unprepared political leader since Didius Julianus was informed that Septimus Severus was on the march and what did he plan to do about it. Never mind, Jeremy is opposed to austerity, so that must be all right, then.

[ 28. June 2016, 20:42: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I suspect that the problem we have is this. The Labour party is a coalition: it has the trades union connection, a wider political movement among the non-unionised public and the parliamentary party as its major constituents. Corbyn is effective among the first two, but not among the third. Hitherto, the party has cared about the first and the third, and allowed the second to fall where it may. Corbyn has demonstrated that the party can be revived as a whole by connecting with the public outside the unions, and with the unions themselves. However, to be effective in participating in parliament, the leader needs to have the confidence of the parliamentary party. This is where Corbyn is not effective. This is part a result of timing: far too many current MPs are legacy Blairites, out of sympathy with where Corbyn has been trying to take the party. The party as a whole belongs neither to the leader nor to the PLP. The conundrum is clear; the solution isn't.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Well, yes, that's basically the problem. Previous leaders up to Ed Miliband had at least some support from all three. Ed essentially abolished the TU bit of that and put in a new system whereby a group of candidates with the support of the Parliamentary Party would be put forward to the larger party. Unfortunately elements in the Parliamentary Party were not hip to the new regime and put Corbyn forward. Who promptly won. So now Labour is stuck with a leader who is not up to the job, who has forfeited the support of the Parliamentary Party and lacks the self-knowledge to see that any of this is relevant. Still, he's against neoliberalism so he's totally the guy to be Leader of the Opposition in the next election. I mean, what the heck can go wrong?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Do any of you think he's got a Lenin complex? Surely at some time in his long life, he's read books like Ten days that shook the world. Does he think that in the crisis of capitalism, he will be somehow the man who will rise to the hour, seizes destiny and with the backing of his cadre of Labour Party members, outwit and cast aside the Mensheviks in his party that just happen actually to have been elected last year?

He'd getting a bit old for the strain that would require of him. He's already 14 years older than Lenin was when he died, and 20 years older than Lenin was in 1917.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
[Cross-post]

Indeed. People are talking as though Jeremy Corbyn's 'mandate' was some kind of ancient and divinely sanctioned indelible mark of legitimacy, equivalent to being crowned by the Pope on the throne of St Peter, as opposed to being a fudge thought up by Mr Miliband so that Mr Cameron would stop making nasty comments about his dependency on the unions.

[ 28. June 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
... far too many current MPs are legacy Blairites, out of sympathy with where Corbyn has been trying to take the party. ...
It isn't just that. To lead a party in the Commons, you have to form a cabinet round you, and carry them along with you, even though you will always know that when things go wrong, one, at least, of them will stab you in the back.

Back in the bad old days, as recently as my childhood, when there was a crisis, that could mean some unfortunate official from the palace had to chase round to find out which of a number of political lions had enough clout to gather a team round them.

Irrespective of ideology, if you cannot carry your party in the House and assemble a Cabinet which will serve, you will not be able to lead your party. The game is up. Being able to depends on some mysterious blend of acceptance, confidence, and even charisma - but possibly not too much of the latter. If you are reduced to saying 'you've all got to follow me because I'm the Leader', you aren't.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Cross-post]
Jeremy Corbyn's 'mandate' [..] a fudge thought up by Mr Miliband so that Mr Cameron would stop making nasty comments about his dependency on the unions.
If you remember, Mr. Corbyn won almost 60% of the total vote in the first, and therefore only, voting round. He won with large majorities amongst both the affiliates and the three quid specials, and came within a hair of winning an outright majority in the first round amongst Labour party members.

That's a pretty clear mandate from the people who pay for the Labour party, and the people who do all the work to canvass for it etc.

It's true that he doesn't enjoy much support amongst the parliamentary party. You can lay the blame for that firmly at the feet of numpties such as Harriet Harman, Emily Thornberry, Frank Field and Chi Onwurah, who nominated a person they did not want to be the leader. If people like that hadn't nominated him, he'd never have even been on the ballot.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you remember, Mr. Corbyn won almost 60% of the total vote in the first, and therefore only, voting round. He won with large majorities amongst both the affiliates and the three quid specials, and came within a hair of winning an outright majority in the first round amongst Labour party members.

That's a pretty clear mandate from the people who pay for the Labour party, and the people who do all the work to canvass for it etc.

It's true that he doesn't enjoy much support amongst the parliamentary party. You can lay the blame for that firmly at the feet of numpties such as Harriet Harman, Emily Thornberry, Frank Field and Chi Onwurah, who nominated a person they did not want to be the leader. If people like that hadn't nominated him, he'd never have even been on the ballot.
Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.

He was a refreshing change for the first few weeks, but he hasn't taken that anywhere or kept it up. It's la-la land to imagine the electorate, rather than the activists have confidence that he's the man to lead the country in the crisis we've now got.

Tragically, he has signally failed to win the electorate in this campaign to the cause he claimed to represent. Sorry, this may be unkind, but if he hasn't got the grace to go, he'll take your party down with him.

Philip Pullman has said of him in the Guardian on Saturday - well worth reading by the way for what he says about the situation, the causes and the other players.
quote:
"a masterclass in lacklustre, moribund, timid, low-wattage helplessness. You cannot take someone formed by nature to be a safely maverick backbencher and expect him to project any kind of clear determined leadership.”
It's hard to disagree.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I enjoyed Philip Pullman's elegant invective. This in particular.

quote:
But then, if we had a properly thought-out constitution instead of a cobwebbed, rotten, diseased and decaying mess of a patched-up, cobbled-together, bloated, corrupted, leaking and stinking hulk, we wouldn’t have come to this point anyway.

 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I take every single Guardian discussion of Corbyn and treat it like I treat the utterances of Fox News.

Just as I did on Scottish Independence.

They have an agenda and are hardly objective in all this.

[ 29. June 2016, 02:04: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.
I don't think this is just because he's lacking in leadership. It's because the PLP isn't buying what he's selling. They have never wanted someone with his politics as leader, and they're itching to ditch him and get back to New Labour.

Which is why I say the blame for the current Labour mess lies firmly at the feet of the various numpties who nominated Corbyn because they somehow felt there ought to be a socialist in the Labour leadership election despite the fact that they didn't actually want one.

And now they're stuck with him, and the majority of the Labour party is on his side. It's the PLP with its load of centrists and Blairites that's out of step with the current sentiments in the Labour party.

I think the bulk of the PLP thinks that Corbyn is so unelectable that he could even lose the next election...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It's also worth pointing out that, for all their whining about electability, the right of the Labour party lost the last two elections so the PLP are no great shakes on that score either.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It also feels as if the popular press has done their best to bring Corbyn down. The stories that have been published ever since he was elected as Labour leader have found any reason to give him a negative spin.

But that vote of no confidence is pretty overwhelming. The publicity from that will almost certainly change some of the minds of those who voted Corbyn in.

(I saw the leadership candidates live in the Any Questions audience last August. Corbyn came over as thoughtful and considerate, Burnham appeared to be changing what he said to adapt to the audience and as trustworthy as one of the leaders of the Leave campaign.)
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It also feels as if the popular press has done their best to bring Corbyn down. The stories that have been published ever since he was elected as Labour leader have found any reason to give him a negative spin.
There are suggestions that some of the current events are a bit astroturfy (particularly with Alistair Campbell's company). And given the clear bias shown it's hard to tell if they are conspiracy theories, or not. The Canary you'd expect to be biased the other way.

If so it's a bit odd, as there are plenty of genuine disappointed in Corbyn comments (though mostly for campaigning for remain, but also like the ones here)
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There is at least some objective evidence for the Portland link, specifically the pride video. It's possible the canary is making more of that the evidence will sustain - but I simply don't believe there was no co-coordination of resignations. Partly because of the timing across the day and because of the very clear use of talking points.

[ 29. June 2016, 07:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.
I don't think this is just because he's lacking in leadership. It's because the PLP isn't buying what he's selling. They have never wanted someone with his politics as leader, and they're itching to ditch him and get back to New Labour.

Which is why I say the blame for the current Labour mess lies firmly at the feet of the various numpties who nominated Corbyn because they somehow felt there ought to be a socialist in the Labour leadership election despite the fact that they didn't actually want one.

And now they're stuck with him, and the majority of the Labour party is on his side. It's the PLP with its load of centrists and Blairites that's out of step with the current sentiments in the Labour party.

I think the bulk of the PLP thinks that Corbyn is so unelectable that he could even lose the next election...
Conversely, I don't think the country or the party are buying what New Labour are selling. This will be even more true post-chilcot.

So there are also those of us who think if we don't manage to keep Corbyn and build a new platform to put to the country, we will be stuffed electorally.

The honourable thing would have been to go directly to a leadership challenge.

The sensible thing for the plp to do if they thought the remain campaign badly fought would have been to approach Corbyn with a plan for a much more effective press team.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
If Corbyn were the decent and honourable man referred to at the beginning of this thread, he'd now do whatever is necessary to call a new election for leader of the PLP. While that's underway, there needs to be debate whether the leader of the PLP (as opposed to the general Labour Party) should be elected by such a wide constituency. Maybe not for this election, but for future ones.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Oooooooh, Callan. I didn't realise I was such a masochist. I even enjoyed Alistair Campbell and David Plunkett thrashing me yesterday too. Superb rhetoric.

But I must stand by my man. Jeremy articulated, crystallized my politics, I joined the party to vote for him and Tom. I will stay with him till the end. For me he has fought NOT in dubious battle, but epically, heroically, decently. He has made me fully commit to the union movement: if this, then that, against decades old disdain. My heart has followed that head decision for Len McClusky.

What do I do when he's gone? To WHAT can I give my support? The PLP? 'strewth. OK Tom Watson, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, that faction of the party. But Hilary Benn?! Politics for grown ups is SO hard isn't it?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Doublethink:

quote:
Conversely, I don't think the country or the party are buying what New Labour are selling. This will be even more true post-chilcot.

So there are also those of us who think if we don't manage to keep Corbyn and build a new platform to put to the country, we will be stuffed electorally.

The honourable thing would have been to go directly to a leadership challenge.

The sensible thing for the plp to do if they thought the remain campaign badly fought would have been to approach Corbyn with a plan for a much more effective press team.
I was wondering about Chilcott coming up - I would think that the Blairites are nervous about their Main Man being criticized. Further, the prospect of Corbyn condemning Blair in the Commons, isn't too cosy.

Maybe this is paranoid, but I'm curious about the timing of the strike against Corbyn.

My memory is that New Labour parachuted lots of candidates into constituencies, and possibly they are a little nervous about being deselected. However, if they can get a suitable candidate as leader, they are safe.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I have never voted Labour and I probably never would, but to me the great value of Corbyn was that he really never wanted to do the job.

Never wanted to meet the monarch he doesn't believe in. Never wanted to do all that crap in silly clothing. Never wanted to listen to the archbis warbling on. Never wanted to praise Cameron. Never wanted to play this stupid referendum by the rules that the Tories determined.

Of course he was on a hiding to nothing, he knew that. But the man was driven by his drive for social justice to look beyond all that crap and to believe that he just had to try to make it work.

If you want to replace him with a shiny, oil-haired proto-Blair in a nice suit, then do it. But you'll have lost any sense of being a bunch of politicians who are interested in anything other than petty political games whilst the country is in trouble.

[ 29. June 2016, 08:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.
Me neither. I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about. I've written to all my local Labour Party MSPs (I know they don't have a vote) and MEPs to add another one to the pile in Corbyn's favour.
I hesitate to point this out but we have, in the space of the last couple of months, had a Local Election campaign, followed by a bloody great referendum. So it's quite possible that MPs have knocked on a few doors lately and its also not outwith the bounds of likelihood that one or two members of the demos have expressed themselves freely on the subject of Mr Corbyn and, bear with me here because this will blow your mind, it's possible that they were not entirely complimentary on the subject of his leadership. So, i'm guessing that it's possible that this might go a bit further than the conventional wisdom of the Westminster bubble.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but the Blair/Brownites really fought hard for the EU - just look at their constituencies, where tons of people voted Remain. <sarcasm>
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have never voted Labour and I probably never would, but to me the great value of Corbyn was that he really never wanted to do the job.

Never wanted to meet the monarch he doesn't believe in. Never wanted to do all that crap in silly clothing. Never wanted to listen to the archbis warbling on. Never wanted to praise Cameron. Never wanted to play this stupid referendum by the rules that the Tories determined.

Of course he was on a hiding to nothing, he knew that. But the man was driven by his drive for social justice to look beyond all that crap and to believe that he just had to try to make it work.

If you want to replace him with a shiny, oil-haired proto-Blair in a nice suit, then do it. But you'll have lost any sense of being a bunch of politicians who are interested in anything other than petty political games whilst the country is in trouble.
Surely if he doesn't want the bloody job, he should step down in favour of someone who does. He's Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not a bored local councillor attending a dull civic function.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely if he doesn't want the bloody job, he should step down in favour of someone who does. He's Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not a bored local councillor attending a dull civic function.
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I suspect that the problem we have is this. The Labour party is a coalition: it has the trades union connection, a wider political movement among the non-unionised public and the parliamentary party as its major constituents. Corbyn is effective among the first two, but not among the third. Hitherto, the party has cared about the first and the third, and allowed the second to fall where it may. Corbyn has demonstrated that the party can be revived as a whole by connecting with the public outside the unions, and with the unions themselves. However, to be effective in participating in parliament, the leader needs to have the confidence of the parliamentary party. This is where Corbyn is not effective. This is part a result of timing: far too many current MPs are legacy Blairites, out of sympathy with where Corbyn has been trying to take the party. The party as a whole belongs neither to the leader nor to the PLP. The conundrum is clear; the solution isn't.
Interesting analysis. I think your point about legacy Blairites (and Brownites) is quite apt, and Corbynistas points out that many of them were parachuted in by Nu Labour.

They are now trying to depose Corbyn, and presumably, change the rules so that the membership have less influence. The logical step for Corbyn is to bring in deselection of MPs by constituency parties.

A kind of civil war, I suppose. I sense that the right-wing are on the wrong side of history, but jings, I have made a career out of being wrong. After all, what's wrong with support for privatization and benefit cuts?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm hearing that Angela is the lesser of two Eagles.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Does Corbyn need to bring in deselection of MPs by constituency parties? I thought that at each election, the local constituency party had to agree who their candidate was?

Ken Livingstone was on TV a few months ago insisting that it was obvious that all candidates in the next general election would be pro-Corbyn.

Mind you, perhaps he was expecting the next election to be in 2020...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it.
Examples?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.
The second sentence is probably true, but the first sentence is I think false. Nobody puts their heart into a job they don't want to do and don't like.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If Corbyn were the decent and honourable man referred to at the beginning of this thread, he'd now do whatever is necessary to call a new election for leader of the PLP.
Your assumption of what is morally correct here is based on the result you would prefer.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director and soon afterwards three quarters of employees can't work with him/her, should that managing director step down?

If the PCC appoints a new choirmaster who within a year has quarrelled with three quarters of the choir, should that choirmaster stand down?

If a new manager was appointed to your team and three quarters of your team couldn't work with them, whose problem would that be?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director and soon afterwards three quarters of employees can't work with him/her, should that managing director step down?

If the PCC appoints a new choirmaster who within a year has quarrelled with three quarters of the choir, should that choirmaster stand down?

If a new manager was appointed to your team and three quarters of your team couldn't work with them, whose problem would that be?
Well, if the charity supporters still had enormous support for the stated aim of the leader....
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director and soon afterwards three quarters of employees can't work with him/her, should that managing director step down?

If the PCC appoints a new choirmaster who within a year has quarrelled with three quarters of the choir, should that choirmaster stand down?

If a new manager was appointed to your team and three quarters of your team couldn't work with them, whose problem would that be?
Well, if the charity supporters still had enormous support for the stated aim of the leader....
In this instance the charity is out of touch with the British people, losing donations at an alarming rate, and facing an existential crisis.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Camila Batmanghelidjh of British politics.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Perhaps some of them will end up forming a new charity....

Ed Milliband has joined in, appearing on TV to tell Corbyn to go. Even Cameron managed to tell him that during one of the strangest PMQs for ages this lunchtime.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Momentum have had to cancel a rally in favour of Jeremy due to "overwhelming demand", apparently. In unrelated news, their annual party at Harvey's brewery has had to be cancelled due to insufficient beer.

Meanwhile, in the best tradition of Roger Bacon, a bust of Lenin has denounced Jeremy Corbyn before exploding into fragments. Momentum activists take to Twitter to denounce Lenin as a Red Tory.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Ouch - MP Pat Glass, who was only appointed as shadow education secretary on Monday, has now resigned from that position as well.

However, she had apparently been advised by the police to avoid public places after a referendum backlash, so perhaps it's understandable in her case.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He doesn't have my PERMISSION to go.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Labour's MEPs have come out against him. So he won't get the nominations if there's a challenge. So it goes to the NEC...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Such sadness in all of this. I'm as much grieved by what is happening to the Labour Party (my lifelong political home) as I was by the referendum result.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....
Which is totally not this situation.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.
I beg to disagree. When it comes to being the leader of the nation, who may have to make decisions that would likely reduce most of us to quivering, jelly-like blobs of terrified irresolution, you probably want someone in the post whose ego can stand up to this extreme pressure. I don't want to be PM or leader of the opposition. I don't for a moment believe that this qualifies me in any way for those positions.

I have visions of Jeremy Corbyn as PM, having a tough call to make, going all quiet and shifty-eyed, as he apparently does when asked anything resembling an awkward question. I see no evidence that this is the outworking of one of the great intellects of our time weighing the ramifications before he answers.

Cameron is putting country before party in urging Corbyn to go.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
I don't know what the relationship between Corbyn and his deputy Tom Watson was like before, but I imagine it's pretty hosed now. Watson has apparently been trying to negotiate with Corbyn for Corbyn to go but hasn't got anywhere.

Watson has apologised to the nation.

The Conservatives must be utterly unable to believe their luck. What an utter, utter, utter shambles.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Such sadness in all of this. I'm as much grieved by what is happening to the Labour Party (my lifelong political home) as I was by the referendum result.
Yes, I feel sad. Also angry at the MPs for producing such chaos, just as the Tories are in the shit. Why have they done it?

Various theories that the impending Chilcott report has their panties fraying; also maybe an impending election might see them not reselected.

Of course, the left/right split is here. Many MPs probably didn't accept that members should choose the leader.

I think also a long spin-off from Blair, who parachuted aparatchiks into some seats, and they tend to be right-wing or 'moderates' as they say, and will never accept a left-wing leader.

If Labour goes back to New Labour, over and out. My local Greens are more left-wing than that.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....
Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another point - everybody knew a plot was coming down the line, but why now? I think the right wing were anticipating that by-elections or local elections would trip Corbyn up, but that didn't happen, so the referendum gave them their chance. Apparently, the vote of members, who selected him, is meaningless now. They will probably elect a leader such as Eagle, and change the rules, so that members don't select the leader. Brave new world.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....
Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
If I take your examples I'd go for the choir director. The Annual Meeting and the PCC have a vision for where the church music ought to go, and have put in a choir director in tune (sorry) with that vision, but the choir don't like it. They had actually put him/her up as as sop to that POV about the church's music, but believed the person to be unappointable, and were expecting one of the more acceptable (to them) candidates to be appointed. To their shock, however, the PCC following consultation with the Annual Meeting have now appointed that person.

For some time the choir members have lost their music, failed to turn up for rehearsals, and pointed out how their performance is due to the choir director's ineptitude. Now the minister is moving on and the church is split about a possible new appointment, and some believe the proposed new minister will be a disaster. The choir are now resigning because they claim the director of music should have been more effective in persuading the church membership of the merits of the choir's preferred candidate.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Scroll to 18.26 to hear Tom Watson.

He's heartbroken, reckons the party faces an "existential crisis". I share his feelings, think he is right.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Angela Eagle will challenge Corbyn for the party leadership at 3pm tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Corbyn is addressing a rally at the SOAS JCR. Seriously.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Interestingly, a newsnight poll has found most of the constituency parties who originally backed him still back Corbyn, including Angela Eagle's.

They have made a total pigs ear of this.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I have visions of Jeremy Corbyn as PM, having a tough call to make, going all quiet and shifty-eyed, as he apparently does when asked anything resembling an awkward question. I see no evidence that this is the outworking of one of the great intellects of our time weighing the ramifications before he answers.
It seems to me that, despite the supposed benefits of a middle class upbringing and a public school education, Mr Corbyn isn't actually that bright.

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The Conservatives must be utterly unable to believe their luck. What an utter, utter, utter shambles.
Thinking back to what the Tories got up to in 2002-3, I used to sympathise with my Labour friends, saying 'don't worry, we've all been there'. I can't do that any more. The Labour Party has taken this to a whole new level.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks. He understands what his Westminster conditioned MPs do not. Namely that last week's shock result was largely a People's Revolt. A revolution that is seeking a genuine leader of people.

Cameron coming out with his 'For Heaven's sake go!' is pretty bloomin rich coming from someone who'll only ever be remembered for himself going , having called and lost a woeful and contentious referendum that has succeeded in dividing the Country.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Doublethink

They "they" who "have made a right pig's ear of this" include Jeremy Corbyn himself. He's lost the support of 80% of the elected MPs who represent his party in the House of Commons. They aren't mandated delegates. It is part of his responsibility to prevent this sort of shambles. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament.

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks.
Who, do you think, he's impressing?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks. He understands what his Westminster conditioned MPs do not. Namely that last week's shock result was largely a People's Revolt. A revolution that is seeking a genuine leader of people.

Cameron coming out with his 'For Heaven's sake go!' is pretty bloomin rich coming from someone who'll only ever be remembered for himself going , having called and lost a woeful and contentious referendum that has succeeded in dividing the Country.
Hang on in there. Gruppenfuhrer Steiner is definitely going to be hitting the Red Army any time soon. Now we will see how these Communist cowards deal with the might of the Waffen SS.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks. He understands what his Westminster conditioned MPs do not. Namely that last week's shock result was largely a People's Revolt. A revolution that is seeking a genuine leader of people.

Cameron coming out with his 'For Heaven's sake go!' is pretty bloomin rich coming from someone who'll only ever be remembered for himself going , having called and lost a woeful and contentious referendum that has succeeded in dividing the Country.
Last week's result was not a shock to any of us who spend much time in the sort of areas that voted to leave. The People who Revolted were Revolting about immigration, rightly or wrongly. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn, who doesn't want any controls at all on immigration, is the natural leader of these people is completely risible.

This is why the PLP have finally lost what little patience they had with Corbyn. The main thing he had going for him, supposedly, is that he could connect with Labour's lost tribal core of voters, and he can't even do that. It's got bugger all to do with Chilcott, yes the Iraq war was a clusterfuck but there have been many, many clusterfucks under the bridge since then and no-one cares except a bunch of Stop the War anoraks. The rest of us have more important things to worry about.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doublethink

They "they" who "have made a right pig's ear of this" include Jeremy Corbyn himself. He's lost the support of 80% of the elected MPs who represent his party in the House of Commons. They aren't mandated delegates. It is part of his responsibility to prevent this sort of shambles. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament.

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.
Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

If they genuinely believed he should go, someone should have launched a leadership challenge. The process is not difficult. But instead they have indulged in this shambolic pantomime. How fucking dare they ?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Shall we all unite in mild happiness that one result of this mess is that Ken Livingstome has stood down from the Labour National Executive Committee ?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Sorry to intrude, but what's the plp? Googling turned up Progressive Labor Party, but it's apparently a communist organization.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The Parliamentary Labour Party, i.e. Labour Members of Parliament
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just echoing Doublethink, that the plp are a fucking disgrace. They are shitting on the Labour membership. Why have they waited until now to launch their plot?

So now Eagle is going to win back the council estates and the Leave voters? What a fucking joke.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doublethink

They "they" who "have made a right pig's ear of this" include Jeremy Corbyn himself. He's lost the support of 80% of the elected MPs who represent his party in the House of Commons. They aren't mandated delegates. It is part of his responsibility to prevent this sort of shambles. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament.

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.
Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

If they genuinely believed he should go, someone should have launched a leadership challenge. The process is not difficult. But instead they have indulged in this shambolic pantomime. How fucking dare they ?
Do you not accept that Jeremy Corbyn has any responsibility for the position the Labour Party now finds itself in? Are you really claiming that the entirety of the situation is the making of the 172 MPs who, having tried in different ways, to make the situation work have decided that the whole business is no longer tolerable and that Corbyn is entirely blameless in the matter? It is pretty much one of the basics of leadership 101 that if things go Pete Tong you have to look at yourself rather than looking for excuses to blame your subordinates.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Everybody knows that the plp have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. They never wanted him, they were out to get him, and were hoping that there would be a bad by-election or local election, so they could nail him. It's like the fucking Mafia.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Sorry, parliamentary Labour Party. I.e. The MPs and lords who have seats in parliament, rather than the wider membership of the party.

Essentially, In a one member one transferable vote system the party voted Corbyn leader less than a year ago. He won with a massive margin in all subsections of the party. Nobody had expected that to happen. The party membership doubled. But most of the MPs were very unhappy about it because he's considered very left wing. (Though from a historical perspective he's fairly moderate.). He tried to be concilliatary, include those MPs in his shadow cabinet, and tolerate some public expression of dissent. This was necessary to attempt to unify the parliamentary party, but it hasn't worked.

Though in fact he got slightly more support in the no confidence vote than he did in original parliamentary nomination process. He original only scraped the 35 MPs support he needed to get on the ballot. This time he got 40 + 4 abstentions.

There is evidence that this mass resignation event has been partially organised by Portland Communications which is company with links to the Blairite wing of the party.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody knows that the plp have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. They never wanted him, they were out to get him, and were hoping that there would be a bad by-election or local election, so they could nail him. It's like the fucking Mafia.
So, Corbyn is entirely blameless and everything is the fault of the 172 MPs who have no confidence in him?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Correct.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Blairites are already talking about a split - I bet they have planned this all along. Another fucking SDP, for God's sake, just when the Tories are on the ropes. Unbelievable.

[ 29. June 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody knows that the plp have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. They never wanted him, they were out to get him, and were hoping that there would be a bad by-election or local election, so they could nail him. It's like the fucking Mafia.
So, Corbyn is entirely blameless and everything is the fault of the 172 MPs who have no confidence in him?
FFS, I had bosses who were complete nutters, and others who were just bizarre, or completely different from me, but I found a way to work with them. The Blairites are running for their lives, and will even split to get their way.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doublethink

They "they" who "have made a right pig's ear of this" include Jeremy Corbyn himself. He's lost the support of 80% of the elected MPs who represent his party in the House of Commons. They aren't mandated delegates. It is part of his responsibility to prevent this sort of shambles. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament.

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.
Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

If they genuinely believed he should go, someone should have launched a leadership challenge. The process is not difficult. But instead they have indulged in this shambolic pantomime. How fucking dare they ?
Do you not accept that Jeremy Corbyn has any responsibility for the position the Labour Party now finds itself in? Are you really claiming that the entirety of the situation is the making of the 172 MPs who, having tried in different ways, to make the situation work have decided that the whole business is no longer tolerable and that Corbyn is entirely blameless in the matter? It is pretty much one of the basics of leadership 101 that if things go Pete Tong you have to look at yourself rather than looking for excuses to blame your subordinates.
I blame them for the way they have chosen to go about this.

I imagine there are faults on both sides as regards his working relationship with the plp. But he has achieved a great deal in the ten months he has led the party, in terms of principled opposition to the government. He got a number of key austerity measures voted down, he grew the party, he started various policy generation processes - that were due to report to conference. But all the time time key plp individuals were actively trying to position to remove him - people were even leaking material such as questions for pmqs to the government.

If he had been ruthless, he'd have encouraged the local parties to deselect MPs, picked only the left wingers for his shadow cabinet. But he didn't. Perhaps that was his 'failure of leadership'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
q, that's not going to happen.

[ 29. June 2016, 20:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
OK, I guess I have to ask. Assume that the 170-odd MPs who voted against Mr Corbyn are backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi.

I don't know to what extent local parties are able to select the candidate they put up for Parliament, but volunteer activists can choose whether they campaign for those candidates or vote with their feet.

Did those volunteers know that they were campaigning for backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi at the time, and if so, why did they do it? Or have they only just turned into backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi, and, if so, what could have brought about such an astonishing plummet into moral degradation?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.
Well, without Tony Blair, the Labour Party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since 1966. I think they've probably got a better claim to be winners.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Lots of rumours about Chilcott being behind this, which I don't believe. The idea being that the right wing don't want Corbyn getting up to denounce Blair et al. Well, he's going to do that anyway, whether leader or not.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I guess I have to ask. Assume that the 170-odd MPs who voted against Mr Corbyn are backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi.

I don't know to what extent local parties are able to select the candidate they put up for Parliament, but volunteer activists can choose whether they campaign for those candidates or vote with their feet.

Did those volunteers know that they were campaigning for backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi at the time, and if so, why did they do it? Or have they only just turned into backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi, and, if so, what could have brought about such an astonishing plummet into moral degradation?
Well, the other story going around is that some of the right wing fear deselection, if there's a quick election.

Some of the Blairites were parachuted in, I don't know about the Brownites. And some of them, believe it or not, had Leave majorities in their constituencies. Of course, that's Jeremy's fault.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzelcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.
Why not? They won middle England in 1997 for the first time since Atlee.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
I do kind of feel that the PLP has shot itself in the foot by being more anti-Corbin than concerned about opposing the current 'austerity' programme...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzelcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.
Why not? They won middle England in 1997 for the first time since Atlee.
Well, there you are, you can vote Angela Eagle now.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
This isn't about middle England.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Essentially, In a one member one transferable vote system the party voted Corbyn leader less than a year ago.
So far so good.

quote:
He won with a massive margin in all subsections of the party.
Well, there wasn't really an electoral college anymore. Once you had a nomination the Party members and the £3 supporters all had a vote.

quote:
Nobody had expected that to happen.
Stephen Bush called it in the New Statesman, but let that pass.

quote:
The party membership doubled.
As greens, SWPers, erstwhile Militants ad various other entryists flooded in.

quote:
But most of the MPs were very unhappy about it
No shit Sherlock. I mean, why on earth would people who recall the repeated defeats of the Labour Party in the 1980s, last time they embraced this sort of nonsense, and the long difficult crawl back to electability be remotely bothered by the election of a terrorist sympathiser who opposed every step of that journey.

quote:
because he's considered very left wing.
God knows how they got that impression.

quote:
(Though from a historical perspective he's fairly moderate.).
Don't. No really, just don't. Michael Foot, whose tenure is generally regarded as the high point of Labour left wingery in the 1980s had his faults but he was generally regarded by the Bennite left as deeply parteigenossen and was implacably opposed to the IRA and would not have appeared on a platform with Hamas or Hezbollah.

quote:
He tried to be concilliatary, include those MPs in his shadow cabinet, and tolerate some public expression of dissent. This was necessary to attempt to unify the parliamentary party, but it hasn't worked.
Indeed. But the fact is he didn't look like winning an election then and he looks less like winning and election now. And, as things stand, we are going to leave the EU. Things are going horribly, horribly wrong and Jeremy has no fucking clue what to do about it.

quote:
Though in fact he got slightly more support in the no confidence vote than he did in original parliamentary nomination process. He original only scraped the 35 MPs support he needed to get on the ballot. This time he got 40 + 4 abstentions.
That General Steiner. It's said they whisper his name in Moscow.

quote:
There is evidence that this mass resignation event has been partially organised by Portland Communications which is company with links to the Blairite wing of the party.
Oh, FFS, the Canary is not a reputable news organisation and the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party are presumably able to use telephones and e-mail like the rest of us without some Blairite Svengali telling them what to do.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This isn't about middle England.
Oh Martin. We do this with Middle England or Boris does. We do not have time for experiments with Baroque neo-Bennery.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This isn't about middle England.
Whatever you may think of Blair, he was certainly electable, at least in 1997. After 18 years of the Tories, he swept to power bringing with him a euphoric brave new world. I was never happier with a decision of the electorate in my life. Winning middle England contributed to his landslide victory, though to be fair, he polled a million less votes than John Major did in 1993. With Labour in meltdown in Scotland, Labour has a mountain to climb to win a UK general election and Corbyn's appeal is too narrow to carry it off.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
But has anyone else got broader appeal?

Any challenge surely has to be broader than Labour?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
16,000 new members have joined Labour in the last 3 days, according to John McDonnell, "to support Jeremy".

Apparently the Lib Dems have acquired more than 10,000 new members since the EU exit vote.

At least interest in politics hasn't died out....
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If Corbyn were the decent and honourable man referred to at the beginning of this thread, he'd now do whatever is necessary to call a new election for leader of the PLP.
Your assumption of what is morally correct here is based on the result you would prefer.
Well of course I have no dog in this fight. But Corbyn was as clearly unelectable as so many Labor leaders here. Take for example Bill Hayden - a lovely man, decent, honourable and a loyal deputy. A hard worker who was popular with his department, and on top of his material. Respected by the general public. But totally unelectable as leader of the country.

I don't know how many of these qualities Corbyn has, but what he does have is the image of Michael Foot revived. If you want to get the Tories out, you need someone else.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally supported by Gee D:
I don't know how many of these qualities Corbyn has, but what he does have is the image of Michael Foot revived. If you want to get the Tories out, you need someone else.
This is the very point. When Michael Foot was leader of the Labour Party, he and it were unelectable. There was a split involving the "Gang of Four." This was when Thatcher was in power and we had 3 million unemployed! Despite this, she was never likely to lose to Foot. Neil Kinnock began to rebuild the party. When John Smith became leader, for the fist time in 15 years, the party began to look like a credible opposition. Blair's massive win in 1997 was the result of that long process.

If Corbyn stays as leader, much of this history may repeat itself. A split with the Blairite rump, the new social democrats is likely. Many years in the wilderness is a distinct possibility, especially if the economy stays robust (an unknown factor after Brexit). And the eventual realisation that Corbyn's style of socialism is not in tune with the British masses, so it must be dumped if they want to get in power. Do they never learn from history>
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

At least interest in politics hasn't died out....
It has been invigorated as never before, one good thing to come out of this debacle.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Churchill lost the election after WW11, after a great nationalist convulsion. Don't be so sure that you are looking at the relevant bit of our history.

Corbyn could be our generation's Atlee.

Has donned optimist hat.

[ 29. June 2016, 21:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It beggars belief that so many of us see the 172 elected MPs as the enemy. They are not just telling Jeremy, they are telling Labour Party members that the man voted in by acclamation simply cannot lead the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Do we really believe they are unaware of Jeremy Corbyn's popularity amongst Labour Party members, that they think they can ignore that fact with impunity? It is the most obvious fact out there. What they are telling us all is that there is desperation in the Parliamentary Labour Party about the present and future electability of Labour MPs for so long as Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Party, leader of the opposition in Parliament. Not just that. They fear for the future of the Party if he remains as leader.

Please don't be so quick to vilify them. Of course it is an unpalatable message they are giving. And of course there may be some who are maneuvering for advantage. But sure as eggs are eggs, Margaret Beckett doesn't belong in that category.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I think the Labour Party needs to hold it's nerve in the way the Tories didn't hold theirs in the run up to last year's Election.
Cameron's referendum will go down in history as a monumental cock-up, consequently unchartered political territory lies ahead. Trying to quickly stitch together a painted shop-front Party to fight an imminent Election is panic, plain an simple.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Wow, agreeing with rolyn !
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
172 panic-stricken wusses? Or even a majority of that number? I just don't believe it. I think they've just had enough.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Of what ? What is it they wanted, aside from repeating the word leadership - what did they actually want him to do ?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
We'll hear more about specifics, no doubt, over the next day or so. But detecting extreme fed-upness, probably for a variety of reasons, doesn't exactly require sensitive radar. When John McDonnell compares the PLP to a "lynch mob", that gives us some idea of how poisoned relationships are.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Incidentally I tracked down the source of the claim half the labour voters didn't know the party was supporting remain:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/30/labour-voters-in-the-dark-about-partys-stance-on-brexit-research-says

A memo sent at the beginning of May (so nearly six weeks before the vote) citing focus groups (not a poll) carried out in London, Brighton and Ipswich.

So they asked perhaps a hundred of the-sort-people-prepared-to-do-focus-groups whom they said were uncertain of the party's position or thought Corybn was campaigning for remain but didn't really want it.

Given that we are told not to trust polls of less than 1000, with clearly defined questions, I call bullshit on this.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
This kind of 'rule by direct mandate from the people' is beginning to worry me, whether it's referenda or the appointment of a labour leader. I go to the poll booth in the conviction that Parliament is sovereign. It is the MPs who have been elected to govern, by millions of ordinary citizens, not party members. Ignoring the votes of those who'd vote labour but would not (like me) dream of joining the party, has dire consequences.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
It is the most obvious fact out there. What they are telling us all is that there is desperation in the Parliamentary Labour Party about the present and future electability of Labour MPs for so long as Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Party, leader of the opposition in Parliament. Not just that. They fear for the future of the Party if he remains as leader.
I think that desperation is exactly the right word. This is the political equivalent of chucking everyone up front, including the goal keeper, in the hope of scoring from a corner in the third minute of injury time when you are 1-0 down. You may not score. You may even be caught on the break and concede another goal. But as things stand, you are going to lose and you need to try and do something about it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Callan, as plucky Johnny Major (for whom, as a rabid armchair Trot, I have immense respect) said, quoting old Otto of course, politics is the art of the possible.

Do you really think, a la PaulTH*, that the Blair-Brown Project can be resurrected? That that is possible? No you don't. That little punt down the halcyon Isis cannot be stepped in to again now that the Thames barrier is broken DOWN and England is flooded as far north as Berwick.

The working class margin (where the possible is most possible?) have stuffed it to the ruling class as they FELT shat on by the latter selling England by the Euro to Eastern Europeans and they weren't getting any:

"For Remain voters the economy was by far the most significant issue. But for Leave voters it was sovereignty and immigration:

53% the ability of Britain to make its own laws
34% immigration
3% the economy"

ed. of

Is it possible for Corbyn to appeal to these people? How about by a massive, high quality, green social housing and infrastructure (nationalize the railways of course) programme? Paid for by financial transaction tax? Taxing wealth above middle class perception?

Can Corbyn appeal to working and middle class self-interest?

Oooh and RIGID fishing limits.

Possible?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Prediction: If Corbyn is ousted, Labour will become the third party in England. New political set-up will be: Conservatives in the middle, UKIP (official oppo) on the right, Labour on the left. LDs might survive squeezed between Lab and Con or possibly make a deal with Lab.

If Corbyn is *not* ousted, Labour will become the fourth party in England. New set-up will be: Conservatives in the middle, UKIP (official oppo) on the right, Lib Dems on the left. Lab competing for voters with deep Green/ SWP / Respect.

[ 30. June 2016, 08:55: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
No, I think a return to Blairism is for the birds. Blair inherited a thriving economy from Kenneth Clarke at a time, ironically, when the Tories had forfeited their reputation for economic competence over the ERM recession. To be honest, I suspect that Labour Party is toast whatever happens but there is an outside chance that with a capable leader with a set of policies that appeal beyond the people who signed up to support Jeremy, that disaster may be averted. What that looks like (or not) we still have to find out but, thus far, Corbyn's record in office consists of losing Council seats as an opposition for the first time since the miners strike, a renaissance of the Tory Party in Scotland and Britain's ejection from the EU. The idea that Corbyn can turn around the Labour Party's parlous state between now and the next election would be improbable if the plan was to wait until 2020. If there's a snap election in the next few months - which seems likely - then frankly Labour is doomed. When this was put to Diane Abbott recently the best she could do was say that this was a very Westminster-centred perspective. I don't find that reassuring.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
I find myself torn on this. On the one hand, I think Corbyn bought something important to the attention of the party when he became leader: he bought the voices of a significant part of the party membership and, given the numbers who paid £3 to vote for him and the numbers who've joined the party since his election, a section of society that wanted to be part of Labour but didn't feel they could pre-Corbyn. I think, whatever his flaws as a leader, that's significant; maybe, given time (9 months isn't that long, really)those flaws could've been worked on.

I think Corbyn tried to begin to bridge the gap between the PLP and that section of the membership that elected him. I think the PLP should've listened more closely to what those members were saying when they elected Corbyn. I don't buy the "Corbyn was useless in the referendum campaign" line; I think he was just trying to articulate a more nuanced pro-Remain line and was hampered by a) the media's focus on the Tory party's squabbles and b) his own communication's team lack of success in getting their message across (I think Seamus Milne was a bad appointment).

I think the current, post-Referendum crisis is almost entirely of the PLP's making: when your opponents are in such disarray as the Tories are, you don't create a crisis for yourselves. The PLP have complained about not being an effective opposition: ISTM they've stopped themselves being that in these crucial days after the referendum by deciding to have their own leadership crisis.

All that said, I think he has to go now. Whether or not it's his fault, he's lost the support of the PLP and you cannot survive as leader without that. He wants to plough on because of his massive support within the membership: I think that's a huge mistake and will only increase the gulf between the PLP and the membership. I think Tom Watson got it exactly right in the video Barnabas62 linked to: the leader has to be supported by all sections of the party and Corbyn clearly isn't. He cannot lead like that. If nothing else, it's an open goal at every PMQs: no matter how sound his point is, all Cameron or his replacement has to do is point to the ranks of MPs behind him and make some cheap jibe about his lack of support. Which will get shown on the telly? It won't be Corbyn's point.

The huge question for Labour is: is there anyone who can unite all these different sections of the party? I'm not sure there is. Blair tried it by simply imposing his will, but that just kept a lid on all these divisions and maybe made them worse. I don't know if there's anyone who can unite the party; perhaps a split is the only way?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye Callan, have to agree, but there again you knew that. Blair was certainly Thatcher's beneficiary (recapitulating Wilson and Douglas-Home). She was his first guest in Downing Street.

UKIP are NOWT. A protest movement that 'won', that will win no seats, what for?

Is Gove Johnny Major to BoJo's Heseltine? I'd LOVE that.

In the mean time, my man will die a prophet hero's death.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I just started a new thread to discuss Conservative Party Leadership Elections. Looks like a separate but related issue.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think the plp have committed suicide, but there it is, it's done now. The next election looks like a goner.

I suppose it's part of the electoral cycle. I mean, that after a big leader, such as Blair and Thatcher, parties tend to go into conniptions for quite a long time. Was it 23 years before the Tories won again after 1992 (Major)?

It looks like a split, but I don't know how it can be managed.

I suppose if somebody like Eagle takes over, the left will drift away, or alternatively, run screeching for the hills. Now those Greens down the road are interesting people.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some of Angela Eagle's constituents asking why they should follow her, when she has not conferred with them, and has proved inaccessible, and has plotted against the leader. Come on, you know it's comical.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
UKIP are NOWT. A protest movement that 'won', that will win no seats, what for?
They will claim that the settlement, such as it is, is a betrayal because it involves too much immigration and because the moon on a stick promised by Leave didn't materialise.

As a clergyman, part of my job involves visiting frail elderly people who often tell me that they had no idea how much they took their good health and independence for granted until they lost it. I suspect that we are all going to feel the same about living in a politically stable democracy in the not too distant future.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hell's Bells!

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Stop Press, further to the exciting report that the Eagle has landed! Now, there has been a slight delay, and we would like to report that the Eagle is stranded! Web-cams are available now, to see how she takes off again.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But most of the MPs were very unhappy about it because he's considered very left wing. (Though from a historical perspective he's fairly moderate.)
I'd like to come back to this because it's been bugging me for a few days. On the one hand, Mr Corbyn is the only hope of the socialist left and a standard-bearer in the fight against neo-liberalism - and on the other hand, he's not all that radical.

I'm afraid I think the answer is that although he is willing to (attempt to) sing The Red Flag and give enthusiastic support to peripheral left-wing causes such as Hezbollah and Irish Republicanism, he is not very good at articulating actual ideas, or at least transferring them from the backs of the envelopes on which he's written them. So what we have so far is:

People's Quantitative Easing: Irrelevant if the Bank is not engaged in a quantitative easing programme.

National Investment Bank: a means for the government to borow money to fund infrastructure projects (as every government has done in living memory) but in a way that's off balance-sheet - Mr Blair would be proud.

Opposing benefit cuts: probably a good thing (and supported by Tory backbenchers and Lib-Dem peers), but this is not in itself a blow against neoliberalism. The blow against neoliberalism would be to ask why benefits are necessary in the first place. (Mr Miliband once said that the flaw in Blairism was that it accepted most of the doctrines of Thatcherism but then tried to use the welfare state as a plaster to cover up the injustices that arise thereby.)

Making speeches against austerity: in the absence of specific costed alternatives, this only differs from soundbite politics in that at least soundbites are mercifully brief.

[ 30. June 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hell's Bells!

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.
Quite apart form the morally repugnant aspect of the story, this is a perfect example of why Corbyn has got to go. How incompetent to you have to be to get a report that says: "Basically, Labout has no significant problem with anti-Semitism but it wouldn't hurt everyone to be a bit more sensitive" and end up with a Jewish MP calling for your resignation after being abused by one of your supporters, and the Chief Rabbi issuing a sternly worded condemnation of your incautious comparison of Israel with Islamic State. The lazy cliche is to invoke The Thick Of It, at this juncture but really, compared to this lot Nicola Murray looks like Abraham Lincoln.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Why do people have to lie about Corbyn? He didn't compare Israel with Islamic State.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hell's Bells!

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.
Quite apart form the morally repugnant aspect of the story, this is a perfect example of why Corbyn has got to go. How incompetent to you have to be to get a report that says: "Basically, Labout has no significant problem with anti-Semitism but it wouldn't hurt everyone to be a bit more sensitive" and end up with a Jewish MP calling for your resignation after being abused by one of your supporters, and the Chief Rabbi issuing a sternly worded condemnation of your incautious comparison of Israel with Islamic State. The lazy cliche is to invoke The Thick Of It, at this juncture but really, compared to this lot Nicola Murray looks like Abraham Lincoln.
Here we go, the first casualty of war. This is all BULLSHIT.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
An unbelievable slur. He was saying the equivalent of that Muslims are no more responsible for IS than Anglicans are of Britain First.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
If he can't make a simple point about anti-semitism without upsetting the Chief Rabbi, he's bloody incompetent. End of. For those of you who skipped history there is a reason that Jews tend to be a bit touchy about this sort of thing and it isn't because they are all admirers of Tony Blair.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If he can't make a simple point about anti-semitism without upsetting the Chief Rabbi, he's bloody incompetent. End of. For those of you who skipped history there is a reason that Jews tend to be a bit touchy about this sort of thing and it isn't because they are all admirers of Tony Blair.
But you lied. End of.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Steady q. Callan has a disposition with some facets that are more amusing than others.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If he can't make a simple point about anti-semitism without upsetting the Chief Rabbi, he's bloody incompetent. End of. For those of you who skipped history there is a reason that Jews tend to be a bit touchy about this sort of thing and it isn't because they are all admirers of Tony Blair.
But you lied. End of.
OK, this is the quote, via the Guardian. Originally posted by Jeremy Corbyn:

quote:
In prepared remarks, Corbyn said: “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”
So, there you go. Prepared remarks. He sat down, wrote this down, shared it with his comms team. They presumably said, good stuff Jeremy, that will knock them dead. Now you can say, if you want, that this is obviously not anti-semitic. As one Gentile to another, you may be right. We don't blame Muslims for Al Qaeda, or IS, or Saudi Arabia or Iran any more than we blame Jews for the actions of Israel or the Likud Party. But, do you know, most Jews (and generally the majority of reasonable Gentiles) don't think that the actions of Israel, in most cases, and the actions of the Likud Party in a lot of cases are entirely comparable to the actions of Al Qaeda IS, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Anyway, as I say, the Chief Rabbi who is Jewish and has fairly strong views on anti-semitism thought it could be better phrased. Broadly speaking, if you give a press conference on anti-Semitism and you aren't Nick Griffin, pissing off the Chief Rabbi is a bug, rather than a feature. Ruth Smeeth wasn't all that impressed either. Still, I expect they are neo-liberals or something like that.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You're way off here Callan. Way off. Something else is going on here. And of course Israel can be compared with its power abusing neighbours.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
No, I'm not Martin.

Unless you can demonstrate a) that the treatment of Ruth Smeeth was morally acceptable.

And b) That Jeremy Corbyn's conduct demonstrated political acuity.

I think that neither is the case but I await your detailed apologetic with eager anticipation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, there you go. Prepared remarks. He sat down, wrote this down, shared it with his comms team. They presumably said, good stuff Jeremy, that will knock them dead. Now you can say, if you want, that this is obviously not anti-semitic. As one Gentile to another, you may be right. We don't blame Muslims for Al Qaeda, or IS, or Saudi Arabia or Iran any more than we blame Jews for the actions of Israel or the Likud Party. But, do you know, most Jews (and generally the majority of reasonable Gentiles) don't think that the actions of Israel, in most cases, and the actions of the Likud Party in a lot of cases are entirely comparable to the actions of Al Qaeda IS, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Nobody said they were. If you bothered to read the speech rather than the knee-jerk responses to it, you'll see that he was saying that nobody should be judged on-bloc. If you have a problem with Israel, don't take it out on Jews. If your stomach is turned by IS, don't try having a pop at the nearest Muslim.

Of course it is relevant because there is a tendency amongst some to suggest that every Jew is responsible or supportive of everything that Israel does. And of course there are some who say that IS makes every Muslim a terrorist.

quote:
Anyway, as I say, the Chief Rabbi who is Jewish and has fairly strong views on anti-semitism thought it could be better phrased. Broadly speaking, if you give a press conference on anti-Semitism and you aren't Nick Griffin, pissing off the Chief Rabbi is a bug, rather than a feature. Ruth Smeeth wasn't all that impressed either. Still, I expect they are neo-liberals or something like that.
I can only assume that the Chief Rabbi hasn't actually read the speech. Which is fair enough when nobody else has either.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


Unless you can demonstrate a) that the treatment of Ruth Smeeth was morally acceptable.
It appears that an activist suggested that Ms Smeeth was somehow beholden to the right-wing press. Ms Smeeth said that this was an example of anti-semitism.

Explain to me how this is Corbyn's responsibility even if it is proved to be an anti-Semitic incident.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
I can only assume that the Chief Rabbi hasn't actually read the speech. Which is fair enough when nobody else has either.
I think, call me dangerously radical, that it must be possible to give a speech about anti-semitism which does not lead to the Chief Rabbi of the UK getting a bit upset. If we could find such a person they might make a reasonably good Leader of the Opposition. Let's face it we have an annual Holocaust Memorial Day upon which plenty of Civic non-entities manage to suggest that anti-Semitism is a bad thing without annoying the Chief Rabbi. I'm somewhat boggled that Corbyn managed to fuck it up.

As I said, aside from the Ruth Smeeth business, which was pretty contemptible, this was the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn being asked to stand up and say he was in favour of motherhood and mum's apple pie. I realise that we are a minority these days and must tread carefully, but broadly speaking among civilised people there is a consensus that Anti-Semitism is a Bad Thing. How the devil did he manage to fuck it up.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

As I said, aside from the Ruth Smeeth business, which was pretty contemptible, this was the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn being asked to stand up and say he was in favour of motherhood and mum's apple pie. I realise that we are a minority these days and must tread carefully, but broadly speaking among civilised people there is a consensus that Anti-Semitism is a Bad Thing. How the devil did he manage to fuck it up.
Yeah, funny how everything he is saying is being twisted and misquoted today, isn't it. I can't imagine why that could be.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


Unless you can demonstrate a) that the treatment of Ruth Smeeth was morally acceptable.
It appears that an activist suggested that Ms Smeeth was somehow beholden to the right-wing press. Ms Smeeth said that this was an example of anti-semitism.

Explain to me how this is Corbyn's responsibility even if it is proved to be an anti-Semitic incident.
Well it was a Momentum activist at a Press Conference organised by Corbyn. Going out on a limb here but if I was to give a Press Conference on the evils of anti-semitism and one of my congregation had a go at a Jew in the vicinity, I'd probably feel that I'd let the side down if I didn't tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nobody said they were. If you bothered to read the speech rather than the knee-jerk responses to it, you'll see that he was saying that nobody should be judged on-bloc. If you have a problem with Israel, don't take it out on Jews. If your stomach is turned by IS, don't try having a pop at the nearest Muslim.
The problem with this comparison is that it's rather like invoking the Third Reich as a comparison in a discussion. Just don't do it, even if the trains did run on time.

Corbyn's statement is technically accurate, but by placing Israel and Islamic State in the same role in his sentence, he invites a comparison between the two.

[ 30. June 2016, 21:06: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Well it was a Momentum activist at a Press Conference organised by Corbyn. Going out on a limb here but if I was to give a Press Conference on the evils of anti-semitism and one of my congregation had a go at a Jew in the vicinity, I'd probably feel that I'd let the side down if I didn't tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up.
Sorry, a critic of Corbyn was accused by a Momentum activist of being beholden to the right-wing press. Now, that might not be correct, but there is clearly a view that Labour parliamentarians and the press are out to destroy Corbyn.

How that morphs into an "anti-Semitic" slur is beyond my understanding.

Personally I believe everyone should be extremely polite with each other in the Labour party and stop calling each other names.

But you have to use a large level of imagination to see this particular incident as anti-Semitic rather than anti-Blairite.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
He's not a momentum activist.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The problem with this comparison is that it's rather like invoking the Third Reich as a comparison in a discussion. Just don't do it, even if the trains did run on time.
It wasn't like that. Read the damn speech.

quote:
Corbyn's statement is technically accurate, but by placing Israel and Islamic State in the same role in his sentence, he invites a comparison between the two.
The comparison is there because there are (a) anti-Semitic incidents where Jews are held to be accountable for Israel and (b) where Muslims are held to be accountable for IS. In the UK in 2016.

FFS. Can we get on with monitoring the true fascists rather than turning over the stones looking for things to be offended by?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's not a momentum activist.
Right, OK he has denied being a Momentum activist. He was an activist.

I don't see that this makes any difference at all - what has it got to do personally with Corbyn? Nothing.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

As I said, aside from the Ruth Smeeth business, which was pretty contemptible, this was the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn being asked to stand up and say he was in favour of motherhood and mum's apple pie. I realise that we are a minority these days and must tread carefully, but broadly speaking among civilised people there is a consensus that Anti-Semitism is a Bad Thing. How the devil did he manage to fuck it up.
Yeah, funny how everything he is saying is being twisted and misquoted today, isn't it. I can't imagine why that could be.
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?

I mean, I'd have probably said something like this: "The Labour Party is implacably opposed to all forms of racism. Anti-Semitism is one of the oldest forms of racial hatred and has no part in our party. Any form of Anti-Semitic hatred or prejudice is unacceptable and has no part in the life of our great movement. I am very grateful to Shami Chakrabati for her report which demonstrates that Anti-semitism is not rife in our party. But she warns us that we cannot be complacent. There are those who, often for good and honourable reasons are critical of the policies of the State of Israel. I am one of them. But we must say that such criticism must be kept within honourable bounds. Shami has defined those bounds and I and all those who hold high office in our party will ensure that we remain within them. Let no-one who is Jewish or who sympathises with the Jewish national movement feel unwelcome on our party. Let us work towards that future when people of all creeds, colours and nationalities recognise one another on the basis of our common humanity. Thank you all very much"

I mean, candidly, it's boilerplate and I ain't expecting a nobel prize but if I can do better aa a form of displacement activity you would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do better as a matter of course.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
No, I'm not Martin.

Unless you can demonstrate a) that the treatment of Ruth Smeeth was morally acceptable.

And b) That Jeremy Corbyn's conduct demonstrated political acuity.

I think that neither is the case but I await your detailed apologetic with eager anticipation.
What treatment mate? She'd sold out to the Torygraph. No? Wadsworth DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS JEWISH. And IS NOT A MEMBER OF MOMENTUM. No that either matter.

Still, never let a fact get in the way of cognitive bias eh?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
So, what you are saying Martin is that you think Anti-semitic abuse is acceptable if the Jewish person has links with the Daily Telegraph and is deniable if the abuser sympathises with Momentum but has mislaid their subs? What can I say, that's all right then.

Incidentally, does anyone want to address my point about competence. IF THERE WAS A CREDIBLE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Anyway, I am going to get my head down. Do feel free to disagree with my points but I am going to sleep the sleep of the just so I may not respond for a bit.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, what you are saying Martin is that you think Anti-semitic abuse is acceptable if the Jewish person has links with the Daily Telegraph and is deniable if the abuser sympathises with Momentum but has mislaid their subs? What can I say, that's all right then.

Incidentally, does anyone want to address my point about competence. IF THERE WAS A CREDIBLE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!
What antisemitic abuse? What incompetence? It's all in the eye mate.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I would tentatively venture to suggest that if you make a comment that gives non-vicarious offence, then by definition that comment is offensive.

The alternative seems equivalent to saying that the emperor's new clothes aren't invisibe, you just can't see them.

[ 30. June 2016, 22:03: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This is what Ruth Smeeth said

quote:
This morning, at the launch of the Chakrabarti Inquiry into antisemitism, I was verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional antisemitic slurs to attack me for being part of a 'media conspiracy'.
This is what Marc Wadsworth said he said

quote:
Mr Wadsworth said afterwards: “Jeremy said something flim-flammy that he didn’t support abuse and people must be respectful. I thought he could have been more robust than that, and said that people have strong views and it’s about freedom of speech – and what about the Telegraph working hand in glove with that Labour MP Ruth Smeeth. That’s the sort of company they’re keeping, these MPs.
I've listened several times and I can't hear what everything he said because of the indignant "how dare you"s coming across from several people in the room. Did he say anything antisemitic? I couldn't hear it. But if in the clamour she thought she heard him say "these people" not "these MPs" as he claims, then I can understand why she thought she'd been the victim of an antisemitic slur. She may not have been. And it also seems she may have been wrong about Momentum membership. As to whether Marc Wadsworth did not know she was Jewish, well I hear what he says.

What is undoubtedly true is that she was insulted by name for 'working hand in glove with the Telegraph" and was a member of a group "these ...." working with "that sort of people". These are assumptions and generalised insults about a group of people.

The basis for his active presence at the press conference appears to be this.

quote:
Mr Wadsworth was handing out a newsletter which accused Labour MPs who have expressed no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn of being “self-indulgent” and “divisive.” It urged that should be deselected and replaced with “socialists who will fight for the ordinary people.”
What the hell has that got to do with a press conference on an antisemitism report?

Then later in the article we read this

quote:
Before the launch, there was a brief exchange between Mr Wadsworth and Ruth Smeeth, who identified herself as one of the dozens of MPs who have resigned their positions on Labour’s front bench after losing confidence in Mr Corbyn’s leadership.
So his personal attack on Ruth Smeeth was triggered by her acknowledgement that she was one of the 172. And what the hell did this attack have to do with that report, either? From the Independent article it could not be clearer that his behaviour was personal, gratuitous insult, out of order, out of place.

A later tweet from Ruth Smeeth says this

quote:
Touched that Shami Chakrabarti is with me in Parliament apologising unreservedly for the way I was treated at her press conference
Bullshit, Martin? I don't think so. When someone behaves that way, they lose respect and credibility. After that why should I believe that he did not know Ruth Smeeth was Jewish? But let's give him the benefit of the doubt on that point. Antisemitic or not, the Bullshit behaviour at that press conference came from Marc Wadsworth. Surely you can see that? Hell, Shami Chakrabati could see it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Wadsworth's offense was non-non-vicarious. Or should that be anti-non-vicarious?

[ 30. June 2016, 22:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
If I grant you that, for the sake of argument, will you grant me that it was an out of place gratuitous offence? The evidence is impressive that it was at least those things.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It wasn't like that. Read the damn speech.
I've read the damn speech.

quote:

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations. Nor should Muslims be regarded as sexist, antisemitic or otherwise suspect, as has become an ugly Islamophobic norm. We judge people on their individual values and actions, not en masse.”
Like I said, he is technically correct. If you analyse his speech as a series of logical propositions, you will discover that he never compares Israel to IS.

But guess what? That's not how language works, and that's not how communication works. Look at the first sentence in the Corbyn quote above. He contrasts "our Jewish friends" with "Israel and the Netanyahu government" on the one hand, and "our Muslim friends" with "self-styled Islamic States and organizations" on the other hand.

"Our Jewish friends" and "our Muslim friends" are clearly comparable, and intended to be compared. The structure of the sentence then pulls "Israel and the Netanyahu government" into comparison with "self-styled Islamic states and organizations."

Just don't do it.

Yes, I understand the point that Corbyn was trying to make, and I agree with it, as does every decent human being. But the way he chose to make the comparison carries the implication that Israel and IS are comparably bad.

The irony is that he goes on to recognize this in his speech, when he tells people to stop calling anything bad "a holocaust" and the like. As Corbyn recognizes, to do so diminishes the particular evil of the Nazi attempted extermination of the Jewish people.

I rather think the same applies to IS. They aren't a "normal" evil state - they're in a category all of their own.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Barnabas62. Believe it or not, yes I will. Because it was two or three steps away from ... the violence of power. It was not inclusive. And Jeremy did not approve.

[ 30. June 2016, 22:30: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
xpost

Leorning Cniht's analysis looks spot on to me. An obvious implication, which reasonable people could make and enemies could latch onto. I'm sure it was inadvertent.

@ Martin60. Thanks, Shipmate.

[ 30. June 2016, 22:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It wasn't like that. Read the damn speech.
I've read the damn speech.

quote:

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations. Nor should Muslims be regarded as sexist, antisemitic or otherwise suspect, as has become an ugly Islamophobic norm. We judge people on their individual values and actions, not en masse.”
Like I said, he is technically correct. If you analyse his speech as a series of logical propositions, you will discover that he never compares Israel to IS.

But guess what? That's not how language works, and that's not how communication works. Look at the first sentence in the Corbyn quote above. He contrasts "our Jewish friends" with "Israel and the Netanyahu government" on the one hand, and "our Muslim friends" with "self-styled Islamic States and organizations" on the other hand.

"Our Jewish friends" and "our Muslim friends" are clearly comparable, and intended to be compared. The structure of the sentence then pulls "Israel and the Netanyahu government" into comparison with "self-styled Islamic states and organizations."

Just don't do it.

Yes, I understand the point that Corbyn was trying to make, and I agree with it, as does every decent human being. But the way he chose to make the comparison carries the implication that Israel and IS are comparably bad.

The irony is that he goes on to recognize this in his speech, when he tells people to stop calling anything bad "a holocaust" and the like. As Corbyn recognizes, to do so diminishes the particular evil of the Nazi attempted extermination of the Jewish people.

I rather think the same applies to IS. They aren't a "normal" evil state - they're in a category all of their own.
No they are not. Standard revolutionary, insurrectionary, anti-imperial warfare. Can you imagine being in the British Resistance under NAZI occupation. I can. Viscerally. My favourite novel of all time is Len Deighton's SS GB.

Israel and Saudi Arabia are how many degrees 'better' than SCIS?

I just read Doug Beattie MC's An Ordinary Soldier and started watching Kajaki two nights ago but couldn't bear it. Not because I hate or despise or in ANY way judge these good men and what they did. I tear up for them. War is HELL. Don't do it, don't make it, don't start. EVER. Because to fight evil by its methods is to lose.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Barnabas62. Damn.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I know very little about British politics. What I do know about is BBC Radio 4 comedy podcasts. How many times have I heard "Ooo, it's Dianne Abbot!" followed by "Thanks Jeremy." Personally, I think it is the actor from Horrible Histories and This is Jinsy who does Dianne's voice. I'm no good with names unless they are said in a funny voice.

Anyway, you can imagine my excitement when this article appeared in my facebook feed and it seemed to reflect what I was thinking about these people in the labour party who can no longer manage their careers by running closed numbers games. As an added bonus, I got to see a photo of Dianne Abbott! web page
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?
Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Shami Chakrabati this morning

quote:
Ms Chakrabarti, who authored a report into alleged anti-Semitism within the Labour party, tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

I've been to see Ruth Smeeth and I've apologised to her because it was my press conference and I was chairing it and I'm really sorry she was treated in that way."
She defends Mr Corbyn for not intervening, saying: "I probably didn't give him the chance," but adds that the Labour leader had concurred with her when she admonished the male heckler.
She also said this

quote:
But Ms Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she thought Mr Corbyn had been making "a direct reference to my report" into anti-Semitism.

"He was making no comparison whatsover between Israel and Isis - he was making a comparison I was making in my report."
Arethosemyfeet

Two questions.

Do you include Ruth Smeeth in your blanket statement?

"The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him."

After all she is a member of the Jewish Community.

Or do you think, conversely, that what we saw was Marc Wadsworth "gunning" specifically for Ruth Smeeth?

Put another way, why do you think Shami Chakrabati, whose press conference it was, thought it right to admonish Mr Wadsworth, apologise to Ruth Smeeth, and defend Jeremy Corbyn. My perspective is that she did exactly the right thing in doing all three of those things.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Occasionally on these boards we get people saying things like 'All atheists are no more responsible for Dawkins etc than all Christians are responsible for Westboro Baptist Church,' or the like. I think it's a reasonable thing to say. At the same time, I think it's a reasonable response for an atheist to say that however annoying and arrogant Dawkins is he's nowhere near as bad as Westboro Baptist Church.

So, yes, I think Corbyn should have been more careful.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?
Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
Yeah, but come on, if you want to support privatization and benefit cuts with a healthy conscience, you'll be able to vote for the Blairites, and all will be well (for them).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Leorning Cniht's analysis looks spot on to me. An obvious implication, which reasonable people could make and enemies could latch onto.
To me too. Way obvious.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Israel and SCIS and Russia and Syria and Saudi and Iran and Yemen and Iraq and Turkey and the Kurds and the US and the UK ARE comparably bad.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.
It's a bit of a farce, isn't it? It's like they expected Corbyn to just roll over when they demanded it and are now kind of flummoxed that he's willing to stand up to them. Time for them to put up or shut up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.
It's a bit of a farce, isn't it? It's like they expected Corbyn to just roll over when they demanded it and are now kind of flummoxed that he's willing to stand up to them. Time for them to put up or shut up.
There we were, expecting a fierce onslaught from the Eagle, shades of where Eagles dare, and so on, and at the moment, it's where Eagles daren't.

Rumour has it that some are just a teeny little nervous about their support for the war in Iraq, what with Chilcott coming up, and no doubt, copious denunciations of Blair.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?
Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
FFS, deploring Anti-Semitism ought to have nothing to do with one's views on the state of Israel. It's entirely possible to legitimately criticise Israel but there is a time and a place. That wasn't it. This isn't difficult. There have been plenty of Leaders of the Opposition in recent years who have been shown as to not being up to being Prime Minister - Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard and Miliband. I think that if any of them had turned up at that press conference they would have smashed it out of the park. Turn up, make your points, look serious, get out. Leave a discussion as to your views on Israeli foreign policy for another occasion.

In any event. My view is that Corbyn is not competent. Broadly speaking if you have a press event which, any normal politician would use to condemn anti-semitism and you end up having a Jewish MP racially abused, getting told off by the Chief Rabbi and having to get your Shadow Foreign Secretary to issue an apology to the Israeli Embassy, I think we can safely say you have fucked up on all sorts of levels. I don't think Corbyn is an anti-semite but then I don't think Father Dougal intended for that funeral to end with the hearse on fire and we are talking broadly equivalent levels of clusterfuck.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The fact that you're still pushing that smear about an MP being racially abused tells us all we need to know about your views.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
/// My view is that Corbyn is not competent. Broadly speaking if you have a press event which, any normal politician would use to condemn anti-semitism and you end up having a Jewish MP racially abused, getting told off by the Chief Rabbi and having to get your Shadow Foreign Secretary to issue an apology to the Israeli Embassy, I think we can safely say you have fucked up on all sorts of levels.....
Or you have just acted like a lot of different opposition leaders around the world and got the nuance wrong.

Happens with stuff involving Israel and Jews all the time. Wasn't the first and won't be the last.

A poor choice. But, firing the guy due to that?

When the Tories are equally shooting themselves?

****

I must admit reading through all this on here about this issue reads a lot like the whole "he's not ready" campaign the Canadian Tories tried to pin on Justin Trudeau. Lots of issues that made fodder for the parliamentary watchers but meant little to nothing to people considering their vote during an election.

In the US they call stuff like this an issue that means something only within the Beltway.

Hey, Corbyn may be a bad choice to be leader of that party and may lose that next election. But, seems, well, not in the best interests long term for a party who elected a leader based on party members to be turfing him during a crisis time when his only real crime looks to be the MP's themselves never really liked him.

[ 02. July 2016, 01:03: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....
Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
He wasn't appointed by trustees.

He was elected in a party membership contest.

Which is why trying to compare it to a job situation is not really doable.

Although he really should try to make MP's happy with him, in that party, his mandate is party membership. There really isn't a mandate for MP's to get rid of him as party leader either within the party or within parliament.


However, given there seems to be some sort of mechanism to hold another leadership vote based on the MP's not liking the leader voted by the members of the party, its all just going to happen again.


What is going to be most interesting is if Corbyn wins that vote of the members again, what do those MP's do? In theory in Westminster Parliamentary tradition, the MP's don't have to follow his lead. This would of course require them to leave the party. Which is probably why there is so much foaming at the mouth about this.

I would suggest that after Blair, Labour as a set of ideals probably is less stronger in people's minds in the UK then Labour as a party apparatus. People seem to be voting for the Party, rather then the ideas of the party. But, when people no longer agree with the ideas expressed by the party apparatus, or need more ideas, they start not following the lead of those in the apparatus.

Thus went Scotland.


Maybe there are Labour MP's who can reconnect that party with the ideals rather then focus on supporting Labour cause well...people support Labour. But, they didn't really show that to the party members that picked Corbyn.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:
I must admit reading through all this on here about this issue reads a lot like the whole "he's not ready" campaign the Canadian Tories tried to pin on Justin Trudeau. Lots of issues that made fodder for the parliamentary watchers but meant little to nothing to people considering their vote during an election.
That's a silly analogy. I'm not sure how substantial Trudeau is as a leader but the guy is clearly a PR genius. Not even the most deluded of Corbyn's cultists would claim that about Corbyn.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Saying they have lost confidence in him, in overwhelming numbers, is not denying his mandate or his formal right to the position of party leader. 172 MPs are informing him, and the party members who voted for him, that, whatever his merits of decency and principle, he lacks the ability to do the job of Leader of HM Opposition. That's both a Parliamentary role and a representational role.

And they really aren't all Blairites either. Andrew Neil put it bluntly a couple of days ago. This overwhelming majority of MPs think he is basically useless at the job. That job involves a lot more than "preaching to the choir".

And the new Shadow Cabinet seem, desperately, to be cobbling together a face-saving formula for him to retire with dignity. And leaking about that. The NEW Shadow Cabinet, that is.

quote:
Posted by Callan:
I don't think Father Dougal intended for that funeral to end with the hearse on fire and we are talking broadly equivalent levels of clusterfuck.
That's basically what the MPs are trying to tell the members. This isn't about the merits of the new kind of politics that Jeremy Corbyn espouses. This is about the avoidance of any more "grotesque spectacles". And you can be sure that the MPs understand very well that they have created one of those themselves. It is a desperate throw.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Allegedly. With leaks you can never be sure of the true source. Besides, if the PLP want him gone, all they have to do is put up a decent candidate to replace him. The fact that they haven't is an indication that they don't have one. Angela "warmonger" Eagle certainly isn't one. Neither is Tom "expenses" Watson. Find a left wing candidates you're willing to work with (because that's been the issue from the start given that Eagle and Benn have been briefing against Corbyn for months) and both Corbyn and the membership will probably go for it. The proposed "deal" is a dead duck because no-one will trust whatever right-winger they put forward to stick to it. It will be about as reliable as a Blair manifesto (PR, nationalise railways, no university tuition fees...).
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It is notable that there are tweets doing the rounds that purport to show that Angela Eagle set up the domain name Angrla4leader before the referendum vote.

This plays into the narrative that this coup has been planned for a long time. As does the briefing against Corbyn by parts of the plp for months. I don't think Corbyn has lost the confidence of the plp, I think they didn't want him in the first place. Which is why I, and others, treat the claims of incompetence with scepticism - we see them as a manufactured excuse.

Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives, won four mayoral elections, won several by elections, maintained the share of the vote in the council elections, gone neck and neck in the polls with the tories and delivered 70 per cent of the vote for remain *despite* the intermittent fucking about of the plp.

As regards the latest anti-semitism row, I suggest you read Sharmi Chakrabarhti's comments on the subject.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives
Are these initiatives that failed because of Labour opposition or are they initiatives that were launched, proved unpopular with the public (and, incidentally, the Labour Party) and were then ditched?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is notable that there are tweets doing the rounds that purport to show that Angela Eagle set up the domain name Angrla4leader before the referendum vote.

This plays into the narrative that this coup has been planned for a long time. As does the briefing against Corbyn by parts of the plp for months. I don't think Corbyn has lost the confidence of the plp, I think they didn't want him in the first place. Which is why I, and others, treat the claims of incompetence with scepticism - we see them as a manufactured excuse.

Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives, won four mayoral elections, won several by elections, maintained the share of the vote in the council elections, gone neck and neck in the polls with the tories and delivered 70 per cent of the vote for remain *despite* the intermittent fucking about of the plp.

As regards the latest anti-semitism row, I suggest you read Sharmi Chakrabarhti's comments on the subject.
Correction, registered before her resignation:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-angela-eagle-labour-leadership-prepared-for-challenge-two-days-be fore-she-resigned-a7113071.html
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives
Are these initiatives that failed because of Labour opposition or are they initiatives that were launched, proved unpopular with the public (and, incidentally, the Labour Party) and were then ditched?
The way opposition works, because you don't have a majority, is that you have to convince the public, and thereby some MPs from other parties, that the idea is a mistake. Corbyn was making that argument, and succeeding in convincing enough people.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The way opposition works, because you don't have a majority, is that you have to convince the public, and thereby some MPs from other parties, that the idea is a mistake. Corbyn was making that argument, and succeeding in convincing enough people.
Or were the public convinced quite independently of what Jeremy Corbyn was thinking and saying?

I'm not convinced that he's made any kind of impact on public opinion.
 
Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is notable that there are tweets doing the rounds that purport to show that Angela Eagle set up the domain name Angrla4leader before the referendum vote.

This plays into the narrative that this coup has been planned for a long time.
There's a torygraph article from the 13th June floating round the pro-Labour Facebook pages that pretty much describes the PLP actions.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There are articles from May that I've seen. Basically, it's a fight for control of the party - maybe it needs to happen, just as the contest in the Tory party. We are trying to avoid the plp doing a Gove though.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or were the public convinced quite independently of what Jeremy Corbyn was thinking and saying?

I'm not convinced that he's made any kind of impact on public opinion.
Quite. Correlation is not causation.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In the absence of a randomised controlled trial, that's all we'll ever have. Either corbyn's agenda is magically furthered by a series of co-incidences, or his political actions had something to do with it. How many co-incidences in a row before we believe in a connection?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Is it in fact for the plp to flick a collective v sign at the mass grassroots campaign we do have, because they are afraid of a Tory victory http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is it in fact for the plp to flick a collective v sign at the mass grassroots campaign we do have, because they are afraid of a Tory victory http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912
Woah, that MP is delusional. He still thinks you generate more tax revenue by cutting taxes.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Haflon knows Harlow, which used to be solidly Labour under Bill Rammell but lost the Labour vote in 2010. This is a new town with inner city levels of deprivation, enough to qualify it for Excellence in City grants and where one of the local schools has set up a local charity, No Child Without, when the school found it had such need that it was feeding and clothing the children they were trying to educate.

I don't know how connected it was but Harlow had a lot of demonstrations for Stop the War when that was happening - even though much of the employment in the town is in industries linked to the military: Nortel and Raytheon (and GlaxoSmithKline).

I suspect Haflon has a very good idea of the issues that caused the Leave vote as he represents another constituency that voted leave 68%, remain 32%.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
10 X this.

Rent to buy. Social housing for grown ups. A true property owning democracy.

As Andy Burnham is pledging in Manchester.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
10 X this.

Rent to buy. Social housing for grown ups. A true property owning democracy.

As Andy Burnham is pledging in Manchester.
All of which is bugger all use for people without a "Good credit history" which requires a solid full-time job paying a decent wage. Buying a home isn't viable for millions so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes that need to be brought back into use, some of which need minimal repair and refurbishment and they aren't in former industrial areas by any means.

I sometimes feel I will get done for this under C8 (crusading) but it is such an obvious step to take that I can't understand why central and local governments don't use the provisions that do exist far more. Maybe they don't want to upset their friends (and political donors) in the housebuilding industry. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Serious question for people who want Corbyn to stand down. Do you believe people like me should go against their political principles and beliefs and instead support a right wing MP?

What would be the point for us of "making labour more electable" when it means allowing it to continue its slide to the right?

Really. Why on earth would we do that?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
But the problem is that your principles and beliefs don't win elections. So, for as long as you cling on to those so rigidly and dogmatically, the Tories remain in power.

Now that's fine by me, of course, but I don't understand why people who spend a lot of time railing against supposed injustices don't want to get themselves into a position where they might be able to start addressing them.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Because "new" labour have been acting like Tories.

How does giving support to Tories guard against Tories?

I dunno it seems simple and obvious to me.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
10 X this.

Rent to buy. Social housing for grown ups. A true property owning democracy.

As Andy Burnham is pledging in Manchester.
All of which is bugger all use for people without a "Good credit history" which requires a solid full-time job paying a decent wage. Buying a home isn't viable for millions so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes that need to be brought back into use, some of which need minimal repair and refurbishment and they aren't in former industrial areas by any means.

I sometimes feel I will get done for this under C8 (crusading) but it is such an obvious step to take that I can't understand why central and local governments don't use the provisions that do exist far more. Maybe they don't want to upset their friends (and political donors) in the housebuilding industry. [Disappointed]
JFDI, find a way, make it work for people in bad times (80%: no credit history, zero hours contracts, benefits) and good (20%: decent full time work).

Woo the proletariat away from fascism. Turn them in to sustainable, house proud consumers. In to house building, reclaiming, plumbing, wiring, urban farming co-operatives.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
What's the point of voting against your own beliefs and principles?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

What would be the point for us of "making labour more electable" when it means allowing it to continue its slide to the right?
Aye, there's the rub. This is the dilemma faced by anyone whose views are towards a political extreme.

Do you want a less-bad government, or a good opposition? What best furthers your aims - having the opposition present your opinions, in the hope that it will shift the political discourse to the left, or having a government that is less right wing than the one you would otherwise have?

I think it probably depends on the details of the situation. If you're an American Bernie Sanders supporter, for example, now is the time to suck it up and vote for Hillary Clinton in the election. Sure, you might see her as a corporate sellout, but quite apart from the individual odiousness of the Republican candidate, the next president is going to appoint probably at least two Supreme Court justices.

Clearly, in the limit of a rightward shift, having two interchangeable Tory parties doesn't help you, but it's when you face a more modest shift that you have your dilemma. Perhaps the answer is to try to produce the leftiest party that you think will get elected by the British people, whilst supporting political campaigns outside the party to try to shift the public mood leftwards, so that in the future, you can shift the part left.

[ 02. July 2016, 13:23: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The problem we have is that the rightward shuffle has been completely normalised. This is one of the many fundamental betrayals perpetrated by Blair and his acolytes. It has become extremist to want to be anywhere significantly to the left of Thatcher, which a desperate state of affairs.

This is why Corbyn must not be replaced by a Blairite (i.e. a pink-washed Thatcherite) now. They are the freaks, not Corbyn. He is saying very little, ironically, that was not in the Tory manifestos of the 1950s and early 1960s. Perspective must be restored before the daggers are unsheathed. We cannot continue in this constant rightward shuffle forever: there is an imminent risk of politics becoming meaningless otherwise.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Leafleting for momentum today had some one come up, seig heil and yell Hitler was right, and call us communist bastards.

I feel the referendum has rather lowered the tone of political debate.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Leafleting for momentum today had some one come up, seig heil and yell Hitler was right, and call us communist bastards.

I feel the referendum has rather lowered the tone of political debate.
Litotes aside, that sounds a very scary experience. And, on a national scale, it is terrifying to contemplate the turbulence and murk the vote has released.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think it would have been intimidating if I'd been alone, but there was a small group of us there and it was a busy street. In retreospect, what shocks me is how unsurprised we were.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
On a lighter note, those with an interest in the Labour party's issues will probably enjoy Radio 4's Dead Ringers episode this week (you'll need access to BBC iPlayer).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07hj8bn#play
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
The PLP have gone too far to back down now. The membership are digging their heels in. This ends in one of two ways: JC resigns or a very, very messy and nasty run up to the next election.

The public simply won't vote in a Labour party so obviously at war. Blame the PLP if you like, but that's the reality of the situation.

If we want to help the most vulnerable in society, having a centre left government that tries to shield them from the worst effects of recession/austerity/Brexit is much, much better than having a fully left wing opposition to a Tory government that just doesn't care.

Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Sarah G you are so right [Overused]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

If we want to help the most vulnerable in society, having a centre left government that tries to shield them from the worst effects of recession/austerity/Brexit is much, much better than having a fully left wing opposition to a Tory government that just doesn't care.

Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.
Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

If we want to help the most vulnerable in society, having a centre left government that tries to shield them from the worst effects of recession/austerity/Brexit is much, much better than having a fully left wing opposition to a Tory government that just doesn't care.

Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.
Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.
It only works until the mogadon tablet with "there is no alternative" is spat out. That's the only level on which the leave vote makes any sense at all. The serious issue for all sides now is not to cause infinite pain to the newly conscious patient. Hypodermics full of anaesthetic, as proffered by the PLP, is not, in my opinion, the way to achieve this.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The problem is that the choice isn't left or centre-left, it's left or centre-right. That's how far the Blairites (don't oppose welfare cuts, remember) are from what Labour stands for. Austerity isn't a natural force to be defended or mitigated against, it's a political choice whether it's done by a tory or a Blairite. Anyone in a position of political power who tells you that austerity is necessary is flat out lying - it's actually harmful to the economy and the reason growth rates have been so sluggish since 2010. Even Brown/Darling realised stimulus was necessary to get the economy out of crisis mode. It's a real shame that under Miliband Labour's economic policy moved so far to the right to cosy up to Osborne's nonsense, which he himself has now had to abandon. It's allowed the right to have the argument all its own way, when in reality their approach is damaging to the economy and an excuse to punish the poor.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
The PLP have gone too far to back down now. The membership are digging their heels in. This ends in one of two ways: JC resigns or a very, very messy and nasty run up to the next election.

The public simply won't vote in a Labour party so obviously at war. Blame the PLP if you like, but that's the reality of the situation.
Another way to put that is that the reality of the situation is that that is what the party rules require. Quite why is open to some doubt. I can understand that taking a ballot of the entire party is a good method of selecting the leader of the party. What I cannot understand is why it is thought to be a good method of choosing the leader of the section comprising Labour MPs. The present problem was bound to occur sooner rather than later.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
If the situation had been tackled differently, the Labour Party could have gone for an amendment of the rules similar to that of the lib dems, where you have a party president and a leader of the parliamentary party.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Much more sensible.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's a real shame that under Miliband Labour's economic policy moved so far to the right to cosy up to Osborne's nonsense, which he himself has now had to abandon. It's allowed the right to have the argument all its own way, when in reality their approach is damaging to the economy and an excuse to punish the poor.
The thing is, this isn't really true. The Labour manifesto 2015 was not as radical as I think it should have been but it was far more Keynesian that it was made out to be.

In part that was Labour's spin as well. Rightly or wrongly, Labour didn't believe they could win without appeasing the perception that the deficit needed fixing. Of course a big part of it as well was that Labour was portrayed as causing the financial crisis and thus everyone 'knew' what needed to be done. This narrative was overwhelming.

Labour was thus too left for some and not nearly left enough for others. A perfect political trap. (Partly but now wholly of their own making).

I do not know what the solution to that is. It seems to me that Corbyn for all his clear authenticity and insight does not cut through to most of the electorate. (See his spot on Channel 4's The Last Leg a couple of weeks ago and contrast that with how he's reported).

AFZ
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I could see a president + plp leader being the long term structural change that comes out of this. But it won't happen before this impasse is resolved. I also think there is no way Corbyn will go pre-Chilcot.

[ 03. July 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.
You mean the party led by the guy who couldn't mention IDS's resignation? I'm sure the Tories were quivering in their boots.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.
You mean the party led by the guy who couldn't mention IDS's resignation? I'm sure the Tories were quivering in their boots.
No, I'm talking about the plp, who with perfect timing, chose to attack the Labour leader, just as the Tories had gone into meltdown. As I said, that's genius.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think there is no way Corbyn will go pre-Chilcot.
What is your instinct about what might happen after?

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.
Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.
You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?

Also, whoever follows Corbyn will not be “Tory but only slightly less so”. With the composition of the current membership the next leader will be well on the left, but with better leadership skills and more political savvy.

The country desperately needs a credible opposition that's going to get us out of this mess, not one putting all its energy into a civil war. The only realistic way it can get one from where we are now is for JC to do what he now has to do.

We need Labour in a fit shape to challenge the Tories when they start on the most vulnerable.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Who is well on the left? Angela 'Bomber' Eagle?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?
No (and let's not forget that what we are actually talking about is people WHO WERENT ACTUALLY LABOUR VOTERS, but did live in 'Labour heartlands' voting leave). What I mean is that in the long term Blair's strategy was bound to lead to disillusionment - as he had no real policies to revive the post-industrial areas that have little to no functioning economy, he was essentially riding out a boom whilst implementing a limited amount of re-distribution from the South East to the rest of the country. During his tenure, people tended to switch off from politics and didn't vote - his victories were built on the backs of an ever decreasing share of the electorate.

quote:

Also, whoever follows Corbyn will not be “Tory but only slightly less so”. With the composition of the current membership the next leader will be well on the left, but with better leadership skills and more political savvy.
The same MPs currently kicking off about Corbyn would kick off over any left wing candidate (and Angela Eagle is hardly that) - and they were kicking off long before they even knew how Corbyn might function, purely on the basis of his politics.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think there is no way Corbyn will go pre-Chilcot.
What is your instinct about what might happen after?

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.
Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.
You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?

Also, whoever follows Corbyn will not be “Tory but only slightly less so”. With the composition of the current membership the next leader will be well on the left, but with better leadership skills and more political savvy.

The country desperately needs a credible opposition that's going to get us out of this mess, not one putting all its energy into a civil war. The only realistic way it can get one from where we are now is for JC to do what he now has to do.

We need Labour in a fit shape to challenge the Tories when they start on the most vulnerable.
The PLP won't nominate another left wing candidate if Corbyn goes. If they were willing to do that then a negotiated solution might be possible. The fact of the matter is that the PLP don't want a left wing leader, full stop.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Chris Stiles:

quote:
No (and let's not forget that what we are actually talking about is people WHO WERENT ACTUALLY LABOUR VOTERS, but did live in 'Labour heartlands' voting leave). What I mean is that in the long term Blair's strategy was bound to lead to disillusionment - as he had no real policies to revive the post-industrial areas that have little to no functioning economy, he was essentially riding out a boom whilst implementing a limited amount of re-distribution from the South East to the rest of the country. During his tenure, people tended to switch off from politics and didn't vote - his victories were built on the backs of an ever decreasing share of the electorate.
1/ Some of them were.
2/ What you appear to forget is that Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 and Mr Blair was elected in 1997. Which means that whilst people did get better off in the Blair era he had a lot of catching up to do. I think it could be legitimately argued that he was to beholden to Middle England but it might be worth asking what happened in Labour politics between 1979 and 1997 to make Labour politicians a bit overly concerned about Middle England and, whether the current regime is actually addressing that.
3/ If you win an election with an eye-wateringly large majority and the sort of approval ratings that don't usually happen outside North Korea the only way is down. Governments generally run out of road and then have to reinvent themselves. Personally, I think a resurrection of the Blair bill of goods c1997 is for the birds but the bit about winning over Tory waverers is, really, quite important. I wasn't wildly enthusiastic about the Blair bill of goods at the time but there was a salient and important reason that he was elected as New Labour and governed as New Labour.

Government in the UK is a bit like the Sibylline books. if you remember the story one of the Sybils offered King Tarquin of Rome the books of prophecy. King Tarquin said no, so she set light to one of the books and offered the rest at the same price at which point his nerve went. Every time the other lot win an election your lot have to come back on their terms. For example, Liz Kendall got a lot of flack for suggesting that she could live with free schools but, of course, by 2020 a Labour opposition would have to win over marginal seats where the local free school was popular with parents who would resist its abolition. After 18 years of Tory rule, you would expect someone like Tony Blair to win for Labour. The longer to Tories are in power, the more right wing the next Labour government because their reforms will be entrenched. So spending five years testing to destruction the thesis that General Elections can be won by a man who has never run anything more demanding than an allotment and whose politics make the late Michael Foot look like Michael Heseltine is, really, an error of mind boggling proportions. Two politicians have markedly thrust the political consensus in away from their political enemies. Clement Attlee who was assisted by a World War and Mrs Thatcher who was assisted by an unelectable opposition and took three terms. Both of them were immensely able. It would be incautious for the Labour Party to assume that any of the conditions of their achievements are currently present.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just saw John McDonnell on BBC1 practically begging ex-Shadow Ministers to go back to their old jobs. I couldn't quite believe it, it seems like a monumental mistake or possibly admission of defeat.

I have to assume that he has more political nous than me, but to say I was surprised would be an understatement.

M.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It's actually the sensible course. Corbyn is the one interested in unity here, and willing to work with people who disagree with him. It's the chickencoup crowd who are having a strop and trying to take their ball home with them (including the former shadow treasury minister who deleted files from a shared hard drive about Labour's plans for influencing the finance bill when he resigned; real team player that).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There are certainly many stories flying around that Chilcott is the key. According to these, Corbyn has waited so that he can condemn Blair as a war criminal, and also possibly apologize on behalf of the Labour Party, for Iraq. Correspondingly, the Blairites have been trying to stop this.

I have no idea if there is any truth in these stories, but I guess we will find out quite soon.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I really hope the PLP aren't so desperate that they'll sabotage the party just to avoid having to own their past mistakes.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I'm just going to put this here now.

I think that when the Chilcott report comes out it will be nothing like as damaging in its condemnation of Tony Blair as people assume and I predict that the word "whitewash" will be used with some frequency when the contents are known.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down. Personally, I think he shouldn't have stood, shouldn't have been nominated, shouldn't have been elected and has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Labour Party but on a personal level, I imagine the last week has been utter hell for him.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Personally, I think a resurrection of the Blair bill of goods c1997 is for the birds
Well, I tend to agree with that - but that is what other participants in the thread appear to be calling for, additionally it seems to me what a lot of the PLP yearn for (without having a particular person in mind to carry out such a task).

In addition, I'm not really envisaging or calling for a return to 70s style Labourism, nor do I carry any particular torch for Corbyn. I am skeptical about the potential radical change especially given the influence of the media.

I do not think marginal policies like that of free schools either matter that much or a particularly big issue in terms of what needs to be dealt with (you'd probably get equal and opposite numbers living in marginals where free schools have failed). At the same time, I think it is possible to overestimate some of the change wrought in society as a whole (there is fairly substantial support for limited measures like renationalising the rail service even among the members of parties like UKIP whose leaders are libertarian)

quote:
It would be incautious for the Labour Party to assume that any of the conditions of their achievements are currently present.
My issue with people like Kendall is that they seem to assume that in the absence of any of those conditions, all that is necessary is to keep triangulating and eventually they'll get into power.

You don't implement your ideas by jettisoning them in order to get into power - additionally if you are going to compete on the basis of being tough, those who are already minded to vote for a right wing option will not be convinced by your protestations that you promise to crucify 10 immigrants every day, while you put off your core vote.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Callan

I'm giving your spidey sense a probable two out of three! Not sure if Corbyn will stand down on the same day.

And, yes, the last week must have been absolute hell for him.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
I think the first part of this is undoubtedly correct, but the calculation was that they thought that he ought to be given a 'fair' chance, or more accurately, at least they ought to give the impression they were giving him a 'fair' chance before activating Operation Corbyncide. With Remain losing the prospect of a snap election suddenly loomed before them and the need for a coup concentrated minds. The other effect of the Leave vote was the rage and grief it generated. A Europhile Leader of the Opposition who had campaigned like her life depended on it would have probably been in trouble at this juncture. Given Mr Corbyn's lifelong hostility to Europe and the 'Europe, Meh, s'pose"nature of his pronouncements, such as they were, and the general lack of a sense of urgency in his campaigning, it was always likely that he was going to get it in the neck from Remainers if things went horribly Pete Tong.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
Another problem being that the Tories went into meltdown, which you'd think might give Labour opportunities to attack. I suppose that couldn't be allowed to interrupt the poorly planned coup of the plp.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I'm just going to put this here now.

I think that when the Chilcott report comes out it will be nothing like as damaging in its condemnation of Tony Blair as people assume and I predict that the word "whitewash" will be used with some frequency when the contents are known.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down. Personally, I think he shouldn't have stood, shouldn't have been nominated, shouldn't have been elected and has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Labour Party but on a personal level, I imagine the last week has been utter hell for him.
Right on Chilcott of course and no, Corbyn stepping down isn't going to happen in that context, he should have been nominated, should have been elected, has been a resounding success for the country and the Labour Party and I bet he's loved it. 1/6
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I'm just going to put this here now.

I think that when the Chilcott report comes out it will be nothing like as damaging in its condemnation of Tony Blair as people assume and I predict that the word "whitewash" will be used with some frequency when the contents are known.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down. Personally, I think he shouldn't have stood, shouldn't have been nominated, shouldn't have been elected and has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Labour Party but on a personal level, I imagine the last week has been utter hell for him.
Right on Chilcott of course and no, Corbyn stepping down isn't going to happen in that context, he should have been nominated, should have been elected, has been a resounding success for the country and the Labour Party and I bet he's loved it. 1/6
Dear Admins,

Can we please have a "Dennis Mello from the Wire" emoji. It would save us the trouble, on occasion, of having to type: "I'll have what he's smoking".

Many thanks,

A Grateful Shipmate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's all about what YOU bring to the party Callan.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The PLP won't nominate another left wing candidate if Corbyn goes. If they were willing to do that then a negotiated solution might be possible. The fact of the matter is that the PLP don't want a left wing leader, full stop.
The problem with this analysis is that you assume the 172 are all Blairites. They're not.

Some are, and were out to get JC from the start. A lot of others weren't happy, but were willing to give it a go. Still others were close to JC on the political belief spectrum, but are very unhappy with his lack of political skills, and now they've also turned. That's his problem.

It's entirely possible to like his policies, and still see he's just not a very good politician.

After he goes, the next leader will be the most left wing of the candidates- this is guaranteed by the membership. After everything that's happened, the PLP will just have to get on with it this time.

If JC stays we have a broken party handing the next election to the Tories. Nine years of foreign aid cuts, nine years of welfare budget cuts, cuts in schools, NHS, nine years of privatisation...

Given the unpredictability of the Tory membership, that could even be 9 years of Gove.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
It's 2003 all over again, but with Labour not the Tories. As things stand Labour will lose whatever happens but, with a leader who is not quite as good as Ed Miliband but better than Corbyn they might just hang on as the official opposition. As things stand, if the Leavers fuck off to UKIP, then Labour might be reduced to the position currently held by the SNP, as the third largest party.

As I type the latest ICM poll flickers into vision. 37% for the Tories 30% for Labour. So perhaps I am doom-mongering. Let us hope so. Let's hope that a divided Tory Party who have pretty much forfeited their claim to be a responsible party of government have a 7% lead over the opposition in the mid-term of a parliament. Good work, Jeremy! Good work, Corbynites! Onwards and upwards to being a bit more crap than Michael Howard! Are you thinking what we're thinking?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?
I think Sarah G's post above covered off all of those points.

Personally, I don't blame Corbyn when it rains but I do blame him for being the person who decided the Labour Party was ideologically wrong to possess an umbrella and only needed to believe strongly enough in Hawaiian shirts for the sun to shine.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?
Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
If the earth were ever threatened by alien invasion, some Labour MPs would write really cutting resignation letters.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?
Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
I'm not a Blairite and if you think that the Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 172 Blairites and 40 True Believers then I have this really cool bridge, going dead cheap.

I presume the correct position on these matters then is that none of the Labour Party's problems are the fault of Mr Corbyn and all can be laid at the feet of the Blairites and the right-wing media. Oh, and Portland Communications. Let us not forget Portland Communications.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?
Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
I'm not a Blairite and if you think that the Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 172 Blairites and 40 True Believers then I have this really cool bridge, going dead cheap.

I presume the correct position on these matters then is that none of the Labour Party's problems are the fault of Mr Corbyn and all can be laid at the feet of the Blairites and the right-wing media. Oh, and Portland Communications. Let us not forget Portland Communications.
I think that that would be another false dichotomy, wouldn't it? I accept that these are fun, but maybe there is another way forward.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Whether or no the current travails of the Labour Party can be laid at the door of Mr Corbyn is only of interest to those who think he gives a damn about the party as a whole rather than just the particular wing where he seems to find most comfort.

During the period of labour government 1997 to 2010 Mr Corbyn rebelled against the party whip 438 times, holding the record as the most rebellious MP in Parliament; he lost that record between 2010 and 2015 to John McDonnell (JC was second).

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Mr Corbyn that disloyalty can be infectious (and cut both ways): having been serially against party unity, it seems a tad hypocritical for him and his supporters to now be crying foul at those with whom he disagrees.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down.
Anyone who thinks Corbyn is going to resign has completely failed to understand him. Corbyn has been a Labour MP for over 30 years, dating back to the days in opposition to Thatcher. He is OLD Labour. He holds the old-fashioned view that having a public office means he is a public servant. He has been elected Labour Leader by his party. Therefore he believes he has a DUTY to serve in that role.

He will accept a challenge to his leadership which follows the constitution of the party, but he will only resign if he becomes personally unable to do the job, for example due to illness. The party membership has elected him to lead the party. Therefore he will lead the party to the best of his ability until either another leader is elected or he drops down dead.

This is where Corbyn differs completely from Cameron, who led his country and his party into a mess and then threw in the towel (conduct which would have got him court-martialled if he were an army officer).
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
He has been elected Labour Leader by his party. Therefore he believes he has a DUTY to serve in that role.

He will accept a challenge to his leadership which follows the constitution of the party, but he will only resign if he becomes personally unable to do the job, for example due to illness. The party membership has elected him to lead the party. Therefore he will lead the party to the best of his ability until either another leader is elected or he drops down dead.
I buy that line of argument but only if he's never called on any other Labour leader to resign (for whom the same reasoning would presumably have held good). Has he?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
He has been elected Labour Leader by his party. Therefore he believes he has a DUTY to serve in that role.

He will accept a challenge to his leadership which follows the constitution of the party, but he will only resign if he becomes personally unable to do the job, for example due to illness. The party membership has elected him to lead the party. Therefore he will lead the party to the best of his ability until either another leader is elected or he drops down dead.
I buy that line of argument but only if he's never called on any other Labour leader to resign (for whom the same reasoning would presumably have held good). Has he?
Not sure the same reasoning would hold, because Corbyn's thinking if correctly described above would allow for him to be challenged and defeated.

However, Corbyn does have form for challenging leaders who are popular with the rest of the party but don't suit him. See for example his support of Tony Benn's almost entirely pointless challenge on Kinnock's leadership in 1988.

I say pointless, but it did achieve something - namely Labour having to completely turn inwards and fight each other for about six months of that year.

Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whether or no the current travails of the Labour Party can be laid at the door of Mr Corbyn is only of interest to those who think he gives a damn about the party as a whole rather than just the particular wing where he seems to find most comfort.

During the period of labour government 1997 to 2010 Mr Corbyn rebelled against the party whip 438 times, holding the record as the most rebellious MP in Parliament; he lost that record between 2010 and 2015 to John McDonnell (JC was second).

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Mr Corbyn that disloyalty can be infectious (and cut both ways): having been serially against party unity, it seems a tad hypocritical for him and his supporters to now be crying foul at those with whom he disagrees.
You're talking about a period when the Labour party abandoned its principles. Corbyn and McDonnell were among the few who stuck with them. Look at the topics of those rebellions and tell me which they were wrong about: the invasion of Iraq? Top-up fees (breaking a manifesto pledge I might add)? Academies? Foundation hospitals?

Besides, there is a massive difference between exercising one's conscience on a particular vote (as Corbyn has gladly tolerated e.g. on Syria) and secretly briefing the press to undermine the party leader and, in the case of one resigning shadow minister, deliberately sabotaging the party's strategy for a bill going through parliament by deleting work stored on a shared drive.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).
Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Yes, he supported Tony Benn's leadership bid in 1988.

Anyway, the analogy doesn't work. Military officers are not elected. Politics is not a suicide mission. If you lose the confidence of the Parliamentary Party in a Parliamentary Democracy your position is not, really, sustainable. There are limited exceptions to this rule, such as UKIP but neither apply to the Government or the Opposition of the day. In my lifetime this has happened to Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Iain Duncan Smith and Tony Blair. It effectively also happened to Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, John Major, William Hague, Michael Howard, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, all of whom lost General Elections and would almost certainly have forfeited the confidence of their Parliamentary Parties had they turned up for work the next morning and announced: "bit of a shocker about the result there lads, never mind, eh, some you win, some you lose". The resulting altercation, I think, would have seen a vacancy in the party leadership in fairly short order. The mandate of the party is not the mandate from heaven. It is a mandate to do the job of the Leader of the Opposition. If you can't do the job the decent thing is to knock it on the head and let someone who can do better take over.

[x-posted, obvs.]

[ 05. July 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).
Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
Yeah, it's a shame that didn't work out. The obvious conclusion, with hindsight, is that after being roundly thumped by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987 and Mr Major getting comfortably over the finishing line in 1992 despite the obvious de-merits of the Tories having introduced the Poll Tax is that what the British public were really calling for was a sentimental quasi-Marxist aristocrat leading a party somewhere to the left of Mr Michael Foot.

There was a case for getting rid of Neil Kinnock in 1988 but, alas, Denis Healey didn't want the job.

[ 05. July 2016, 13:08: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?
Apparently, at one point, when John Smith was in charge, the rules were changed, and it was suggested that there ought to be an explicit provision that said that if a Party Leader lost the confidence of the Parliamentary Party he had to go. Apparently Smith, who had clearly had a long day at the office and wanted to bugger off home, thought it unnecessary to put in an explicit provision to that effect and, so, technically, it is entirely possible to be Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party despite a no confidence vote from one's MPs.

The only way round it is a formal leadership challenge which the MPs are keen to avoid because there has recently been an influx into the party of enthusiastic young people who think that the best way to convince the British people of the merits of a Labour government is to elect a revolutionary socialist with a dodgy backstory. This is currently going as well as you might expect it to.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

The only way round it is a formal leadership challenge which the MPs are keen to avoid because there has recently been an influx into the party of enthusiastic young people who think that the best way to convince the British people of the merits of a Labour government is to elect a revolutionary socialist with a dodgy backstory. This is currently going as well as you might expect it to.
I tend to disagree - a lot of the ostensibly pro-corbyn/momentum camp aren't as tied to him as an individual so much as they are tied to a particular way in which the party should be run - at least part of what attracted them to join to start with was the thought that they could have an impact.

Similarly, there seems to be an absolute paucity of alternative candidates emerging from the MPs themselves. The synchronized resignations were clearly planned in advance - but for whatever reason any leadership challengers don't seem to fancy their chances at the moment.

I mean, if they were principled they could stand and make a reasoned set of arguments to the membership.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Both Labour and Tories seem to have completely and utterly lost it post-referendum. The Tories, though, will probably get it together in a few weeks, elect a sensible leader and get on with winning the next general election by whatever means necessary. Labour's travails could well drag on for years, and keep them out of power for decades, if not forever. It's difficult to see how they can avoid a split if Corbyn doesn't step down.

I'm no fan of Norman Tebbit, but he once described Labour as "comrades united in fraternal detestation of each other's guts," which seems very apt at the moment.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?
They simply have to come up with a credible opponent and get them 50 nominations from MPs and MEPs. The fact that they keep threatening to do it and haven't yet indicates that they're well aware that the potential candidates are no more credible than the ones they tried to push last year.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Trouble is it isn't likely to matter how 'credible' or otherwise anyone is: Momentum haven't been idle since last year's leadership election and have converted many of the £3 "supporters" to full members of the party, so any supposedly credible candidate, however well-backed by MPs, is likely to face a drubbing if Mr Corbyn stands to retain the leadership.

To quote their own website "Momentum is the successor of the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign but it is independent, but supportive of, the Labour Party and Labour leadership.".

In true hard-left-but-Labour tradition, the frontman for Momentum, James Schneider has all the correct working-class credentials in place, having been a pupil at The Dragon in Oxford before going to Winchester (also the alma mater of Seumas Milne, JC's press man), then on to Trinity College Oxford.

Don't expect Momentum to go along with any proposal that leads to JC stepping down from the leadership any time soon: as and when (if?) they do it will be because they're sure they can get him re-elected.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
How is momentum institutionally different from progress ?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
FYI

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about-progress/how-progress-is-funded/

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com

[ 05. July 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.
I have heard good things about Paul Flynn. I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

[ 05. July 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How is momentum institutionally different from progress ?
According to its website, Progress is funded by Labour Party members. Can the same be said for Momentum?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.

Momentum encourages people to join the Labour Party, so I would have thought most folk in it are in the party, for one thing, you can't actually vote unless you are a member and it was originally the campaign to get Corbyn elected.

Conversely, I am a full member of the Labour Party,and have been for most of my adult life, I have also been out leafleting with momentum - but I am not a member of momentum. I suspect it cuts both ways.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.
Peter Mandelson probably found it behind his sofa.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.
On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

Don't get me wrong. I think Dennis is very good value on the back benches. I also thought his moving tribute to Tony Benn was one of the best back bench speeches in recent years.

But you're talking about a different level of competence in handling PMQs. Jeremy Coorbyn was right to talk about, and exemplify, the need for a more considered, serious style. Dennis would be good entertainment value on the level of confrontational knockabout, would probably land some hefty rhetorical blows. But that's not what Jeremy wants. He'd see it as a backward step.

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

Technically it's Progress that broke the law, as they should have returned the improper donations, rather than Sainsbury (though Sainsbury should have known better too).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.
On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

Don't get me wrong. I think Dennis is very good value on the back benches. I also thought his moving tribute to Tony Benn was one of the best back bench speeches in recent years.

But you're talking about a different level of competence in handling PMQs. Jeremy Coorbyn was right to talk about, and exemplify, the need for a more considered, serious style. Dennis would be good entertainment value on the level of confrontational knockabout, would probably land some hefty rhetorical blows. But that's not what Jeremy wants. He'd see it as a backward step.

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.
Ah, you're probably right, and that's probably why Corbyn hasn't done it. Would be fun to watch though.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

Technically it's Progress that broke the law, as they should have returned the improper donations, rather than Sainsbury (though Sainsbury should have known better too).
OK. That's good call.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.
I'm just going to put this here now.

I think that when the Chilcott report comes out it will be nothing like as damaging in its condemnation of Tony Blair as people assume and I predict that the word "whitewash" will be used with some frequency when the contents are known.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down. Personally, I think he shouldn't have stood, shouldn't have been nominated, shouldn't have been elected and has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Labour Party but on a personal level, I imagine the last week has been utter hell for him.
1/2 - so you were surprised.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
One out of three, actually, Martin.

I thought Chilcot would be damaging to Blair, but I didn't think that it would be so damaging that people wouldn't mind that some of the worst allegations that are made against Blair weren't backed up by the report. I'm more surprised by that than I am by Corbyn remaining in office.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Indeed Callan. Your correcting my 1/2 with a humbler 1/3 is win-win, which makes 3/5. My only blustering excuse was that I was responding to your prophecy on Corbyn, the subject of the thread.

Blair is acknowledging that the intel should have been challenged, but by whom? It's NOT the PM's job to question his experts' expertise. I doubt he ever heard of Curveball. Surely he is completely vindicated? He was let down by MI6, whoever planned the smooth transformation of the Iraq dictatorship to a plural open democratic society after destroying all its institutions and the Army. Surely? For another extant thread maybe.

As for Jeremy, he continues to represent me perfectly.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
And the answer to the question in the title of this thread appears to be "No".
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed Callan. Your correcting my 1/2 with a humbler 1/3 is win-win, which makes 3/5. My only blustering excuse was that I was responding to your prophecy on Corbyn, the subject of the thread.

Blair is acknowledging that the intel should have been challenged, but by whom? It's NOT the PM's job to question his experts' expertise. I doubt he ever heard of Curveball. Surely he is completely vindicated? He was let down by MI6, whoever planned the smooth transformation of the Iraq dictatorship to a plural open democratic society after destroying all its institutions and the Army. Surely? For another extant thread maybe.

As for Jeremy, he continues to represent me perfectly.
If it isn't the PM's job to challenge advice presented to him who should do so? Chilcot has been as damning of MI6 as it has of Blair and my view is that it isn't Blair or MI6 that is responsible for the fiasco that was Gulf II but all of them. Collective responsibility. Cabinet responsibility even. Every damned MP that voted and supported the 2003 invasion must take some of the responsibility, although not to the extent that Blair, his cabinet and the heads of MI6 are.

Of all the involved parties only the Joint Chiefs of Staff come out with any credit: they told Blair that the military resources couldn't be got together in the quantity and to the timescale demanded but they weren't listened to.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I certainly think that it is the job of the PM to challenge intelligence put to him. Spooks are not infallible. It's not the job of the military and the intelligence agencies to put together a case for their preferred course of action and for the PM to nod it through. And I don't think, in this instance, it was the case. Blair wasn't a passive recipient of intelligence.

That said, we are where we are. Whilst I would like a government of National Unity led by Kenneth Clarke, Robin Cook and Charles Kennedy, I fear that death and time has rather ruled that out. I think that it would be better for the country if Prime Minister May was facing Leader of the Opposition Eagle across the dispatch box, rather than Prime Minister Ledsom against Leader of the Opposition Corbyn.

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
While strictly true, you've missed out the bit where the British government lies to the people, so that the people think they're voting for Utopia, instead of Hell on Earth.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
While strictly true, you've missed out the bit where the British government lies to the people, so that the people think they're voting for Utopia, instead of Hell on Earth.
That does happen. But it happens because the electorate don't pay attention. The two biggest fuck ups of my adult life were Iraq and Brexit. The people supported both of them. It's said that if you want to con somebody your ideal mark is someone dishonest. Someone who will be taken in by your promises of something for nothing. Seems to me that whilst a great deal of the blame rests on the Real Hustle, we can't, completely, exonerate the marks.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think a partisan media also has questions to answer.

Have you seen the Sun front page from the time, with Charles Kennedy and a snake on ?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think we can all agree that the Sun is totally despicable.

I could have respected them if they had followed Blair's example and defiantly said they stood by what they said at the time. But to vilify Blair's enemies in 2003 and then to vilify Blair in 2016 was contemptible. Beyond, obviously, the position they took in 2003 was contemptible anyway.

I will add, however, that people read the Sun voluntarily and if they believe it they have some responsibility for their opinions. The data that points to the conclusion that everybody responsible for The Sun are a bunch of - insert expletives here now - is out there. If people read it and take it seriously the responsibility for their epic - further epithets as required - is as much on them as it is on The Sun.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I agree with you.

* Is knocked over by a passing feather *

[ 07. July 2016, 20:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I'm as surprised as you are.

Still, to return to the subject of the thread, it clearly demonstrates that those of us who do not sign up to the Jeremy Corbyn bill of goods are not necessarily Red Tories and Blairites.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
And those of us who do, are not necessarily closet communists.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
I'd add that once the war started many of those who supported the war were actually doing so to support our armed forces, who were once again sent abroad to do the unpleasant, dangerous and dirty work.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Fascinating. Approval ratings keep bouncing back until May 2004.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

Plenty of variation with different methodologies and questions. Nothing clear about it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Still, to return to the subject of the thread, it clearly demonstrates that those of us who do not sign up to the Jeremy Corbyn bill of goods are not necessarily Red Tories and Blairites.
OTOH, not everyone who isn't a Red Tory or Blairite is necessarily signing up to Jeremy Corbyn in totality. I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I could have respected them if they had followed Blair's example and defiantly said they stood by what they said at the time. But to vilify Blair's enemies in 2003 and then to vilify Blair in 2016 was contemptible.
Then there's a certain symmetry with the West's vilification of Iraq's enemies throughout the Iran/Iraq war to the point of turning a blind eye to chemical weapon use (albeit not such a blind eye via satellite pictures to identify Iranian targets that were passed to the Baathists) and then subsequent vilification of Saddam in 2003 on the basis that he might have weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

Plenty of variation with different methodologies and questions. Nothing clear about it.
Judging by your second link there was a clear swing to war in the run up to the invasion, but the data is sufficiently ambiguous that I must concede the point.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.
I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.
Not quite; any of the MPs could launch a leadership challenge if they had sufficient support from their fellow MPs. Their names would be put on the ballot along with Corbyn's (as current leader) and it would be put to the vote of the entire party.

That's what they are trying to avoid, as they fear they'd lose. What they want him to do is resign first, so that his name wouldn't be on the ballot.

There is some irony that the main carping about Corbyn's electability comes from a bunch of people who don't think they could get elected ahead of him.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Yes, that's what I find so bizarre.

People are going on and on about how hopeless he is as a leader, yet no one will mount a leadership challenge against him. But if he was as bad as all that then any of the alternatives would beat him easily, wouldn't they?!

You'd also think that the individuals hoping to replace him would put themselves out there a bit more, and try to present a warm, conciliatory face to the party members, rather than just baying for blood. After all, they presumably want to keep hold of the members who joined because of Corbyn rather than driving them away. Or maybe they don't?

It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.
Quite right. Hence the very emphatic backlashes against the treatment of Michael Foot, John Major, and Ed Miliband, who all went on to win conclusive election victories in 1983, 1997 and 2015. The penchant for electorates in choosing likeable Eddie the Eagle figures whose haplessness and good heart make up for any actual discernible talent for the job of Prime Minister is notorious and has stymied the careers of more conventionally able political figures like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron.

If you think the Parliamentary Labour Party are unsympathetic, wait until Corbyn gets to put his credentials to the electorate. Let's just say that The Strange Death Of Liberal England is supposed to be an awful warning, not an instruction manual.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm not saying the man would be an excellent PM, or even win an election, but this public hounding for days on end strikes me as totally counter-productive. It's bad PR.

What they should be doing is promoting the people they want to replace him. Tell the members, and the rest of us, why Ms Eagle, Mr Ummuna, Mr Burnham, or whoever, would be an excellent choice. At the moment, we don't have a clue. It's almost as if they think a donkey in a suit and tie would be a better party leader than Mr Corbyn - in which case, we might as well just stick with the Tories!!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, Angela Eagle is now officially up for it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

If you think the Parliamentary Labour Party are unsympathetic, wait until Corbyn gets to put his credentials to the electorate. Let's just say that The Strange Death Of Liberal England is supposed to be an awful warning, not an instruction manual.
The lesson I took from studying that period of history was that if you cosy up to the tories and make it clear there's no difference between them and you then you will get killed by the electorate who will switch their allegiance to someone genuinely left wing. This is also the lesson of the lib dems in coalition, from the last time the right of the Labour Party threw their toys out the pram.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What they should be doing is promoting the people they want to replace him. Tell the members, and the rest of us, why Ms Eagle, Mr Ummuna, Mr Burnham, or whoever, would be an excellent choice.
I think part of this is because they have decided more generally that they can't win elections on an actual Labour ticket and have therefore got to achieve this via an oblique set of policies with enough dog whistles to dislodge centre-right voters.

.. and the current mess has come about because they have chosen to adopt this approach within the party itself.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.

I don't know if they still are, it's quite possible that everyone has shifted left.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It's being reported that some MPs from both labour and the tories are engaged in early stage talks on breaking away to form a centrist party.

This seems dumb, especially as the lib dems already exist.

Potentially, if more than 12 leave the tories the government loses it's majority.

This seems slightly insane from their perspective, because that would probably trigger a general election - with no history / well understood platform, a third party would probably be wiped at in a snap election.

If they were to defect to the lib dems, there's a party base to support them, but probably huge suspicion - and they might not find themselves selected as candidates by the local constituency parties.

Arguably, standing as independents might make more sense.

[ 10. July 2016, 14:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Ooh look, data:

http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/#coverage
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.
Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:


Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.
That would be most of the pre-June 23rd Conservative Party, and it wouldn't be "centrist" by any means. Any party that puts business ahead of man is right-wing.

[ 10. July 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:


Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.
That would be most of the pre-June 23rd Conservative Party, and it wouldn't be "centrist" by any means. Any party that puts business ahead of man is right-wing.
Doesn't that show that everything has been shifted to the right? Right-wing views are called centrist, and social democracy is called hard left. I suppose Attlee would be called Bolshevik.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.
Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.
I think you mean the Very Real Concerns of Hard-Working Families.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.
Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.
Can't see that one taking off, to be honest. For one thing such a party already exists. It's called the Liberal Democrats. So you get two parties fighting on a more or less identical platform and splitting their vote. Furthermore there are plenty of people in the Labour and Conservative Parties who are reasonably content with their political home and merely wish their party to continue under vaguely competent leadership. And MPs don't, as a rule, defect from parties of government to untried new parties. So my guess is that absolutely no Tories will join the new arrangement. So it would basically be a re-run of the SDP and the same tribal tradition in Labour which says that you cannot win from the far left also says that setting up a new party and forming an electoral pact with the Liberals doesn't work.

To be honest most of the speculation comes from journalists who think, not without considerable justification, that neither Labour nor the Conservatives look remotely like a credible party of government and cannot bring themselves to vote Liberal Democrat. Much as I would like to see a sane party run by grown ups sweep to power at the next election, too much of politics (Jeremy Corbyn can totally win the next election and doesn't need the support of his MPs! If we leave the EU we can totally have the moon on a stick!) is essentially based on wishful thinking. I don't think adding more wishful thinking is much of a contribution.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't think anyone's claiming that Corbyn doesn't need the support of MPs, it's just that we disagree about how to deal with the fact that he currently doesn't. The PLP think the solution is that they get to pick the leader and screw what the members think. A lot of members think that if the MPs aren't prepared to stand with their elected leader then it might be time to consider replacing them with ones who will.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Or that the MPs realise that throwing a tantrum is unhelpful, and work with him.

If he truly is operating poorly, they need to put that argument to the members, we don't like his press officer is not enough. There is currently no meaningful explanation of the problem, or attempts to solve it.

For example:

Problem: 'we find it difficult to get to talk with him
Solution: ok he will commit to a minimum of x 1-on-1 meeting per y weeks per shadow minister, z meetings per back bencher and a parliamentary drop office hours 2-4 Monday's.
Or whatever.

Problem: we're worried about how he balances his time between parliament / constituency / party / assorted issue campaigns
Solution: here is a proposed job plan of how this is going to work.

Problem: dispatch box performance not as good as stump speeches and articles
Solutions: some of the MPs who are lawyers/qcs will offer some coaching on cross-examination skills

Problem: we don't think the press team / strategy is good enough
Solution: we will analyse this as a small group (main shad cab ministers) and restructure press team/strategy

I had thought that negotiations would look at this kind of level of detail.

What the allegations of crap leadership actually seem to consist of is a) Europe referendum (dubious claims being made about Corbyn's role) and b) we don't want a left wing policy platform.

The party members effectively voted for a left wing platform. So are not keen to see the leader removed in order to torpedo this.

It is complicated by the fact that the major post-we-just-lost-the-election policy reviews are incomplete - as they were due to report to conference.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think anyone's claiming that Corbyn doesn't need the support of MPs, it's just that we disagree about how to deal with the fact that he currently doesn't. The PLP think the solution is that they get to pick the leader and screw what the members think. A lot of members think that if the MPs aren't prepared to stand with their elected leader then it might be time to consider replacing them with ones who will.
So, basically, what you are saying is that the Labour Party ought to spend the time between now and 2020 getting rid of 172 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party and replacing them with members of Momentum, as opposed, to say, offering some kind of credible opposition to the Conservative government, stopping or mitigating our exit from the EU, or winning the next General Election. Because, the Labour Party consists of people who have a finite amount of time and energy at their disposal and they can either spend it trying to get rid of the majority of their MPs or trying to get rid of the Tories. Apparently, you think the former ought to be the priority. Well, knock yourself out if you feel so moved but don't blame the rest of us for concluding that the Labour Party has ceased to be a serious party of opposition.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think my proposal makes more sense.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.
I'm not sure it will. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, after all, not a junior civil servant, struggling to find his feet in his first job. A successful Leader of the Opposition has to be bloody good at it, which, let's face it, no-one is saying that Corbyn is. So if the PLP back off now, it's likely that they'll be back in a years time. IIRC, Corbyn did say that he was in favour of annual elections of the Labour Leader, when he was running for the gig. I have a horrible feeling that he might just get his wish.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.
To an extent, especially as the alternative appears to be for the person who came fourth in the election for the Deputy Leader
to launch a challenge for Leader

[ 10. July 2016, 20:27: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.
I'm not sure it will. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, after all, not a junior civil servant, struggling to find his feet in his first job. A successful Leader of the Opposition has to be bloody good at it, which, let's face it, no-one is saying that Corbyn is. So if the PLP back off now, it's likely that they'll be back in a years time. IIRC, Corbyn did say that he was in favour of annual elections of the Labour Leader, when he was running for the gig. I have a horrible feeling that he might just get his wish.
I do think that continuous attempts to undermine him are the main problem. Like many people, I don't choose which party I vote for primarily on whether they make heavily laboured jokes at pmqs. The policy platform is important to me and many others.

I have no confidence that plp are actually concerned about his competence, as opposed to his policies. If they had provided any demonstrable evidence of it, I'd be more willing to consider an alternative candidate. Likewise, if they had confidence in their position, they should have been willing to challenge and go to a vote in the defined manner.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
I have no confidence that plp are actually concerned about his competence, as opposed to his policies.
Ah, now I am the sort of person who thinks competence is really important. So I would cut the PLP a huge amount of slack on this issue. I am the sort of person who would rather have someone competent running the country, who I disagreed with than someone who was my ideological twin, but not terribly capable. But, if you were to put your unworthy suspicion to one side, that the PLP, would rather have someone from the Soft Left (which is where most of them are at, btw) or even (boo! hiss!) a Blairite. In the event that someone from the left of the party were to stand against Corbyn, would you really support Corbyn against them on the grounds of competence?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
You misunderstand, I am not convinced they think he is incompetent. I think they disagree with him politically and are creating a narrative to remove him.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You misunderstand, I am not convinced they think he is incompetent. I think they disagree with him politically and are creating a narrative to remove him.
I do think that the team around him are quite incompetent - and often get basic mechanics wrong. I'm not always sure that that is the reason the PLP have been getting at him.

I do think the PLP have been creating a narrative - because it is something that started on day one, even before they had had a chance to see how he might act - there were the pre-emptive playground level threats to start with "I've heard he's going to do X, and when he does X you can bet that I for one will not stand for it!" and the constant rumours. Most recently some MPs claiming that they had heard third hand that Corbyn voted Leave - which surely ranks with "some bloke down the pub, told me".

I don't have a particular problem with people running against him - what I do have a problem with is the constant attempt at finessing things - Eagle seems to be claiming that she should run unopposed or that she'll only run unopposed, depending on which interview you listen to.

BTW, the actual policy proposals aren't particularly 'from the left of Labour' - most of them are lie in the historical center of Labour ideology, the sort of proposals that someone like Roy Hattersley might have put forward.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.

Corbyn did not lose the referendum for Remain, he got the labour vote out. Beyond that I have seen little specific raised. If you chase down the source of claim half the labour voters didn't know labour were campaigning for remain - it comes down to a memo about three focus groups four weeks before the end of the campaign.

I voted remain, but I think we have to accept that the majority of those that chose to vote didn't agree with us. It is not necessarily because we didn't shout loud enough.

[ 10. July 2016, 21:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As I said anadromously Callan, to which you mocked, Jeremy is thriving:

“I am not weary or bowed in anyway. I recognise the job we have to do, the work we have to do.

“I was elected nine months ago to lead this party. I’m very proud to do so and I’m going to carry on doing it.

“It was an honour to speak here last year during the leadership contest. It’s a massive honour to speak here today as Labour leader.

“And it will be an even bigger honour to speak here as a Labour prime minister

Jeremy Corbyn, Durham Miners' Gala, 9/7/16
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.
Well, those 172 MPs know better than the rest of us how they have been led, in practice, by Jeremy.

And there is this article from Neil Coyle, one of the 36 MP's who nominated Jeremy, and the late Jo Cox.

There are specific criticisms in that article.

The late Jo Cox again. Here is a telling quote.

quote:
“Jeremy needs to accept that we are trying to be critical friends. We need a really inclusive message that reaches out beyond the Labour Party’s base. Some of the people around him are very good at talking to the movement that helped propel Jeremy to power in the party – a really important constituency who are passionate, principled and excited. They cannot be blind to the fact that that is not enough of a constituency or coalition to get us into power.”

 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.

If you did see any such evidence would you change your position? Not a wind up - genuinely interested in whether Corbyn staying leader is a point of principle or what you think is pragmatically right.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm MORE than happy with a leader of principle forever in opposition. A true prophet. Like Old King Log Claudius, he has made ALL the poison visible. Eagle I respect. But Benn?!

I cannot imagine a Labour Party that can win a majority in parliament uniting the PLP and the members and enough of the marginal working-lower middle class electorate.

Not without a HUGE rent to buy building program.

I will vote for Jeremy until he loses or retires (far more likely) and then vote for Andy Burnham with that policy. The dream candidate would be Sadiq Khan, again with that policy.

In the mean time it's May with her Trident ...
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm MORE than happy with a leader of principle forever in opposition. A true prophet. Like Old King Log Claudius, he has made ALL the poison visible.
Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Apparently, Labour's press office has sent out two releases, six minutes apart, demanding a snap General Election and announcing that the Labour Party is going to have a Leadership Contest.

Never mind trying to run the country. Let's start with organising a piss up in a brewery and when we have mastered that move on the more ambitious projects.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Theresa May has been talking today about giving shareholders some degree of control over executive pay, about communities and workers being affected by company takeovers (not sure how she thinks they can act, but a moral case recognised), she has talked about private v. state school privilege, poor v. rich life expectancy, black v. white experience of justice system, male v. female pay and so on.

May is, I suppose, soft centre Consevative, and she is campaigning, not making laws this morning, but she is talking about change, and about addressing injustice.

And I'm thinking, if we can't have JC (that's Jezza, not Yeshua), let's have May. She sounds nearer to him than anyone in the PLP. They all wanted to vote for Osborne's welfare cuts: that's what got JC the vote in my opinion.

I dare say one or two Labour pros could come up with some proposals that might be to the left of May, but they don't, and they haven't done for years. Apart from the odd rogue Lib Dem (all out of politics now) there has been no alternative to a pro-business, pro-city, militarist, nationalist programme from Labour or anyone else for a decade. Even Cameron turned out to be a whisker to the left of Blair.

Corbyn seems to have been terrible at articulating his vision too, and weak at incorporating others in his programme, though the media coverage has been so skewed it's had to be sure what he really has been doing.

The rest of the PLP just seem not to get it, not to understand that it might be good to criticise the status quo now and again, and even better to express an alternative model of how we might function. Perhaps they are suffering from one sided reporting, too. I doubt it.

Left wing prophets without any power do move the debate, witness May this morning. In power, even more so.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Well said hatless, I hope May does live up to her promises, it's the way forward.

I'm sure there's a collective sigh of relief, even amongst us lefties [Smile]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm MORE than happy with a leader of principle forever in opposition. A true prophet. Like Old King Log Claudius, he has made ALL the poison visible.
Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

What would be the point of helping Labour to win if it means they keep moving to the right and end up not changing anything you want changed?

[ 11. July 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
This has always been Labour's dilemma. But Thatcher lite was the LAST thing we needed in 1997, as history has proved.

So sad the Lib Dems sold their souls, now would have been their hour, for sure.

[Frown]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
I think we could go round in circles like this for ever.

Look at it this way. I'm only likely to vote for a party who's policy's I agree with. I'm pretty confidant that that's not much of a radical position to take.

Why would I want to elect a party who's policy's I don't agree with?

[ 11. July 2016, 14:23: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
"What would be the point of helping Labour to win if it means they keep moving to the right and end up not changing anything you want changed?"
Well said.

"Why would I want to elect a party who's policy's I don't agree with?"

The only good reason might be if their policies are less repugnant to you than the alternative party to which you want to deny power.
.

[ 11. July 2016, 14:38: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Why would I want to elect a party who's policy's I don't agree with?
Because, unless you are Kim Jong-Il, the prospect of any party running solely on a platform of policies that you find personally acceptable is a bit slim.

In a democracy, that's a feature not a bug.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
They aren't moving to the far left, the current set of policies are generally fairly centrist as far as historical Labour are concerned.

As Boogie points out above, the set of policies they adopted in after 1997 are to a large extent responsible for the malaise in which they find themselves now. So there are occasions where voting for something in order to prevent something worse may work in the near term, but not so much in the longer term.

[ 11. July 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I'm curious what this 'far left' means? Is Corbyn threatening to abolish the monarchy, bring in 100% inheritance tax, or get rid of private schools?
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

What would be the point of helping Labour to win if it means they keep moving to the right and end up not changing anything you want changed?
Your argument seems to be "if Labour is to win it will move to the right therefore it's better for it not to win and not move to the right." Extrapolating from what others have said, the purpose of the Labour party is then to be the principled opposition or the voice of conscience and to pull the debate to the left while not winning power. Ultimately this will result in UK political debate as a whole moving leftwards to a point where the Labour party will become electable. Is that accurate?
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

What would be the point of helping Labour to win if it means they keep moving to the right and end up not changing anything you want changed?
Your argument seems to be "if Labour is to win it will move to the right therefore it's better for it not to win and not move to the right." Extrapolating from what others have said, the purpose of the Labour party is then to be the principled opposition or the voice of conscience and to pull the debate to the left while not winning power. Ultimately this will result in UK political debate as a whole moving leftwards to a point where the Labour party will become electable. Is that accurate?
That's a very hopeful assessment. But I can't claim to have quite so complicated a motive. It really is a simple case of not wanting to vote for an increasingly right wing party.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Hatless:

quote:
And I'm thinking, if we can't have JC (that's Jezza, not Yeshua), let's have May. She sounds nearer to him than anyone in the PLP. They all wanted to vote for Osborne's welfare cuts: that's what got JC the vote in my opinion.
The didn't vote for Osborne's welfare cuts. They abstained on the first reading with the intention of voting against on the third reading. It was an entirely pointless tactical move and a classic example of an occasion when the overused term 'Westminster bubble' is entirely justified. It was one of those things that was so unutterably silly that only someone very clever would have thought of it but, there you go. No-one, I imagine, is seriously claiming that the PLP are incapable of playing silly buggers.

However, whilst we are on the subject of silly buggers, you do realise, I suppose, that claiming that Teresa May and, by extension, the Parliamentary Conservative Party, (most of whom voted for her) and, presumably, the media outlets who supported her candidacy, such as those well known bastions of left-wing radical thought, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and Conservative Home are, actually, to the left of the PLP is not really a good look. According to you the political spectrum can be mapped as follows with the lowest number representing "left-wing" and the highest number representing "right-wing"

1. Communists
2. Jeremy Corbyn
3. John McDonnell, Seamus and the gang.
4. Teresa May
5. The Parliamentary Conservative Party, The Mail, Torygraph and Conservative Home
6. The Parliamentary Labour Party
7. The Lib Dems
8. UKIP
9. The BNP
10. (For the Ken Livingstone fans on this thread) Hitler.

Political theory isn't my field, so I could be wrong. But I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and say that it's possible that there may be one or two bits of your thesis that need ironing out before we tell the Political Theory departments they need to re-write all their undergraduate textbooks.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think if the labour party membership had not ballooned during Corbyn's leadership campaign and subsequent months - the Tories' response to Brexit would have been to jump right rather than left.

As it is the future prime minister is tacking left. Given that, barring an election they are unlikely to call, they will be in government for the next four years - that is an important gain to our future.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think if the labour party membership had not ballooned during Corbyn's leadership campaign and subsequent months - the Tories' response to Brexit would have been to jump right rather than left.

As it is the future prime minister is tacking left. Given that, barring an election they are unlikely to call, they will be in government for the next four years - that is an important gain to our future.
That's very optimistic. May is apparently tacking left, but she also has to please the Brexit people, maybe with deregulation, immigration controls, etc.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I'm not claiming Theresa May is left wing - but she has managed to sound it today, to sound, in fact, radically so compared to the PLP.

And I know that the PLP is left of the Conservative Party, because I know that it must be, that it used to be, that though they have been taught so well how to avoid the tabloid trip wires they must, deep down, right in their boots perhaps, still believe in those old fashioned things like equality of opportunity, inclusion, fighting against entrenched privilege and the rest. I'm sure they must believe it. Yes, they do, don't they? They believe people matter more than profits, don't they? Of course they do. They'd like education to be excellent and freely offered to all children, wouldn't they? Yes, I'm sure I remember them talking about that sort of thing. A society that is compassionate towards those with disabilities and illnesses, that works to overcome social exclusion. Yes, I reckon they would go for that, too. More equal pay? At least, as opposed to more unequal pay? Yes, I think they probably believe in that, too. A confident society that isn't rattled by a few refugees, but enjoys exercising its generosity and strength. Yes, that's what they stand for, isn't it? And foreign policy based not on the illusion of nuclear security, but on keeping relationships open, committed to increasing dialogue, able to take the odd risk in order to call others to share in a sense of the commonality of this human venture. Yes, that's what the Labour Party stands for. I'm pretty much certain of it. [Help]

The electorate said 'Boo!' and Cameron, Johnson, Gove, Farage, Leadsom and three quarters of the PLP have said 'Ooh err. I don't like the look of this ..'

I'm not impressed by Corbyn, but he appears to have a certain dogged self-consistency. And he's still there.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
They aren't moving to the far left, the current set of policies are generally fairly centrist as far as historical Labour are concerned.
If Mr Corbyn's policies are in fact centrist would that not serve to confirm that the argument is about competence rather than policies???

As a matter of fact I half-agree with you but draw the opposite conclusion. I have said upthread that I would have much more sympathy with Mr Corbyn if he actually had a coherent set of policies that would get us from neoliberalism to the socialist utopia he so eloquently calls for.

As it stands Mr Corbyn is a kind of anti-Cameron. By taking the progressive side on a number of flashpoint issues such as gay marriage, Mr Cameron managed to present himself as a centrist despite being somewhere to the right of Mr Duncan Smith. Conversely Mr Corbyn makes himself look like a hardline leftwing radical by adopting far-left positions on Sinn Féin and Hamas and 'singing' The Red Flag without actually having much in the way of ideas of how to bring about a left-wing state.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think if the labour party membership had not ballooned during Corbyn's leadership campaign and subsequent months - the Tories' response to Brexit would have been to jump right rather than left.
I disagree. Ms May has a majority of 17. UKIP has precisely one seat and any other UKIP/Tory marginals (if there are any) are already held by the Tories. The number of Labour marginals that can be pinched off Labour is far greater.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
What frightens me is that if you stop saying failed asylum seekers are human beings, if you stop saying that children growing up in poverty deserve the very best, if you stop saying that the sick and the dying are worth caring for, if you stop saying that we can treat everybody with humanity and we can overcome those influences that harm society, then we gradually stop believing it, and eventually it stops being true.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Hatless:

quote:
They'd like education to be excellent and freely offered to all children, wouldn't they?
What, really, the PLP now want to repeal Forster's Education Act? Say it ain't so!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.

If you did see any such evidence would you change your position? Not a wind up - genuinely interested in whether Corbyn staying leader is a point of principle or what you think is pragmatically right.
If there were evidence, I would be interested in the opportunity to vote for a candidate espousing a similar political position - what I think would happen is that the plp wouldn't nominate such a candidate. Then you are left voting for the best of the rest.

But, I repeat, brexit is not evidence of Corbyn being incompetent. Beyond that, all they seem to be saying is, because we believe this man is unelectable (based on it is not clear what) we are not prepared to work with him. Therefore, our desire not to work for him makes him a poor leader.

I guarantee you, if Corbyn had stood up in parliament last week and called for workers on company boards or executive pay controls it would have been derided as "hard left socialism". But this has become mainstream.

Now economic stimulus is mainstream.

So on what basis do the plp believe that a left wing policy platform can not be accepted by the public ?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If Mr Corbyn's policies are in fact centrist would that not serve to confirm that the argument is about competence rather than policies???
They aren't centrist in an absolutist sense, they are centrist insofar as policies in the Labour party are concerned (see Hattersley as a reference point). In absolute terms they amount to mild social-democracy.

Why do you assume that he aims at a socialist utopia or necessarily aims to get there in a single leap? Did you also believe the press when they told you that 'Red Ed' was a communist firebrand?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn did not lose the referendum for Remain, he got the labour vote out.
I think that what the MPs who were critical of Corbyn were hoping for is that he'd get some of the Labour vote that had defected to UKIP back. He didn't.

I do think Corbyn's policy positions are largely correct.
And there probably is a small group of Blairites who are so ideologically committed to Blairism that they'd rather lose under a Blairite than win under Corbyn. But I can't find it plausible that all of the MPs who don't have confidence in Corbyn are like that.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
The PLP is not a set of clones, Blairite or otherwise. Amongst the 172 are a large number who agree with most, or indeed all of his policies. They don't think that he stands any chance of delivering them, because he's just not a very good leader.

However no doubt the membership will help him see off the challenge. What next?

The public won't vote for Corbyn as PM, even if the PLP quieten down. They know his own MPs don't rate him as leader. Why should they?

UKIP and the Lib Dems can't believe their luck.

May vs (Corbyn vs PLP). Hmmm.

I can see post-election Labour needing to change the rules on the number of MPs backing leadership candidates, from numerical necessity.

Goodbye Labour party. You stopped the Tories from having unending rule in the 90s. It's a pity you couldn't do it again.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Why do you assume that he aims at a socialist utopia or necessarily aims to get there in a single leap? Did you also believe the press when they told you that 'Red Ed' was a communist firebrand?
I assume he aims at a socialist utopia, at least as an end-point, because he describes himself as a socialist.

I assume that his supporters imagine he will get there by a single leap, or at least by a leap that is far more radical than everyone else's leap, because they talk as though he is our only hope against neoliberalism.

Fundamentally the Labour party is Fabian, that is, socialism is to be achieved by a series of incremental steps. If Mr Corbyn is also a Fabian, then I don't see that Ms Eagle or Mr Miliband or even Mr Blair differ from him in principle, and attempts to draw a distinction between them on principled grounds (Corbyn nice, Blair nasty) are misguided. However, AIUI, within Fabianism the size of the step to be taken at any one time is determined by its feasibility. If Ms Eagle's proposed steps* are more electorally palatable than Mr Corbyn's proposed steps, then that would also imply Ms Eagle's steps are more feasible, and the correct Fabian behaviour is to vote for Ms Eagle.


* For the record let me acknowledge that I've no idea what Ms Eagle's proposed steps are either.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Corbyn nice, Blair nasty)
(Corbyn consistently against ill-advised rush to war, Blair very keen to the point of utter recklessness to go to war)

Actually, not so misguided after all.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Yeah, I opened myself up to that one.

In the context of this thread, though, posters are (AIUI) using Blairism to describe what they see as an excessive compromise with neoliberalism. My point is that any attempt to introduce socialism by incremental steps will entail a compromise with neoliberalism.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Corbyn nice, Blair nasty)
(Corbyn consistently against ill-advised rush to war, Blair very keen to the point of utter recklessness to go to war)

Actually, not so misguided after all.
Blair, brought peace to Northern Ireland Corbyn, opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement and supported IRA when they were murdering civilians and British soldiers. So, who is nice and who is nasty in this context.

And at least Blair's lapse of judgment occurred when a US President was engaged on a foolhardy course of action against a genocidal tyrant who was a repeated violated of international law. Like the young man torn between joining the Resistance and looking after his aged mother in Sartre's parable, whatever he did would have been wrong. I'm not sure quite what the analogous justification was for Jeremy Corbyn deciding to support the 'armed struggle' of Messrs Kneecap O'Goon and Seamus McSemtex in this context.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/on-the-process-of-political-smearing/

Cos your presentation is not biased in any way [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/on-the-process-of-political-smearing/

Cos your presentation is not biased in any way [Roll Eyes]
There is no such thing as an unbiased presentation in these matters. Still, it is a matter of fact that Jeremy Corbyn opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is also a matter of fact that he invited Sinn Fein to address a meeting at the House of Commons, shortly after they had attempted to blow up the British cabinet and your own link demonstrates that he was unable to say that he condemned the IRA bombing campaign without engaging in his usual disingenuous "All Lives Matter" rhetoric. The whole "Jeremy supported the peace process before it was fashionable" line is a load of betty swollocks, frankly. Jeremy supported the IRA when he thought that they were going to win and then spun it as support for the peace process, when it was clear that they had lost and were going to the British government to negotiate their surrender. Given the horrors of the Troubles we can live with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness living on comfortable sinecures, as a price to be paid for children growing up without the risk of being blown up by some Semtex happy nationalist. I see no reason to consider Mr Corbyn's continuation as Leader of the Opposition in quite the same light.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well, quite. Callan, I think your position on Corbyn's past activities needs a little recalibrating.

Blair did a great number of good things, but helping instigate a war (admittedly against a terrible human being) using deliberately underhand tactics to convince both parliament and public, and in which over 150,000 Iraqi civilians subsequently died, and set the dominoes falling for the rest of the Middle East, rather overshadows everything else.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
..
The public won't vote for Corbyn as PM, even if the PLP quieten down. They know his own MPs don't rate him as leader. Why should they?

...
The assumption that the public will follow the lead of the Labour MP's in not voting for Corbyn is based on what? Polls?


I'm curious because more then one election campaign around the world has seen switches in public favour that the political chattering classes did not anticipate.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
To a certain extent the plp are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy - spending weeks yelling our leader is crap is not going to inspire confidence on the part of the general public.

A more subtle, and more effective approach - were he actually self-evidently crap - would be to launch a leadership challenge backing another left winger (who is convinced to do it cos they have noticed he's crap) - and then go full on for policy detail and head to head debates (as that tends to be what they say he's crap at).

If your guy is better, he should win. And if he loses, you haven't spent months telling the public that your leader is crap.

(Which would be one of my issues with Angela Eagle's campaign.)

At the moment they are indulging in a kind of mutually assured destruction. Though notably, Corbyn is not yelling the plp are crap to everyone who will listen. Those around him are suggesting they are disloyal rather than incompetent.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the 'armed struggle' of Messrs Kneecap O'Goon and Seamus McSemtex in this context.
Very entertaining writing for a certain section of the population I'm sure but comes across as a little off to me. You must think me very humourless but it doesn't seem like a great joke for an Englander.

(And by the way it wasn't Satre's choice for Blair. One choice was illegal war with 150k direct deaths and many more indirect deaths, ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis and a general destablization of the Middle-East and Islamic world. The other choice of leaving bad-guy Saddam in charge would have done Blair's legacy as much harm as leaving Assad, Khatami and Kim Jong-il in charge.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So Blair's legacy is sycophantic capitulation to a short-sighted puppet with daddy issues. And genocidal, you say Callan? Yeah, like the toxic twins gave a shit about genocide where there was no oil.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The Labour MPs have lost confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. That's a fact. Not a tactic. I've read the wording of the rules. Viewed in isolation they seem to be very clear that the current leader does not have to be nominated by 20% of MPs and MEPs. So Jeremy Corbyn would almost certainly win a court case if the NEC said otherwise and he appealed the ruling. I don't think the NEC will want this to go to court. That would truly be a grotesque spectacle, putting into the shade any Militant Tendency grotesque spectacles of the past.

But if Jeremy wins this battle he will lose the war. In a representative democracy, the hearts and minds of the elected MPs are not under the control of the elected leader. They are not the delegates of the Labour Party members. He can only govern them with their consent. Which he clearly does not have.

Jeremy Corbyn cannot survive this impasse just because the rule book says he can. If that rule book is in conflict with the principle of representative democracy in the UK then that rule book is wrong. It has been argued that the MPs have acted unconstitutionally in accordance with Labour Party constitutional rules. But they have not done so in accordance with the wider guidelines governing representative democracies.

I wonder who will blink first in this stand-off? As things stand, the parliamentary opposition provided by the second biggest party in the House of Commons is a pathetic joke. And will continue to be so until either Jeremy resigns or the majority of those 172 MPs are replaced by Corbynistas. Who should fall on their sword do you think? The one or the many? It has to be one or the other. Things have gone too far for any other solution.

[ 12. July 2016, 06:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
He didn't lose it, he never had it.

If they want Corbyn to lose and not split the party, they need to let him stand, put another left wing candidate on the ballot and then make a convincing argument.

The challenger would have the advantage of not being bound by the current policy platform.

So for example, if I were running, I would produce a proposed election manifesto + Brexit negotiating position. Running with that level of detail would attract much more support. (I might also include a draft leader's job plan about how I planned to use my time, and engage with other labour MPs.)
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(I might also include a draft leader's job plan about how I planned to use my time, and engage with other labour MPs.)
that in itself is a symbol of quite how much of a mess the party is in. It just shouldn't be necessary to do that, because pretty near every leader in every party ever (in the UK) has been able to assume that their MPs would take that bit on trust.* The way the Labour party is currently operating (and I use the term charitably) is genuinely uncharted water in UK politics.

About the only leader I can think of who survived despite his party wandering off is Labour's Ramsay Mac - and a) he was propped up by Baldwin's Tories, and b) it didn't end well for him.

*It has been said that the best regiments and ships in the British forces are those with the fewest rules, because everyone knows how to behave. If you have to spell out exactly how you're going to run your relationships with other people then you've already lost.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye Doublethink.

Our fact is that.

The PLP could never lose what it, collectively, never had.

Heart.

Soul.

Loyalty.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I wonder who will blink first in this stand-off? As things stand, the parliamentary opposition provided by the second biggest party in the House of Commons is a pathetic joke. And will continue to be so until either Jeremy resigns or the majority of those 172 MPs are replaced by Corbynistas. Who should fall on their sword do you think? The one or the many? It has to be one or the other. Things have gone too far for any other solution.
The party can win with a different group of MPs (you'd probably only need to replace the ringleaders of the chickencoup, a lot of the 172 have no confidence because there's a minority who can't bring themselves to stop undermining the leadership, and that's not a situation that can continue), I'm not sure it can find a different membership and it can't win without the members. What needs to happen is that, when Corbyn wins, the PLP need to take a deep breath, stand in fron of a mirror and recite the words "the commitment and drive that Jeremy Corbyn has shown in these last weeks and months has convinced me that he does in fact have the metal to be Labour leader and Prime Minister. I've been involved in a number of discussions with him and we are now certain we can work together towards the Labour government this country desperately needs" until they can say it convincingly in public, and then they need to get to work for a Labour victory when the next election comes, including helping Corbyn avoid making too many unforced errors. Yes, that means Corbyn getting them to vet speeches for things that people will twist to attack him (assuming they can demonstrate they'll do so without leaking), and helping him refine his tactics at PMQs.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I wonder who will blink first in this stand-off? As things stand, the parliamentary opposition provided by the second biggest party in the House of Commons is a pathetic joke. And will continue to be so until either Jeremy resigns or the majority of those 172 MPs are replaced by Corbynistas. Who should fall on their sword do you think? The one or the many? It has to be one or the other. Things have gone too far for any other solution.
The party can win with a different group of MPs (you'd probably only need to replace the ringleaders of the chickencoup, a lot of the 172 have no confidence because there's a minority who can't bring themselves to stop undermining the leadership, and that's not a situation that can continue), I'm not sure it can find a different membership and it can't win without the members. What needs to happen is that, when Corbyn wins, the PLP need to take a deep breath, stand in fron of a mirror and recite the words "the commitment and drive that Jeremy Corbyn has shown in these last weeks and months has convinced me that he does in fact have the metal to be Labour leader and Prime Minister. I've been involved in a number of discussions with him and we are now certain we can work together towards the Labour government this country desperately needs" until they can say it convincingly in public, and then they need to get to work for a Labour victory when the next election comes, including helping Corbyn avoid making too many unforced errors. Yes, that means Corbyn getting them to vet speeches for things that people will twist to attack him (assuming they can demonstrate they'll do so without leaking), and helping him refine his tactics at PMQs.
I appreciate that you won't agree with me, and I'm not a Labour supporter, but I'm feeling increasingly sorry for the PLP.

At the moment their Spidey Senses (TM) seem to be telling them that your proposal could be paraphrased as standing in front of the mirror and convincing themselves that they're going to be led to oblivion and it's their duty to make the leader feel better about this by following him to it.

Meanwhile, for all the chaos raging round them, the Tories can't believe their luck.* If I was May, I'd actually call a snap election (FTPA notwithstanding) and see what I could do with a majority of 100+...

I'm not sure at the moment anything can save Labour - I certainly can't see a solution where they can both be a credible party *and* have Jeremy in charge.

Political movement or political party looks like their choice.

Time to make it.

*yesterday's polls, *pre* May becoming leader and taken in a febrile atmosphere of post-Brexit chaos in the Tory party, have the Tories on 38, Labour on 30, and the LibDems down in single figures.

You'd have to expect May is going to get some sort of bounce on that - what price 40+ in a week or two?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
A party at war with itself never looks good, and the chickencoupers have only become more open in their warfare in the last 2 weeks. Frankly I think it's a good sign that Labour's holding at 30 given the total mess it's in right now. May will get a bounce while this nonsense continues, but once Eagle is given her marching orders things will settle down and we'll have to start dealing with the fact that the tories have no damn clue what they're doing with regard to Brexit negotiations, no economic plan, and are going to have to face up to either crashing the economy completely, admitting they screwed up and trying to back-out of Brexit, or following all the EU rules and paying the same amount in but not having any MEPs or commissioners or any say at all as members of the EFTA. I think you're underestimating how screwing the entire country will impact on the tories' electoral chances.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Meanwhile, Angela Eagle is forced to cancel an engagement in Luton after the hotel whereat she would have stayed received death threats, a brick id chucked through the window of her constituency office, and her staff have stopped answering the phone due to the level of abuse. But, of course, Mr Corbyn's leadership skills shouldn't be taken to imply leadership of his own supporters.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Meanwhile, Angela Eagle is forced to cancel an engagement in Luton after the hotel whereat she would have stayed received death threats,
Seems to be open season on female Labour MPs this summer. *depressed*
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
From what we know of Theresa May she's pragmatic and deceptively ruthless. For all the public denials of a snap election, she must surely be considering it. The disarray on the opposition benches is too good a chance to pass up.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A party at war with itself never looks good, and the chickencoupers have only become more open in their warfare in the last 2 weeks. Frankly I think it's a good sign that Labour's holding at 30 given the total mess it's in right now. May will get a bounce while this nonsense continues, but once Eagle is given her marching orders things will settle down and we'll have to start dealing with the fact that the tories have no damn clue what they're doing with regard to Brexit negotiations, no economic plan, and are going to have to face up to either crashing the economy completely, admitting they screwed up and trying to back-out of Brexit, or following all the EU rules and paying the same amount in but not having any MEPs or commissioners or any say at all as members of the EFTA. I think you're underestimating how screwing the entire country will impact on the tories' electoral chances.
And what plans does Corbyn have, what plans has he articulated?

What is going on now in he Labour party was inevitable when the rules were amended so that selection of the leader of the PLP was so wide open. The chosen method would be valid for selection of the leader of the party as a whole.

From the start, Corbyn managed to obtain the support of only one more member of the parliamentary than the minimum to gain a place on the ballot paper. Assuming. he has retained those 36 voters and now giving him the support of all but 4 of those who did not declare support for any one candidate before the election, he has, at the most, barely a quarter of the PLP behind him. Sadly, the result in 2020 will be a disastrous loss for Labour and a further 5 years of Tory government.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ray Collins who chaired the review of election rules, made it clear in the WATO today that the intention of the rules was that all candidates (and the sitting leader becomes a potential candidate once there is a challenge) needed to get the threshold PLP support before their name could go forward. He claimed the rule was unambiguous about this (personally I disagree), but observed that there was no intention to take away the traditional and initial PLP role in selection of candidates.

Well, here's a carry on. I have now got no idea which way the NEC will jump. It looks as though Jeremy and his supporters are relying on a legal interpretation of the words, rather than the intention of the reform. That really doesn't look good.

Here is Ray Collins' background. He doesn't sound like the kind of man who would reinvent the past for the sake of the present.

[ 12. July 2016, 12:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Tangent alert. May I interrupt this serious discussion to say that I don't think I have come across the expression 'betty swollocks' for lo! these 40 years.

So thank you, Callan, for reminding me of it.

Tangent over.

M.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Well, here's a carry on. I have now got no idea which way the NEC will jump. It looks as though Jeremy and his supporters are relying on a legal interpretation of the words, rather than the intention of the reform. That really doesn't look good.
Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first and that the PLP is relying on a vague "intention" (which is hard to prove either way at this distance) rather than a legal interpretation which would clarify things for all concerned.

But this is the problem with this whole debate (and I'm not getting at you specifically here, Barnabas - I promse!!): things are said against Corbyn without them being followed up with very much in the way of evidence:
* He's "unelectable"; then when he wins an election (eg the leadership election) or the party does under him (eg the Oldham byelection) the voters are either unreperesentative (how?) or it's nothing to do with him.
* He should've campaigned more in the Euro referendum, been more enthusiastic, got more Labour voters to vote Remain. How? Angela Eagle praised him during the campaign for the amount of campaigning he was doing. What if his campaigning actually upped the Labour Remain vote - we don't know, no one's produced any evidence either way.
* Ricardus' post above about the stupid, idiotic threats against Angela Eagle. How is Corbyn supposed to be personally responsible for the behaviour of every single one of his supporters? No human being can do that. Especially as Corbyn has spoken repeatedly of the need for the party to pull together and to unite.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
(With apologies for the double post...)
And let's be clear: this present crisis is a crisis for which the PLP bears a huge responsibility. They complained about a "lack of effective opposition", yet passed up the chance to be that effective opposition by choosing to start their own leadership crisis when the Tories were entering into one of their own. I'd have thought the thing to do, politically, when your opponenets are in turmoil is to go after them, not to start turmoil of your own. It was a stupid, stupid time to start all of this. And now the Tories have come through their (immediate) crisis and Labour are still in the midst of theirs. Who's going to do better in the polls in the aftermath of all this? Who's going to be setting the agenda? Clue: Not Labour.

Then they had no plan, no idea of what to do next. They had no candidate to put up against Corbyn, no one they could present as a suitable alternative. Eventually, Angela Eagle announced she might stand, but even then it took the best part of a fortnight for her to finally announce she was actually going to do it. A fortnight when the whole party has been in limbo when they could've have been getting with being this "effective opposition" they claimed they wanted to be.
At least when the Tories get the knives out against their leader, they get on with it quickly and make a clean job of it. The PLP's looked ridiculous and inept.

They've done nothing to address the gap between themselves and the wider membership. They've never once asked why so many ordinary members voted for Corbyn, or even attempted to find a candidate who might address those concerns. They haven't listened or thought or asked "do we need to change? Is it us? Is Corbyn's election pointing to something wrong with us in Parliament"? And their actions in provoking this leadership crisis have only made things worse to the point that a split looks almost inevitable. But apparently, it's Corbyn who's out of touch with ordinary members. Really?

[ 12. July 2016, 13:19: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Great headline from the BBC website: "Eagle tries to carry off Australian boy".

Nothing to do with the Labour Party though.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Well, here's a carry on. I have now got no idea which way the NEC will jump. It looks as though Jeremy and his supporters are relying on a legal interpretation of the words, rather than the intention of the reform. That really doesn't look good.
Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first
He's just made that clear! We're arguing about whether the words made that clear, rather than what the reformers intended. These things need to be resolved within the party, not in the courts. It's perfectly reasonable to ask Ray Collins what he meant. And it's perfectly reasonable for Ray Collins to provide that clarification.

Let's see what the NEC make of this now.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
<snip>

They've done nothing to address the gap between themselves and the wider membership. They've never once asked why so many ordinary members voted for Corbyn, or even attempted to find a candidate who might address those concerns. They haven't listened or thought or asked "do we need to change? Is it us? Is Corbyn's election pointing to something wrong with us in Parliament"? And their actions in provoking this leadership crisis have only made things worse to the point that a split looks almost inevitable. But apparently, it's Corbyn who's out of touch with ordinary members. Really?
I don't recall seeing anything that explained where all the much vaunted "new" "£3" members who flocked to vote for Corbyn lived. Which matters, because if he's rejuvenated the membership in the Welsh valleys or other Labour hearlands of old, it won't make much difference in an election.

If Corbyn has been racking up new Labour supporters in swing seats, then they might well end up winning an election because of that - assuming those people stay engaged.

It's not a question of who's in touch the ordinary Labour party members , it's a question of who's in touch with potential Labour voters .

I can't remember if anybody already linked to this, but Neil Kinnock certainly thinks Corbyn is a bogey man for the latter group.

Kinnock speech to Labour MPs
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Well, here's a carry on. I have now got no idea which way the NEC will jump. It looks as though Jeremy and his supporters are relying on a legal interpretation of the words, rather than the intention of the reform. That really doesn't look good.
Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first
He's just made that clear! We're arguing about whether the words made that clear, rather than what the reformers intended. These things need to be resolved within the party, not in the courts. It's perfectly reasonable to ask Ray Collins what he meant. And it's perfectly reasonable for Ray Collins to provide that clarification.

Let's see what the NEC make of this now.
Apologies: I meant the words weren't clear enough, not what Ray Collins said today...

I wasn't clear enough in my words. The irony... [Hot and Hormonal]
I'll get me coat...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Meanwhile, Angela Eagle is forced to cancel an engagement in Luton after the hotel whereat she would have stayed received death threats, a brick id chucked through the window of her constituency office, and her staff have stopped answering the phone due to the level of abuse. But, of course, Mr Corbyn's leadership skills shouldn't be taken to imply leadership of his own supporters.
Corbyn himself has received death threats and thugs from the right of the party have been attacking his supporters in Brighton:
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d9b4-Labour-right-thugs-threaten-own-side

Suffice to say I don't think you can blame Corbyn for morons attacking his opponents any more than you can blame those same opponents for attacks on him and his supporters.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ray Collins who chaired the review of election rules, made it clear in the WATO today that the intention of the rules was that all candidates (and the sitting leader becomes a potential candidate once there is a challenge) needed to get the threshold PLP support before their name could go forward. He claimed the rule was unambiguous about this (personally I disagree), but observed that there was no intention to take away the traditional and initial PLP role in selection of candidates.

Well, here's a carry on. I have now got no idea which way the NEC will jump. It looks as though Jeremy and his supporters are relying on a legal interpretation of the words, rather than the intention of the reform. That really doesn't look good.

Here is Ray Collins' background. He doesn't sound like the kind of man who would reinvent the past for the sake of the present.
It's amazing how, even without duplicity, past memory can be gradually elided to fit with current beliefs. My guess is that nobody considered it an issue, because they never conceived of a leader getting elected in the first place who was so at odds with the parliamentary party, and likewise never conceived that the PLP would be so terrified of their leader winning that they'd try to keep them off the ballot. It's an utterly bizarre situation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The reality is that the Labour Leader does not think he can get 51 MP and MEP votes, otherwise why should he bother to declare, in advance, that he will challenge an NEC decision which means he has to get them?

The reality is that this is a car crash which will injure the Labour Party for years.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Suffice to say I don't think you can blame Corbyn for morons attacking his opponents any more than you can blame those same opponents for attacks on him and his supporters.
You're right, the implication in my post does go a bit too far.

However, I do think it's relevant because one of Mr Corbyn's virtues is supposed to be that he has re-energised the grassroots and brought new members into the fold. If those new members contain a percentage of self-righteous hooligans then one might question how far this is a good thing. I do not remember brick-throwing thugs campaigning on behalf of Ms Cooper, Mr Burnham, or Ms Kendall.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
We don't even know if the brick throwing was from a Corbyn supporter, actually. Plus, when you motivate over a quarter million people it's likely that there will be a percentage of all manner of dispositions, particularly is you motivate mostly people who have, thus far, felt disenfranchised by the political process. Besides, we don't know which of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall the thugs in Brighton supported, so don't go making that claim so quickly either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Have a look at Angela Eagle's Facebook page and ask what happened to treating Labour Party members with dignity and respect.

Of course we don't know yet who threw the brick. There are plenty around throwing brickbats.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
don't know if anyone else is following the shenanigans at the NEC meeting on twitter but it's riveting...

that and bleakly hilarious.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hells bells. Michael Crick must be wearing the Potter invisibility cloak.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The reality is that the Labour Leader does not think he can get 51 MP and MEP votes, otherwise why should he bother to declare, in advance, that he will challenge an NEC decision which means he has to get them?
I think it's quite consistent with Corbyn's character, actually. He has principles, and his own sense of what is right and wrong. He has fairly consistently acted in accordance with his principles, even when it seems counter-productive. If Corbyn thinks that it is wrong that an elected leader should be required to produce enough MP's nominations to allow the party membership to vote on his leadership, it is entirely consistent with his historical behaviour that he would stand up for that regardless of whether he thinks it would personally affect him.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's fine. I agree that on the basis of his history you might expect him to behave in accordance with his beliefs.

But in which case why did he not recuse himself from the NEC meeting? That would have been normal in view of the fact that he had an interest in the outcome. Apparently his decision to attend came very late.

And why were attempts made to exclude Jon Ashworth from his role as Shadow Cabinet rep on the NEC? Apparently he received an email or msg in the middle of the night. It took a Shadow Cabinet meeting this morning to stop that attempt.

Source.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
As if the NEC earthquakes weren't enough. See entry timed at 18.41.

What the Hell is going in the Party?

[ 12. July 2016, 17:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I don't think Michael Foot is remotely relevant at this stage, at least not to me.

I am hugely, hugely disappointed, and not a little angry. Only a massively toxic combination of un-harnessed, freewheeling political ambition, coupled with/up against a self-regard that is impenetrable to the demands of a truly exceptional situation, could manage to make this situation about Labour's internal problems when the Tories have fucked up so badly.

The whole PLP should be considering their positions. The depth of fuck-up they have created is absolutely heartbreaking.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And what was wrong with Worzel Foot? And what's the comparison?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Corbyn's on the ballot.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And that is, I guess, for the best. Better than a court case, that's for sure.

Presumably there will be some kind of public statement?

(ETA - just seen it; any other candidate needs to make the threshold of support. Looks like a precedent has been set.)

[ 12. July 2016, 19:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Good.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The Eagle is stranded.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The Eagle is stranded.
Or possibly hoist....
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that is, I guess, for the best. Better than a court case, that's for sure.
Though it leaves the PLP looking a bit silly - their entire plan revolved around stopping Corbyn getting onto the ballot at the NEC.

If they want to make their case based on competence, all their actions since Corbyn was elected scream entirely the opposite.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.

It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.

(Xposted)

[ 12. July 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
chris stiles

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.

Where I think there might be parallels with the Gang of Four is over the influence of Momentum within the constituency parties. For now, I think Angela Eagle will make her case. What will happen in the House in the meantime is anyone's guess. I don't think kiss and make up is on the agenda.

[ 12. July 2016, 20:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.

Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There are legal issues with the plan to remove right to vote from members who joined post 12th January, as the website tells you you will be able to vote.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And what was wrong with Worzel Foot? And what's the comparison?
Lest it be thought that's what I think of Michael Foot, well I did then, as a Cold War armchair warrior, I don't now.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.

Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
I rather think they expected him to do a Cameron, see the writing on the wall. They probably hadn't realised that the new and kinder form of politics would end up reducing the role of MP to obedient cipher. Yes, I think that was where their incompetence lay. The wall had different writing on it.

[ 12. July 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
Maybe not "ego", but they were firmly in the "we know what is best for them" camp. Then again, that is the sign of a politician.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.

It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.

(Xposted)
Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Increasing numbers of like-minded doesn't increase the acceptable range of views. All parties are coalitions of people with similar principles but varying views on policies. Party unity is a pragmatic process, designed to keep these people co-operating under the same umbrella.

Because of electoral boundary changes, the Labour Party needs almost a 10% increase in its vote to get a majority of 1 in the next election. Jeremy argued with the Fabian society that something like that could be achieved by getting more young people to turn out to vote and by winning back those in the trad Labour heartlands who had stopped voting Labour. Here is the Fabian Society analysis of those ideas in August 2015.

Much though it may pain policy purists, Labour's only chance of an election win in the next election is to broaden its appeal. So. basically, it has zero chance in any snap early election and in its current messed-up state it is much more likely to lose a bucketload of seats. Currently, over 40 Labour MPs are sitting on majorities of under 3,500 and the PLP is in danger of losing all of those and a whole lot more.

Them's the political realities; no amount of enthusiasm and purist idealism will change them. The Labour Party is in deep shit.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The Labour Party is in deep shit
Yes at the moment, thanks to the PLP. But if Corbyn defeats the PLP leadership challenge I predict an enormous increase in Labour party membership.

I've never before heard so many different people talking about politics as I have during the last two weeks. People who are uncommitted and normally totally uninterested are really enjoying the drama. And most of them are saying, "Go for it, Jeremy!". This is the most entertaining parliamentary politics we've had in years.

If you're interested in politics and a member of the chattering classes, as most of us here are, you probably think that's wrong. But wrong or right, all these people have a vote. And say what you like about the British, we love an underdog.

At the beginning of this thread I predicted that Corbyn would be hard to get rid of. He ain't gone yet.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It doesn't matter WHAT Labour does for 4-9 YEARS.

J&J will age out and whoever will lead a Labour landslide like Wilson and Blair because it'll be 'time for a change'.

Elections aren't won. They're lost.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.

Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.

In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.

I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.

Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.

And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't think anyone can take back the Scottish seats that Labour held unless the SNP implodes. There's just no reason for a lot of people to vote Labour rather than SNP, particularly with the insipid Dugdale as leader of the Scottish party. Up against Sturgeon and Davidson she doesn't have a chance.

Ultimately I don't think moving left or right is that important when it comes to winning elections, it's about building and selling a convincing narrative of what's wrong and how to fix it. UKIP have attracted some Labour voters by tapping into fears about immigration, even though their economic and social policies would harm working class people far more than any amount of free movement within Europe.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.
There is something to this - after all, presumably the right of the Labour party always knew that Labour itself was a broader church than just their faction. They mostly expected everyone left of them to go along with what they said, with a few semi-public rebellions at best, and continue to campaign and act for the good of the party as a whole. It seems that they don't want to do the same when the boot is on the other foot.

Coming back to the incompetence aspect; if you are trying to get rid of someone, offering two alternatives with little to choose between them would seem to do nothing more than split the anti-* vote.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?

[ 13. July 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
The thing I find most depressing about the PLP's debacle is their failure to learn from past experience. When Ken Livingstone stood in the first election for a London Mayor the official Labour Party was against him. They commenced a series of unsuccessful manoeuvres to exclude Livingstone as a candidate and they put up their own "official" candidate. The result? They pissed off so many of the electorate that people who HATED Ken Livingstone went out and voted for him, he was duly elected and unsurprisingly didn't work well with the official party for the whole of his terms in office. Talk about an own goal.

And here they are, doing exactly the same sort of thing. Morons.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?
Scotland will be gone. The narrative MUST be massive rent to buy housing.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.

Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.

In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.

I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.

Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.

And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.
You're not the only one. I'm a trade unionist and lifelong labour voter, but if mass deselections start, I will be off. To where, I don't know. I never thought I would contemplate voting Tory, but if (big if) Theresa May actually delivers on this "one nation" rhetoric, the unthinkable may be eminently thinkable. I live in a marginal constituency, so this might actually matter.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Simple. The first deselection should trigger The Gang of 172. Corleone Rules baby.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?
That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?

It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.
Is this the point where in Dad's Army Private Walker, on hearing the 11 stage plan for attacking a tank asks the immortal question:

"While we're doing all this, what's the tank going to be doing?"

Firstly, "all" Labour needs to do is beat the Tories in England. OK, you're right, problem essentially solved...

Secondly, it really wouldn't surprise me, given how many of Miliband's clothes May nicked on Monday, if the Tories don't just do a lot of what you're calling for - beginning with industrial strategy.

While parties are off in the wilderness, political reality has a habit of moving on. The Tories have come up with the one candidate for PM who can plausibly tack left in response to what Labour's doing, and has certainly made noises that she intends to do so.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The prospect of a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP was used as an election tactic to make people vote Tory in 2015 (remember those pictures of Salmond with a mini-Miliband in his breast pocket?). It's unclear to me how an election-winning tactic that helped beat Labour can suddenly become an idea to woo voters back to Labour.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?

It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.
But the fundamentals that made the tactic a success (weak Labour leader dependent on a canny Scottish political operator; possibility of government funds diverted from south-west England to Scotland to placate insatiable SNP demands, etc.) would be very much still in place.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have read elsewhere that after the vote confirmed Corbyn will be on the ballot paper, and he and supporters left the NEC meeting, a non-agenda'd item was agreed which limits the electorate so that recent joiners can't vote.

That may be a reasonable thing to agree for all sorts of reasons, but that is not a good way to do it. It's like the sort of thing the far left used to do.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That may not have been entirely as I was given to understand, as a very short version with no details may have been agenda'd. As: Freeze membership date (turned out to be in January) and fix membership fee (£25, which can be exercised by people who joined since January over two days).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That has to be one of the most half-arsed coups in history. It reminds me of the Greek declaration of Enosis in 1974, leading to the Turkish invasion, and the collapse of the Greek junta.

What was particularly dazzling was the timing - just as the Tories were engaged in one of their bouts of blood-letting and massacre. A good time for Labour to be on the attack, pointing out how Cameron's gamble had led to one of the biggest crises since Suez.

But some bright sparks in the plp thought, this is it! Time to mount our coup! This will play well with the voters, surely.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals.
Yes, this is something that needs to be stressed.

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes, then the expected behaviour of the PLP would be to suffer Damascene conversions to the new regime in the style of the Vicar of Bray. But most of them haven't done that. Could it possibly be the case that one or other of those 'if's is incorrect?

It's also very noticeable that for all the talk of a kinder, gentler politics, it's Mr Corbyn's friends who are so quick to throw accusations of bad faith against anyone who disagrees with him. It's a bit bloody difficult to have the open dialogue they claim to crave if anything one side says is instantly dismissed as a smokescreen for a secret fear of socialism.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes
Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.
Exactly! So why try to make windows into men's souls and attribute to them the motives that are least likely to lead to constructive dialogue?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Still not high enough.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ricardus

I think it was a close thing. The PLP did expect Jeremy to throw in the sponge and there were certainly some signs that he was seriously considering doing that. But some of those close to him advised that he should stick it out, despite losing PLP support. That wrong-footed the PLP. which is why they have been flapping around. No Plan B; collectively, they didn't think they needed one.

Kiss and make up still doesn't look very likely to me. I suppose they could all resign the Parliamentary Whip. But no. Apparently the Whips don't support Jeremy.

What a dog's dinner! Or a pig's breakfast.

[ 13. July 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes
Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
Well, I watched Angela Eagle on Newsnight last night, and it was really a policy-free zone. I could not get any sense of what she stands for, except that she doesn't think Corbyn is competent. Rather ironic, since she is part of a really cack-handed coup now going on.

She also abstained on welfare cuts, I'm not sure what that projects into the future. More abstentions?

I suppose in any case, she is a stalking horse, not to say, a loss-leader.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Still not high enough.
However (received yesterday):

The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons.

The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP. The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
Splendid standup.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I really don't buy he got out the youth vote. I think many instinctively felt this was about their future. Corbyn's campaign was pitiful. Very tribal and petty.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
My comments were specifically about accusations of bad faith.

As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
They weren't well coordinated, but they were clearly coordinated and there were clear links between the coup and Portland. The problem was they didn't have a plan for what to do if Corbyn refused to stand down.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Doublethink wrote:
quote:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Thanks for this Doublethink. I had somehow missed that being published. The methodology does look to be more sound. However, pollsters are struggling on all fronts in trying to ensure representative subsampling these days, so I guess an enhanced level of scepticism over all these findings remains in order.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
Splendid standup.
"We are the masters now. Stuff the PLP, they don't matter. Excuse me while I have a little gloat at their expense."

You call that "splendid standup"? I call it contempt myself.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith
There are no incremental steps to socialism that involve standing aside and allowing things to get worse. The only left wing factions that promote letting things get worse are those who favour revolutionary rather than parliamentary solutions.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
Don't think I mentioned Portland Communications. The cycle of resignations was clearly planned - however whatever they had in terms of tactics, they were obviously lacking on strategy.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the Labour Party leadership campaign is going to be a bit of a sideshow for a while. The news cycle will be firmly in the hands of the Tories "under new management". That might not be such a bad thing.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There are no incremental steps to socialism that involve standing aside and allowing things to get worse. The only left wing factions that promote letting things get worse are those who favour revolutionary rather than parliamentary solutions.
There is no Parliamentary route to socialism that doesn't involve winning elections.

AIUI the Cunning Plan was to let the bill get to the second reading and then try to force amendments. Whether or not they voted against or abstained was of purely symbolic importance since the Government had enough seats to get it passed. Again, one may say that this was a rather poorly executed Cunning Plan and even that it proves that Mr Corbyn isn't the only Labour leader in recent times to lack leadership skills, but all of this is a distraction from my main point, which is about imputing bad faith as a means of poisoning debate.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the 'armed struggle' of Messrs Kneecap O'Goon and Seamus McSemtex in this context.
Very entertaining writing for a certain section of the population I'm sure but comes across as a little off to me. You must think me very humourless but it doesn't seem like a great joke for an Englander.
I'm sure I meant to say "the gallant gentlemen of the Irish Republican Army", pardon my French.

quote:
(And by the way it wasn't Satre's choice for Blair. One choice was illegal war with 150k direct deaths and many more indirect deaths, ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis and a general destablization of the Middle-East and Islamic world. The other choice of leaving bad-guy Saddam in charge would have done Blair's legacy as much harm as leaving Assad, Khatami and Kim Jong-il in charge.)
The obvious retort to that is that a number of the 150k deaths were the work of the Iraqi Resistance whose activities Mr Corbyn and his colleagues in Stop The War believed should be endorsed and supported. "By any means necessary" was the mot juste, if memory serves.

The less obvious retort, but one which ought to be made anyway, is that there are costs for both action and inaction. The case against action is always that the consequences of action are unpredictable. Supporters of intervention, quite properly, pointed out that the alternative to the invasion was the status quo whereby an allied blockade enforced sanctions and a no fly zone, the continued rule of Saddam and the de facto partition of the country. Responsible opponents of the war - The Cook/ Kennedy/ Clarke axis, if you will - pointed out that going to war with a dubious case for war and no real plan had the distinct possibility for making things worse. Clearly, Chilcot and events (not necessarily in that order of importance) have vindicated the CKC position. If Blair had done a Harold Wilson his reputation would, deservedly, be higher but the most he could have achieved would have been to keep the UK out of the war, not to stop it entirely. But the position prior to the Iraq war was hardly satisfactory and its continuation indefinitely wouldn't have done much for the Iraqi people. Much the same can be said of the situation in Syria. I was opposed to military intervention in 2013 but there were and are costs to leaving Assad in place which continue to be borne by the Syrian people.

A similar point can be made about Blair's successful interventions - Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The UK could have said that the affairs of people in far away countries are not our business. But the costs of non-intervention would have been borne by the Kosovars and the Sierra Leoneans. Just as the costs of Major's policy of non-intervention was borne by the Bosnians.

Which is, I think, the question at issue at the heart of this thread. Some of us think that government is a difficult business, every gain, somewhere, represents a loss. Sometimes you have a choice of evils and it is not entirely clear which is the lesser of the two. Often the best possible outcome is a largely unsatisfactory compromise. And the conditions under which you campaign and govern are very much not of your making. The extent to which one acknowledges this, I suspect, correlates in an inverse degree to one's admiration for Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
So "unelectable" they have to ban members from voting to stand a chance. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its not that Corbyn is unelectable by people who support Labour, it is that he is unelectable in a General Election - so if Corbyn remains leader then Labour lose the next GE.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
They are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, there are major disagreements within the Tory party but they are reacting to them very differently.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So "unelectable" they have to ban members from voting to stand a chance. [Roll Eyes]
Like Michael Foot, and others here, he may be elected by at least a sizeable proportion of those who vote Labour ( although there must be some doubt the extent to the 3 pound voters who put Corbyn in represent Labour voters as a whole). He would not attract the extra voters needed from the electorate at large to put Labour into office. I'd not be surprised if Momentum repells the middle ground just as much as the Militant Tendency did in the 80s.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I don't think that who and what is electable is quite as obvious these days.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.

[ 16. July 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.
Technically, the railways never stopped being nationalised - it's the operations that are franchised that need to be nationalised. Some will run out fairly soon (South Western is due in about 6 years I think), others longer, but they may have break clauses in their contracts. In any event, non-performing franchisees such as Southern may be even quicker. And no big hit on public expenditure if done in orderly fashion.

Something, however, would have to be done in the longer term about the rolling-stock rental companies, which is where I think most profit is taken (and taken outside the UK tax system in many cases).
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.
People don't vote for policies. They vote for people. They vote for the people they read about in the Daily Mail and on Facebook. That may not be big and it may not be clever, but it's how our democracy works. Policies only count once you're in power.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Policies or not, people vote for politicians they perceive to be competent. They are right to do so. Wonks and other enthusiasts may argue that it should be policies not people, but it isn't. This may be a home truth that many committed ideologues don't want to hear, but if a politician can't make the system work, he or she should not be let anywhere near the reigns of power.

Any leader of any organisation who reaches the position where all they can say is some version of 'because I'm the boss, you've got to obey me' is no longer leading. It's the equivalent of a clergy person saying you must do as I say not because you agree or because I inspire you, but because I've got apostolic succession and you haven't.

So sorry and all that, but by it has already become abundantly clear that Mr Corbyn has failed to win or keep the support and confidence of his shadow cabinet and most of his MPs. The fact that he obstinately persists in self denial of this is not a mark of determination and tenacity. It's further demonstration that however inspirational some may find his ideology, he is not the person to lead a political party. If he had the slightest modicum of leadership quality, he would have realised this by now, and gone.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Something, however, would have to be done in the longer term about the rolling-stock rental companies, which is where I think most profit is taken (and taken outside the UK tax system in many cases).
[Indulging in another tangent]
It is particularly scandalous as these companies were essentially given the rolling-stock at a fraction of their cost. Obviously most of the rolling stock in use now is not that which was used in the early 90s but it was a major kick-start for these companies who have a business model with virtually no risk and high returns. (The free market at work...)

There are some interesting little sub-plots to this. The Pendolino tilting trains that Virgin use are made by Fiat Ferroviaria in Italy who bought the patents for tilting technology from British Rail after the PR failings of the now infamous APT project. The Pendolinos are sold in at least 13 countries.

My soon-to-be brother-in-law works for Network Rail as an engineer. He's far too young to have worked there during the BR years but he told me that the old-hands have a standing joke whenever someone is talking about any part of the engineering or maintenance that's contracted out...
"I can remember when we did this in house" says one
"No!" replies another "You mean to tell me, we used to do this ourselves, no way!"
Apparently this is a daily conversation.

British Rail was far from perfect but actually the research and development work and the engineering was pretty good. Privatisation of BR was very much a triumph of ideology over facts and we all pay the price (quite literally).

So yeah, I reckon renationalizing our railways is a good idea.
[/Indulging in another tangent]

AFZ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.
I can understand that, but that does not mean that sufficient people in the right places will vote for a party led by Corbyn. They'll say that they like any number of the policies he espouses, but his image is of a man of little practical experience, strong on his principles but not the person to lead the country; come the real test at the ballot box, he won't do any better than Michael Foot.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected. They don't have a mandate to seek to undermine said duly elected leader, or to try to tear up the constitution as decided by the conference.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected. They don't have a mandate to seek to undermine said duly elected leader, or to try to tear up the constitution as decided by the conference.
Good point. So, for example, given that they were elected on a platform of renewing Trident, they should vote to renew Trident? And, in general, they should consider themselves elected to work towards a soft-left prospectus, as set forward during the last election?

Out of interest, on the whole undermining the elected leader bit, I can assume that you were aghast, simply aghast, when the Conservative Party decided to defenestrate Iain Duncan Smith in 2003?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected.
Indeed, the lines 'I voted duly at my party's call/ and never thought of thinking for myself at all' could have been written with Mr Corbyn in mind. But it's nice to know the left of the party have dropped their objection to parachuting PPE graduates into safe seats in order to implement the leadership's policies.

Snark aside, how do you define the 'mandate' of an MP given that they are elected on a ballot which simply asks which of a list of people you want to represent your area? People vote for one candidate over another for all sorts of reasons.

(Not to mention that the manifesto on which MPs were elected was Mr Miliband's manifesto, which said nothing IIRC about Trident or nationalising the railways.)

[ 17. July 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


Out of interest, on the whole undermining the elected leader bit, I can assume that you were aghast, simply aghast, when the Conservative Party decided to defenestrate Iain Duncan Smith in 2003?
Nobody expects democratic principles from the tories. The PLP would do well to remember that when IDS was knifed his replacement, Michael "something of the night about him" Howard hardly set the world alight.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
With regard to IDS, I'm not overly bothered what the internal machinations of the Tory party are, as I'm not a Tory, but if I were a supporter or member of that august organisation, then, yes, I wouldn't be best pleased if the PCP sought to set aside the results of a duly constituted election.

As for Trident, the point is pretty moot, as I guess there will be a free vote, but there really is a difference between an organisation changing its mind on an issue following an open democratic process (such as a resolution in Conference) and an undemocratic covert undermining of leader who still, in all likelihood, commands the support of an overwhelming majority of his party's membership.

By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.
Well, his policies are presumably significantly to the left of Mr Miliband's policies, on which Labour MPs were elected, otherwise the comments about how Labour MPs are scared of anything that hints at real socialism would be mere rhetoric.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Indeed, the lines 'I voted duly at my party's call/ and never thought of thinking for myself at all' could have been written with Mr Corbyn in mind.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - I thought one of the objections the PLP have to Corbyn is that he never toed the line.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Sorry, I was favouring sarcasm over clarity. My point is that if MPs don't have a mandate to act according to their consciences against the wishes of their party leadership, then Mr Corbyn had no business acting the way he acted when he was a backbench MP.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Sorry, I was favouring sarcasm over clarity. My point is that if MPs don't have a mandate to act according to their consciences against the wishes of their party leadership, then Mr Corbyn had no business acting the way he acted when he was a backbench MP.
There is a difference between defying the whip on an issue of conscience (or indeed where the leadership has betrayed the manifesto on which it was elected to government, as with tuition fees at the 2001 election) and actively attacking the leader. I have no doubt the Tony Blair was not Corbyn's preferred choice for leader, but he did not call for him to resign until Blair had been in office for 10 years and was suspected of war crimes, and for all Corbyn's disagreements with the views of both Brown and Miliband I'm not aware of him calling for either of them to be replaced. You can respect the mandate of a leader while still respecting your own conscience.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'm not convinced there is a qualitative difference but if there is, Mr Corbyn is on the wrong side of it, having supported Mr Benn's attempt to depose Mr Kinnock.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to IDS, I'm not overly bothered what the internal machinations of the Tory party are, as I'm not a Tory, but if I were a supporter or member of that august organisation, then, yes, I wouldn't be best pleased if the PCP sought to set aside the results of a duly constituted election.
The thing is that neither IDS nor Corbyn were/ are merely the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties in the way that Farage was the leader of UKIP or even that Charles Kennedy or Nicola Sturgeon led/ leads the Lb Dems or the SNP. The point is that IDS and Corbyn were/ are the leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition and, as such, need(ed) to be able to say that they commanded the confidence of the second largest bloc in the House of Commons. If you can't say that you can't be Leader of the Opposition. The official position of the Labour Party is currently that the British Constitution is all very well but that it is subordinate to a mandate derived, at least in part, by members of the WRP coughing up £3 a pop to put someone manifestly inadequate in that position. I don't think that this can end well.

quote:
As for Trident, the point is pretty moot, as I guess there will be a free vote, but there really is a difference between an organisation changing its mind on an issue following an open democratic process (such as a resolution in Conference) and an undemocratic covert undermining of leader who still, in all likelihood, commands the support of an overwhelming majority of his party's membership.
Well, thus far there hasn't been a vote at conference, so you currently have the position of the leader of the Labour Party voting against his own parties policies. Again, not a good look. Particularly as the reason that it hasn't gone to conference is that the unions who are, by and large, pro-Corbyn are also, by and large, anti-mass redundancies in the defence sector.

quote:
By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.
Ah. With regard to the particular positions you reference the soft left were in favour of a settlement in Northern Ireland and opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Mr Corbyn was in favour of the Irish Republican Army and the Iraqi Resistance.
 
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
an undemocratic covert undermining of leader
There is nothing undemocratic or covert about a vote of confidence is there? There was a vote of confidence in Corbyn and he lost.

This isn't a choice between democracy or not democracy. It's a choice between electorates. You value the electorate which delivers what you support - you support Jeremy Corbyn - so do Labour Party members. The public does not support Jeremy Corbyn - nor do Labour MPs. Those two things are related: many of those who voted no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn are happy with his political position on the left, but they don't think he's any good at winning support from the electorate and they want a leader who has the basic competence required to take the fight to the Tories and actually, you know, win a democratic election. Like Ed Miliband didn't. Like Tony Blair did.

The only Labour Party leaders who have ever won General Elections are Ramsay MacDonald. Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. You might not like that list. But you can't argue it's undemocratic.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7
That's not up to date, and there's a huge problem with that poll, anyway. Reference for both that, and the up to date results showing a 10% Tory lead here.


And if the reader scrolls down to the commentary on the result, the section finishes with “you need to look at the figures that account for how likely people actually are to vote, not take false solace from figures that don’t take turnout into account.”

Very worrying is that the UKIP vote is about half the Labour one in the two most recent adjusted polls. If Labour continues to value ideological purity above electability, those anti-government votes won't be going to Labour, and could see UKIP established as a viable parliamentary party.

I find the writers commentary on polls fascinating. And who wouldn't?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground.
Sometimes people who work closely with someone see them in a different light to people who don't.

Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone has any comments on this?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7
That's not up to date, and there's a huge problem with that poll, anyway. Reference for both that, and the up to date results showing a 10% Tory lead here.


And if the reader scrolls down to the commentary on the result, the section finishes with “you need to look at the figures that account for how likely people actually are to vote, not take false solace from figures that don’t take turnout into account.”

Very worrying is that the UKIP vote is about half the Labour one in the two most recent adjusted polls. If Labour continues to value ideological purity above electability, those anti-government votes won't be going to Labour, and could see UKIP established as a viable parliamentary party.

I find the writers commentary on polls fascinating. And who wouldn't?
More recent doesn't mean a change - just different companies. You also fail to note that both challengers to Corbyn do even worse. They fail to win any new supporters and put off some that Corbyn gained.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground.
Sometimes people who work closely with someone see them in a different light to people who don't.

Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone has any comments on this?
On the face of it, that is indeed a mess, but I would be interested to hear from anyone else involved. I would also be interested to know if this is usual or unusual - given the apparently unsually 'clinical' reshuffle by Mrs May still produced at least one sacked / unsacked minister.

However, it goes to what I said earlier in the thread - start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The Independent carry this story - with this:

quote:

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told The Independent: "There was some miscommunication over Thangam's appointment as shadow minister for the arts, but at no point was she sacked."

 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The Independent carry this story - with this:

quote:

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told The Independent: "There was some miscommunication over Thangam's appointment as shadow minister for the arts, but at no point was she sacked."
Mm. Start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen. [Biased]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?
Yes, in that Jeremy Hunt is still the Minister for Health.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?
No. What's that got to do with Corbyn?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
bad man ... This isn't a choice between democracy or not democracy. It's a choice between electorates. You value the electorate which delivers what you support - you support Jeremy Corbyn - so do Labour Party members. The public does not support Jeremy Corbyn - nor do Labour MPs. Those two things are related: many of those who voted no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn are happy with his political position on the left, but they don't think he's any good at winning support from the electorate and they want a leader who has the basic competence required to take the fight to the Tories and actually, you know, win a democratic election.

FWIW I have been a Labour voter for yonks (even stood as a local Labour Councillor once) but voted LibDem as I did not like Blair et al or their policies. I didn't like the coalition with the Tories but, there you go, we didn't get a vote on that. Returned to Labour after the LibDems messed up. I would describe my philosophy as quite a bit left of centre. I like Corbyn's policies, I would be very happy if we had a Labour Government with those policies. But Corbyn is only going to give us more of the present Tory policies as he has been unelectable (in my view) for months.

So, I am Jo Public. I will choose who gets my vote when the time comes. If Corbyn is still there I'll probably vote Green. Pity, but I suspect I am typical of the bulk of the public who want anything bar the Tories (well, not anything!).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?
Only if she fully intended to sack him and then bottled out for some reason. She's not responsible for rumours flying around on reshuffle day.

The reshuffle cock-up is a British constitutional tradition. Sir Ivan Lawrence gleefully recounts in his memoirs the story of how he was offered a job at the Home Office, only to discover that John Major had offered it to two MPs, so Sir Ivan was offered a Knighthood as a quid pro quo. Less amusingly, one of Tony Blair's ex-ministers was wont to point out that he supported Blair despite Blair sacking him by text.

I think the thing is with Corbyn is that he is notoriously bad at Shadow Cabinet composition. His first Shadow Cabinet appointments were overshadowed by the fact that the press managed to eavesdrop on them and that he had signally failed to appoint a woman to one of the great offices of state. His reshuffle was notorious for taking absolutely forever. Then, of course, his entire Shadow front bench resigned largely en masse. The business with Thangam Debbonaire reinforces two narratives, firstly that he cannot manage his front bench - which strikes me as being entirely fair and accurate - and secondly that underneath the facade of being a kind old lefty he is, actually, a bit of a shit. IMV the second is overstated (on a personal level, that is, his political judgement is howlingly bad, IMO.)
Now the thing is that everytime a party leader rearranges their troops they sacrifice a degree of support. Every politician sent to the backbencher is someone who is not going to over exert themselves when a crisis materialises. A lot of the commentary about Mrs May's reshuffle has been along the lines of "is it wise to sack that many ministers given the size of her majority?" which is fair comment. Given the number of Labour front benchers who refused to serve under Corbyn, one would have thought that a certain amount of caution and discretion would have been in order in dealing with the rest of them. In dealing with Thangam Debbonaire, a competent leader would have made sure that she felt valued, particularly given her health issues. Corbyn, IMO, isn't a competent leader. As it is one of the doctrines of the cult that the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party is unnecessary for the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose this doesn't matter. But a Leader of the Opposition who could find his arse with both hands would have handled the matter differently. I don't think that this reflects on Corbyn's niceness, because I think that he is clearly out of his depth. A competent and unkind leader would have contrived to look kind. Corbyn is incompetent and therefore looks unkind but probably didn't intend the outcome that happened.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn, IMO, isn't a competent leader.
Excellent, in which case all the PLP needs to do is to put up a moderately competent leader who can persuade the membership at large.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I will be a member of Labour, and will vote Labour, whoever is in charge. At the last leadership election I voted for Burnham, with Kendall as 2nd preference.
Those who are optimistic about Corbyn see him as the 'next Atlee'. Those who are pessimistic about Corbyn see him as the 'next Foot'. I say the jury is still out on that.
The vote of no confidence was conducted democratically, but had no constitutional validity. If people want to look at amending the constitution to 'correct' that, then this would be something to be considered...
In terms of timing, it was disastrous - no good was ever going to come out of it.
It was said that England's football team failed in the Euros because they weren't really a team at all, but just a collection of fevered egos. It gives me no pleasure to say that history is going to judge those 'rebel MP's' in much the same way.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It gives me no pleasure to say that history is going to judge those 'rebel MP's' in much the same way.
My view is that history is probably going to judge Corbyn and those loyal to him that way, and (ironically given the name has been adopted by Corbyn supporters) the 140-odd Labour rebels as the choking canaries down the gaseous mine...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Because that number didn't support him in the first place, largely because he is left wing, and Thangham is the first individual to attempt to put forward any specific evidence re competence - and that evidence amounts to: reshuffle is confusing, I got a great job I loved and I think I did well, and other people said he was crap (not that I saw anything else first hand).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.
Out of interest, have you seen the Vice News profile of Jeremy Corbyn?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because that number didn't support him in the first place, largely because he is left wing,
Bulverism. Shall I respond by saying that Momentum's criticism of the PLP is worthless because they don't like the PLP because it's right-wing?
quote:
and Thangham is the first individual to attempt to put forward any specific evidence re competence
My experience of incompetent people is that their incompetence is usually manifest in a series of little screwups, each of which would be venial in itself. But the allegations which I am seeing in different bits of the Press include:

1. Going on holiday at the crucial point of the referendum campaign
2. Attacking austerity without having any specific anti-austerity policies (see earlier comments about people's quantitative easing)
3. Going silent at moments of crisis, creating a McDonnell-shaped void
4. Not discussing decisions outside the clique of people who agree with him
5. Not meeting deadlines for press releases
6. Sitting on policy decisions
7. Allowing Mr McDonnell to run his own parallel health policy without reference to the Shadow Health Secretary
8. Blocking access to facilities for Labour Remain campaigners
9. I think you will find Ms Debbonaire's complaints are rather more serious than your summary of them
10. Thinking that having Trident submarines without Trident missiles is a sensible policy
11. Appointing Seamas Milne as press officer
12. Having to apologise to the Israeli ambassador and the Chief Rabbi after welcoming the results of a review of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

I'm not posting links because I'm too lazy, but what would be the point? If Labour MPs are lying about his competence they could be lying about all of the above as well.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
13. People on doorsteps say Mr Corbyn is not a convincing leader
14. Mr McDonnell's strange shenanigans with the Fiscal Compact
15. If he can't negotiate with the PLP, how will he negotiate with Mr Putin?
16. Rewriting of history regarding IRA support
17. Rewriting of history regarding attempt to undermine Mr Kinnock.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
18. Not having anything resembling an economic policy.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Frankly Mr Dear
quote:
I will be a member of Labour, and will vote Labour, whoever is in charge.
That is the attitude which has contributed to the situation the party is in now with Mr Corbyn.

If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.

This unthinking, knee-jerk reaction is what has contributed to the vicious struggle now being played out for the edification of the general public. True, other parties may have their own unthinking ballot-box sheep, but only Labour has such a vast majority who'll sleep-walk their way to the ballot box regardless. They do the party no favours with their mindless behaviour - all it does is encourage takeovers by people on the margins to come into the party and turn it into what they want, because by-and-large if they created their own party to reflect their views they'd have no chance of success, so they use Labour sheep instead.

Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.
I grew up in Totnes which, between 1955 and 2010 was represented by Mr Ray Mawby and Sir Anthony Steen. Which suggests, rather strongly, that this may not, entirely, be a Labour issue. The whole phenomenon of safe seats is rather a testament to the tendency of a large proportion of the British electorate being willing to vote for the proverbial donkey, as long as it wears a rosette bearing the appropriate logo and colour scheme. The idea that this sort of tribalism is confined to one half of the Labour-Conservative duopoly is for the birds, frankly
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Pish and tush l'Organist. I can assure you that "My party right or wrong" is in no way limited to just Labour. There are plenty of folks where I live who will hold their noses at anything and vote Conservative rather than abstain, spoil a paper, or heaven forfend actually vote for a party/candidate who more closely represents their views.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.
That's patently untrue. It's widely thought that the tories can count on maybe 30% of the vote, pretty much regardless of leader or policies, while Labour can count on maybe 25%. There are plenty of seats where a bonobo with a blue rosette pinned to its arse would get elected. You only have to look at the turnout in safe Labour seats to see how their vote has been hollowed out in recent years.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Lilian Greenwood has explained in detail why she resigned as Shadow Transport Secretary.

It's worth reading in full and it provides at least one new addition to the list:

19. When Mr Corbyn does finally agree a policy with his Shadow Cabinet, he lets them work hard on it and then announces something completely different to national media.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I just don't believe the resignations weren't planned. The staged timing throughout the day alone is sufficient to make that deeply suspicious. As for the rest of it, Corbyn is clearly used to speaking his mind when asked, and the transition from backbench to leader was always going to be rocky. What Corbyn needs to do when he is re-elected is to read the specific criticisms arising from his inexperience and get some people in his office who can help him with that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Meanwhile the NEC has covered itself in glory by gerrymandering the leadership vote (new members can't vote); raising the supporters' fee to £25 (expensive for people in poverty), and stopping branches from meeting.

They've been reading too much Brecht, I think, if you don't like your membership, deselect them.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Lilian Greenwood has explained in detail why she resigned as Shadow Transport Secretary.

It's worth reading in full and it provides at least one new addition to the list:

19. When Mr Corbyn does finally agree a policy with his Shadow Cabinet, he lets them work hard on it and then announces something completely different to national media.
This might be a 19A or a 20, but this afternoon Mr Corbyn announced that he's going to vote against the government in today's Trident debate, having just argued against formally-adopted Labour Party policy. He also appears to be voting against his own views as the motion before the Commons concerns renewal of the submarines and he had previously argued that they should be (even if the warheads shouldn't).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Meanwhile the NEC has covered itself in glory by gerrymandering the leadership vote (new members can't vote); raising the supporters' fee to £25 (expensive for people in poverty), and stopping branches from meeting.

They've been reading too much Brecht, I think, if you don't like your membership, deselect them.
If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. Labour voters who didn't. Lib Dems who wanted a realignment of the left and thought a split in the Labour Party was the way to go. Lib Dems who thought an effective opposition would be in their interests. Tories who wanted an unelectable Labour leader. Tories who thought that an effective opposition was best for the country. UKIP. The SWP. Workers Liberty. The Sparts. The Tankies. The Krankies. The Muslim Brotherhood. The Strict and Particular Baptists. The Order of Dagon. The Royal Order of Antediluvian Buffaloes. The RSPCA. The Elusive Brethren. You name it, they have a view, and for three quid they get to share it with the rest of us.

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level. Nor do they have a list of every single member of an alternative political party or Trot grouping. I'm guessing that this was less about gerrymandering the outcome, which, as I said, they could have done quickly and effectively by ruling that Corbyn was obliged to demonstrate that he had sufficient support within the Parliamentary Party (hardly an unreasonable request), and more to do with keeping the election manageable. Of course, if Jeremy had hung around for the rest of the meeting and not buggered off to have his selfie taken with members of The Cult, things might have been different. But Jeremy, is a competent man. So, so are they all competent men...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Author of "A Very British Coup" calls for "A Very British Coup".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.
I accept that I've never been a supporter of his. I've said so on these boards back when he was appointed leader. However, the point we're discussing at the moment is a different one. It is how he has revealed himself to be a hopeless politician, unable to win over and carry his own shadow cabinet and MPs

If he can't do that, do you really think the party is likely to be able to persuade floating voters to vote for its candidates while he is in charge?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I wasn't surprised by Lilian Greenwood's explanation. Particularly this summary, following her description of her experiences.

quote:
Jeremy has a new Shadow Cabinet but it’s clear to me that he doesn’t understand collective responsibility and that he can't lead a team, so I'm afraid the same problems will eventually emerge in the new front bench. This is not about policy or ideology, it is about competence.
Popularity does not guarantee competence. It's been too easy to demonise the PLP as a "lynch mob". But it's just not true.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. .....

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level.
The problem with this line of argument is that in removing the vote from people who were members (of which there are 100k plus who have joined since the deadline), they have disenfranchised people who might have paid a lot more than £25 quid (those who signed up for a whole year). Yet £25 quid is deemed as a hurdle sufficient to deter the frivolous.

The idea that the SWP/TUSC would have 100k members who would be willing to join Labour as a form of mass entryism is barmy quite frankly - though this is the line that has been pushed heavily by people like the ever charming John McTernan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McTernan#Later_career) on twitter.

Which makes them cack-handed, or they were attempting to shut Corbyn out of the election which doesn't lead to a particularly better conclusion.

[Incidentally, it would appear that this issue was off the agenda, and was floated after Corbyn left the room - so the most you can definitively say is that he was rather naive].

Finally, if someone wants to replace Corbyn, they should absolutely go for it, put up a credible candidate and make an actual case for why they think they would make a better leader. All I see you doing - in common with a lot of the PLP - is making an oblique argument that Corbyn should disappear from existence because he represents some kind of violation of natural order.

[ 18. July 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. .....

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level.
The problem with this line of argument is that in removing the vote from people who were members (of which there are 100k plus who have joined since the deadline), they have disenfranchised people who might have paid a lot more than £25 quid (those who signed up for a whole year). Yet £25 quid is deemed as a hurdle sufficient to deter the frivolous.

The idea that the SWP/TUSC would have 100k members who would be willing to join Labour as a form of mass entryism is barmy quite frankly - though this is the line that has been pushed heavily by people like the ever charming John McTernan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McTernan#Later_career) on twitter.

Which makes them cack-handed, or they were attempting to shut Corbyn out of the election which doesn't lead to a particularly better conclusion.

[Incidentally, it would appear that this issue was off the agenda, and was floated after Corbyn left the room - so the most you can definitively say is that he was rather naive].

Finally, if someone wants to replace Corbyn, they should absolutely go for it, put up a credible candidate and make an actual case for why they think they would make a better leader. All I see you doing - in common with a lot of the PLP - is making an oblique argument that Corbyn should disappear from existence because he represents some kind of violation of natural order.
I think the problem is that it is not only the question as to whether or not the SWP, or whoever, would sign up en masse it's that the world and his wife would sign up en masse.

My more general feeling is that, whilst there is a perfectly good case that the Leader of the Opposition ought to have the support of the majority of the Opposition MPs, there is going to be a scrap and it might as well happen now. Who knows? It might be that the Labour Party in the country decide that having a competent Leader of the Opposition is reasonably important. It might be the case that they vote for Corbyn. If the latter is the case we will, undoubtedly, see the Labour Party burn. The whole thing will make the 1983 General Election look like a walk in the park. If that is what Labour members want, by all means, let them knock themselves out, but don't expect the rest of us to vote for them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It might be that the Labour Party in the country decide that having a competent Leader of the Opposition is reasonably important.
You'd think they would. I hope they will. And what the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
It is noticeable that despite his notional commitment to grassroots democracy, Mr McCluskey has done nothing to find out if his own members are still in favour of his enthusiastic support for Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It is noticeable that despite his notional commitment to grassroots democracy, Mr McCluskey has done nothing to find out if his own members are still in favour of his enthusiastic support for Mr Corbyn.
His members get their own vote, both for leader of Unite and leader of the Labour Party.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.
The "us" you refer to is not the same as "Party members". It is a subset, albeit a substantial one. Moreover, the evidence is in a poll, and we have seen how inaccurate these can be.

FWIW another election is essential, but while there is a consensus that Corbyn is doing a poor job none of the alternatives are going to worry Mrs May.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.
Except that poll says that most Unite members want Corbyn to stay for the time being, despite the spin the Mirror has put on it. And the poll was taken before it became clear who the alternatives were.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Eagle has pulled out, so apparently it's not time for a female leader at all.....
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Thank goodness there will be only one standing against him. Perhaps Smith will win. [Smile]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Thank goodness there will be only one standing against him. Perhaps Smith will win. [Smile]
Nope. Not a chance.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Then we're doomed ... doomed I say.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I was beginning to feel sorry for Eagle. In every interview, she looked like she was holding back tears. As a former chess champion, she would have known that, whilst a pawn can sometimes get to the other side of the board and be made into a powerful piece; more often it is simply moved forward to be a sacrifice. I wonder if and when she realised the latter was the case, in her case.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
As a former chess champion, she would have known that, whilst a pawn can sometimes get to the other side of the board and be made into a powerful piece; more often it is simply moved forward to be a sacrifice. I wonder if and when she realised the latter was the case, in her case.
It should have been indicative that none of the previous set of candidates showed an interest in challenging.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it will be an ugly campaign. Owen Smith's line is to build, relentlessly, with further witnesses, on Lilian Greenwood's "this is what Jeremy is like to work with and for". The only issue for anyone from the PLP will be Jeremy's competence to lead.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

[ 20. July 2016, 01:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.
I understand why people might not like Corbyn, but that is the most ridiculous comparison possible. There is only one current comparison to Trump and that is Boris Johnson. And, as much as it pains me to say, that is even an insult to Boris.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.
I would say he's more our Bernie. Idealistic, inspiring - but just not the skill set for the job.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Members will have differing points of view, fine. The important thing is that everyone be gracious enough to get behind whoever the winner is, this time. Actually, we need to 'expand' our thinking on this, and also be willing, come the General Election, to withdraw Labour candidates from a few places in the country; where they stand no chance and so are only really splitting the anti-Tory vote .... But I'm aware that this would require some serious 'pride-swallowing'! ....
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
I think quite a few "anyone but a Tory" voters have voted LibDem in the past, in constituencies where Labour stood no chance. After Nick Clegg rewarded them with the coalition with the Tories they won't be doing that again in a hurry.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That is true. However the LibDems will do better if they distance themselves from Cleggism. There are some signs that they are recovering.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it will be an ugly campaign. Owen Smith's line is to build, relentlessly, with further witnesses, on Lilian Greenwood's "this is what Jeremy is like to work with and for". The only issue for anyone from the PLP will be Jeremy's competence to lead.
If that is the case, I will sadly vote for Jeremy again. I had hoped for a better candidate - I'm sure there could be candidates better than Jeremy in so many ways - but the one essential is that it should be someone with policies that offer an alternative to the government.

What I would really like is someone interested in politics. Someone who can articulate the ideas and forces at work in society. Someone who can analyse what is happening and show how things could be different. Someone who has a feel for the sort of people we are and might be in the various futures we can choose.

Teresa May's great speech did this when she directly addressed those who are just getting by. It had the flavour of a new teacher who is concerned about those who got low marks in the last test, patronising and ultimately depressing because we know there will be no real help, but making the connection nonetheless.

It appears there is no one left in the Labour Party who can do this. Not even Corbyn, who only sounds refreshing because he is stuck in a 1970s Socialist time loop, but I don't think he is interested by ideas or alternative futures any more, he just wants to keep the pure faith.

I suspect there's no one like this left in the Consevative Party either, and that May's speech was written by a script writer or a novelist or a poet.

It's a difficult task, to marry credible policy with a language and a set of ideas that fit with people, but Farage managed it (stupid policies, but credible) for a minority of people, an angry and highly motivated minority. Benn managed it after he had stopped being an active politician. It's what they are supposed to do, politicians.

The very good ones are dangerous because it is such a powerful skill, but the safe, dull, elected bureaucrats we have now are turning us all against the whole process, and that is disastrous.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I should say that it's not just an alternative to our government. I think this is much bigger. What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

The first bit of big news of our generation is the economic growth of China, India, etc. And it's very good news. But the second big issue is climate change, and that's quite a problem.

The new politics will be internationalist to an extent that makes the EU look like a side show, and it will address people and issues across continents. When I start to see how my future is entangled with that if people in, say, the Philippines, perhaps politics will feel important again.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
hatless

It's fine to articulate the good ends. But what about willing the means? Doesn't that require competence and determination?

I think you might be right that, deep down, Jeremy wants to keep the "pure faith". More important than gaining power, making friends etc.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Yes, let's have competence, but attached to something.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.
I would say he's more our Bernie. Idealistic, inspiring - but just not the skill set for the job.

 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.
In one way.
I don't think anyone has ever accused Trump of sticking stubbornly to his convictions at the expense of winning over doubters.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, Corbyn is like Trump because he has the support of the rank and file of Labour but the party elite abandoned him. Corbyn is like Trump because Labour is like the Republican Party. What the party elite believes no longer inspires the base and they can't draw enough votes away from the other party. Both Trump and Corbyn likely represent extreme versions of the way their parties must go to eventually return to power but neither has much chance of becoming president or prime minister due to their weaknesses as politicians. Republican members of congress would treat President Trump the same way Labour MP's are treating Corbyn. Democratic members of congress would have treated President Sanders with more respect.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, Corbyn is like Trump because he has the support of the rank and file of Labour but the party elite abandoned him. Corbyn is like Trump because Labour is like the Republican Party. What the party elite believes no longer inspires the base and they can't draw enough votes away from the other party. Both Trump and Corbyn likely represent extreme versions of the way their parties must go to eventually return to power but neither has much chance of becoming president or prime minister due to their weaknesses as politicians. Republican members of congress would treat President Trump the same way Labour MP's are treating Corbyn. Democratic members of congress would have treated President Sanders with more respect.
The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. The only person who Trump has an interest in is himself.
You seriously think that Trump's vision is the way the Republicans should go? Racism, xenophobia, narcissism and the attention span of a gnat with ADHD?

ETA: The rank and file republicans, excluding the racism and xenophobia for the moment, support Trump because he isn't establishment. And that is not a good enough reason.

[ 20. July 2016, 18:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

That's undoubtedly what thou the person wanteth (sorry to use such archaic forms but that's the best way I know to make it clear I am speaking to asingle "you"). No doubt you are not alone. But I'd love to know how you know that any significant group -- much less "we, the people" -- wants that.

I'm aware of all sorts of dissatisfaction for all sorts of reasons all over the developed world. I'm not aware that in any but tiny pockets there is agreement with your description of what we have now, much less any agreement with your broad statement as to a desire for an alternative. I might ask what alternative?, because I don't see anything on offer just at the moment, either in your country, or mine, or in any of the dozens and dozens of very different systems and countries that comprise the "developed world".

John
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I should say that it's not just an alternative to our government. I think this is much bigger. What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

The first bit of big news of our generation is the economic growth of China, India, etc. And it's very good news. But the second big issue is climate change, and that's quite a problem.

The new politics will be internationalist to an extent that makes the EU look like a side show, and it will address people and issues across continents. When I start to see how my future is entangled with that if people in, say, the Philippines, perhaps politics will feel important again.
I think your first para is spot on. I feel rather despairing, as it's difficult to see how an alternative to globalization and neo-liberalism will be found. I think Corbyn is expounding classical social democracy, or what used to be called a mixed economy, but whether this is possible, dunno. There has been such a big shift to the right. Well, also a shift to the left, but it's the right-wing who have wealth and power. I laughed when I saw May say that austerity means living within our means - I wonder how she does that? Baked beans on toast tonight for the May family?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by libuddha:
The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. The only person who Trump has an interest in is himself.
You seriously think that Trump's vision is the way the Republicans should go? Racism, xenophobia, narcissism and the attention span of a gnat with ADHD?
Economic nationalism, restrictions on border enforcement, less interventionist foreign policy, and rejection of politics based on intersectionality is totally the way the Republican Party should go.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Economic nationalism,
AKA no fucking clue on how economy works.
quote:

restrictions on border enforcement,
My family stole this land, fair and square/snuck in earlier, now piss off.
quote:

less interventionist foreign policy,
We've done fucked the world, now let's hide an hope it goes away. Except the oil, don't fuck with the oil. Oh, and give us our crap cheap.
quote:

and rejection of politics based on intersectionality is totally the way the Republican Party should go.
AKA, fuck off faggots.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I laughed when I saw May say that austerity means living within our means - I wonder how she does that?
She means exactly that. Rich people live within rich people's means and everyone else can bugger off and make do.

[ 20. July 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

That's undoubtedly what thou the person wanteth (sorry to use such archaic forms but that's the best way I know to make it clear I am speaking to asingle "you"). No doubt you are not alone. But I'd love to know how you know that any significant group -- much less "we, the people" -- wants that.

I'm aware of all sorts of dissatisfaction for all sorts of reasons all over the developed world. I'm not aware that in any but tiny pockets there is agreement with your description of what we have now, much less any agreement with your broad statement as to a desire for an alternative. I might ask what alternative?, because I don't see anything on offer just at the moment, either in your country, or mine, or in any of the dozens and dozens of very different systems and countries that comprise the "developed world".

John
If you come across 'we the people' again, and it's not in some self-consciously foundational Eighteenth Century document, it's likely to be a sign of someone with their tongue in their cheek, or enjoying the absurdity of the gigantically broad and crude brush with which they are painting, or, as in my case, someone entirely without contact with reality or anything resembling a realistic opinion of themself.

It seems to me that strange things are going on. UK politics has forgotten which way is up. There is not just a disconnection but a mighty canyon between voters and professional politicians (into which populists like Trump and Farage have stepped). The EU is uncertain. There is a new sort of terrorism that has everyone rattled. There are unresolved tensions between cultures. Not all of it entirely new, of course, but this picture seems to be the permanent outlook now. It's like facing a wall.

I'm guessing it's a crisis of the nation state. Most of our problems are international, so no government can begin to address them. We don't know how to do politics at a higher level, hence the neutered UN and the Masonic Lodge vibe of the EU.

It's a guess, but I'm inclined to offer my guesses like a mighty prophet's oracle and see how they go down. Perhaps they'll click with others. Maybe saying it will make it true, who knows?

And the alternative to neo-liberalism? No one knows yet, or even where it will come from. The first step is always finding a good question. The answer will come along.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It seems to me that strange things are going on. UK politics has forgotten which way is up. There is not just a disconnection but a mighty canyon between voters and professional politicians (into which populists like Trump and Farage have stepped).
I think some of the malaise in both the UK and US is due to the FPTP system. The result of this has been that the major parties are these huge and fairly unwieldly coalitions of interests - in europe pressure has been relieved by alternate voting systems allowing new parties to form.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think some of the malaise in both the UK and US is due to the FPTP system. The result of this has been that the major parties are these huge and fairly unwieldly coalitions of interests - in europe pressure has been relieved by alternate voting systems allowing new parties to form.
This is, I think, a very good point.

In recent history, Cameron wouldn't have had to hold the Tories together with the promise of a referendum, the SNP wouldn't have had such a clean sweep of Westminster seats, both the Greens and UKIP would have had a sizeable parliamentary presence (a mixed blessing there...) and the in-fighting of the Labour party would be much easier solved.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...
Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...
Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...
Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
Those are the issues for the poor, not people.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
With the exception of the last, those are aspirations, not ideas. They, including the last, almost everybody claims to aspire to, even including Mrs May.

Of those aspirations, his 'idea' for 'increasing democracy' is that power should rest in his claque, not the people or the electorate, just one of many reasons why I detest everything he stands for.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!
That's the main reason I'm voting for a change of leader, having supported Corbyn last year.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!
That's the main reason I'm voting for a change of leader, having supported Corbyn last year.
Certainly it is for me the main reason I have moved from defending him more often than not to feeling there is something deeply toxic at work here.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.
A lot of folks have invested hope in him. And much of that was a proper and understandable reaction to the game which politics has become. Jeremy is different. It is hard to see hope disappointed. It is hard to believe the messengers of bad news who tell you that he just isn't up to the job. It is easier to believe the fault lies with them, that they must have base motives for their criticism.

It's a difficult pill to swallow. I get that. But where does the truth lie?

But I think there is more than just a loyalty, even an idolatrous loyalty, at work here. I think part of his support is indeed disingenuous, or at least subject to mixed motivations, coming from more extremist socialist movements who see a means of increasing their own power and influence. I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions. I hope he is not tempted to go in that direction. He is worth a lot more than that.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.
FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.
FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
Corbyn is presumably a cipher? The hard left have waited decades to get to the top of the Labour Party. If Corbyn falls, they (and their decades of work) fail too. I can hardly see them letting him go in a hurry.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Barnabus - maybe that is why I find so much of the current stuff on places like 'The Canary' so disturbing - also known as 'Corbyn Or Death'. Yes I get that they think Jeremy was different, unique even, a total one off, if you really push it.

However, much of my defence of him was based on, if (a big 'if' I know) he gets voted in it won't be Armageddon. The scare stories in the Mail are just that. He will have to compromise and there is considerable inertia in the UK system therefore what he will achieve (positive and negative) in his first term will be limited.

I guess I never had any illusions so I don't feel they have been thwarted.

I think you are right about some other more dubious characters / influences being at work here.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I've only recently discovered The Canary. I encourage people to read the incredibly pretentious writer bios. They're hilarious.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I'm not sure if it belongs here or on the Trident thread, but it seems that Corbyn's position on Trident shows there is a fundamental flaw in the democratic process of the Labour party.

He was elected as leader on an anti-Trident ticket. It wasn't a secret that he opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction; it's something he's held to consistently throughout his career.

Yet at the same time the official Labour position was to renew Trident.

Both Jeremy and Labour's position on nuclear weapons were voted for by a majority of members. Yet the two are incompatible.

So when Labour members voted for Jeremy, were they voting for a leader or for a blank slate who would wear whatever policies were voted for at the party conference?

It seems to me that the membership is simply caught in two minds and that one of the root causes of their current problems is this cognitive dissonance about what constitutes a leader in a democratic movement.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Part of the cognitive dissonance is because of the left/right split. This has always existed in Labour, but Blair began a trek to the right, and I suppose some recent members are objecting to that, and want to reclaim what they see as foundational Labour values. This is called 'hard left' by some, but strikes me as classic social democracy.

So now you have a left-leaning membership and a right-leaning plp.

I guess that one of them has to give in the end, and there is a split.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think there is more than just a loyalty, even an idolatrous loyalty, at work here. I think part of his support is indeed disingenuous, or at least subject to mixed motivations, coming from more extremist socialist movements who see a means of increasing their own power and influence. I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.
I haven't wanted to say that but that's how it's seemed to me for a while now. Corbyn is coming across as in the pocket of forces he has little or no control over. And I agree about some of his fans. The intimidation and threats have been disturbing to read about in recent weeks.

[ 21. July 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.
FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
Sorry folks, but surely Mr Corbyn has a spine! He just has to tell them he is finished. I voted for Yvette Cooper in the leadership election and was horrified when Corbyn was chosen. I somehow knew he wouldn't stay leader for long. First, he is too old and second, he does not have that particular quality of leadership which is surely necessary. He says many things that I agree with (Trident for e.g.) but I fear he is destined for the back benches once more. Just an interesting aside, why on earth couldn't any of the failed challengers from last year stick their heads above the parapet? Owen Smith - who is he?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
With the exception of the last, those are aspirations, not ideas. They, including the last, almost everybody claims to aspire to, even including Mrs May.

Of those aspirations, his 'idea' for 'increasing democracy' is that power should rest in his claque, not the people or the electorate, just one of many reasons why I detest everything he stands for.
Does that destestation extend to those aspirations listed above. If not, then you can't detest everything he stands for, since he stands for those things.

You see, this is what I don't understand. I can understand you (generic) disliking his style. I can understand you (generic) disagreeing with him on policies (though they seem to me to be the sort of policies which you could reasonably expect from a moderate left of centre politician), but this visceral almost hatred I really can't understand. He seems to me to be in every way a moderate, polite, honourable man, with an exemplary record of public service, perhaps even being on the fringe of boring. Not really a candidate for anyone's hatred, I would have thought.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Jolly Jape, even from 20,000km away, and really having no direct interest in the outcome, I hope that Corbyn for once in his political lifetime behaves in the honourable manner you attribute to him, announces he will not be a candidate for election, and sticks to that.

Over his long career, he has shown very little loyalty to the party in whose name he nominally stood. He must have hit some sort of record in voting against the policies the party espoused. I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well. Add to this the stories now emerging of his inability to manage his private office and to consult with his own front bench. Electorally he's going to be a disaster.

What's the problem with his hard left politics? They are appealing to a group of voters. In the 80s, this was the Militant Tendency, a group which attempted to gain by industrial action what could not be obtained at the ballot box. The result? Years of Thatcher and the divisive politics on which she thrived. Years of whittling away at social welfare reforms which until then had had largely bi-partisan support since the Attlee years. Years of backward financial changes.

Now there's Corbyn. Should he remain leader, he'll continue to appeal to Momentum, which seems from here to have many similarities with the Militant Tendency. The consequences will be much the same, with government handed on a silver platter to the Tories until at least 2025 and more likely 2030 with no effective opposition. That's why he should step down now with minimal further disruption to his party.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And I agree about some of his fans. The intimidation and threats have been disturbing to read about in recent weeks.
Corbyn has been receiving death threats. Who do you think those have been coming from? Of course the media focusses on dubious claims that threats made to other MPs are from Corbyn supporters, but many of those have turned out to be false (e.g. Luciana Berger had death threats from a neo-Nazi which some people - not her, to her credit - attributed to Corbyn supporters), likewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't) and implied that Corbyn supporters were responsible (no evidence of that at all).

Most of the alleged "threats and intimidation" from Corbyn supporters have turned out to be emails asking someone to vote a particular way. The quantity is likely unnerving, yes, if you're an NEC member who doesn't usually get a lot of correspondence from party members, but it's not intimidation.

As for Smith's little dance he did where he claimed some people were saying that Corbyn was encouraging abuse but then refused to make the claim himself, I thought that was a despicable little bit of cowardice. Either make the accusation and be prepared to support it or keep your mouth shut.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Strong rumours going around that if Corbyn wins again, that most MPs will not split but will hang on, even Blairites. I would think that one factor may be the awful lesson of Polly Toynbee and the SDP, and also, if there is an election before 2020, and Labour lose, they would anticipate a new leader.

Only rumours though.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well.
Would that be the condemnation of violence by all sides, and the belief that, as that well known hard leftist Winston Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war? Yes, he has a record of voting against his own party, but he can make a pretty good case that he was the one in the right, and that time has demonstrated that.

As for his "hard left" political stance, there is nothing in his political programme that could not have been said by Hugh Gateskill or RAB Butler, Harold Wilson or Ted Heath, or, indeed, any mainstream politician prior to Margaret Thatcher.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[L]ikewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't)
But that brick did go through her office window, right?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[L]ikewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't)
But that brick did go through her office window, right?
No.

The brick went through a ground floor window into a stairwell, in a building shared by six organisations.

Eagle's office windows (also ground floor) were entirely untouched.

Now, if I shared a building with five other flats and the common stairwell window was broken, I'd probably be over-reaching if I said my flat had been broken into, given that none of my windows nor the front door to my flat had been attacked in any way.

YMMV
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
On the other hand, if there was the only person/ organisation in the block that had been getting hate-mail and threats of violence (including death threats), most people would think it reasonable to assume that they were the intended recipient of the brick. (The Clapham Omnibus test is entirely proved.)
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Just an interesting aside, why on earth couldn't any of the failed challengers from last year stick their heads above the parapet? Owen Smith - who is he?
I've wondered that too - I'm guessing it's because they thought someone entirely fresh who'd not stood before would be more likely to win and be easier for Corbyn supporters to defect to.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It's known to be a very rough area. Random vandalism is a more likely explanation. Even if Eagle was being targeted, after recent events the more likely candidates are far right nutjobs with a history of this sort of thing.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Does that destestation extend to those aspirations listed above. If not, then you can't detest everything he stands for, since he stands for those things.

You see, this is what I don't understand. I can understand you (generic) disliking his style. I can understand you (generic) disagreeing with him on policies (though they seem to me to be the sort of policies which you could reasonably expect from a moderate left of centre politician), but this visceral almost hatred I really can't understand. He seems to me to be in every way a moderate, polite, honourable man, with an exemplary record of public service, perhaps even being on the fringe of boring. Not really a candidate for anyone's hatred, I would have thought.
Jolly Jape, I would have replied but even from 20,000 km away, Gee D has said everything I would have wanted to say better than I could.

[ 21. July 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
On the other hand, if there was the only person/ organisation in the block that had been getting hate-mail and threats of violence (including death threats), most people would think it reasonable to assume that they were the intended recipient of the brick. (The Clapham Omnibus test is entirely proved.)
Eagle's office windows have Labour party stickers. Pretty easy to identify.

And the same address is home to a lot of property management companies too. Disgruntled tenants? Who knows? You certainly don't.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well.
Would that be the condemnation of violence by all sides, and the belief that, as that well known hard leftist Winston Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war? Yes, he has a record of voting against his own party, but he can make a pretty good case that he was the one in the right, and that time has demonstrated that.

As for his "hard left" political stance, there is nothing in his political programme that could not have been said by Hugh Gateskill or RAB Butler, Harold Wilson or Ted Heath, or, indeed, any mainstream politician prior to Margaret Thatcher.
I don't like - really don't like what he inspires in his followers. As to violence - well we know that no matter what is reported it won't be accepted by his followers. The confirmation bias is turned up to 10!

I agree with almost all his programme but the violence that comes with this 'purer than thou' ideology stinks. I don't necessarily mean physical violence.

Anyone who is against Corbyn is morally bankrupt Anyone who disagrees with him is a Blairite (which I have learnt goes with scum implicitly or explicitly). The motivation of most of the PLP is known just by how they voted! The conspiracy theories that proliferate. He may be a pacifist but boy are his followers giving the press an awful lot of ammunition and most of it will stick. I have seen some of it first hand.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I'd agree with Jolly Jape that Corbyn most definitely is a moderate, the trouble is that very few ever listen to what he actually says. It's been documented that he is consistently misreported.

But as Luigi points out, it is some of his followers that are the problem. They also don't listen to him. It's not Jeremy Corbyn that they like. It's the idea of Jeremy Corbyn that gets them excited.

It's groups like the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) see Corbyn as a kind of infiltrator, as though his 33 years in parliament as a Labour MP has been some kind of ruse to worm his way to power and herald a smashing of capitalism, in spite of him being very supporting of the tech businesses that thrive in his own constituency.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to ...landlords [who] have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
With all this Blairite scum around, surely a build up was bound to cause problems sooner or later?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
Yes, the very people I would have anticipated knowing where their MP's ground floor office was... [Roll Eyes]

Let's face it, you've jumped to a conclusion, and you're sticking to it. May be you're right, may be you're wrong. But you don't actually care.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, Sipech, that helps me to understand the use of 'hard left' by some people as a description of Corbyn. That suggests to me the smashing of capitalism, or some such phrase, whereas for me Corbyn stands as a classic social democrat, mixed economy and so on.

Mind you, in today's climate, social democracy seems to be considered a fearful danger to the neoliberal position.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
My goodness, I hope I'm never unfortunate enough to be wrongfully arrested and come up against some of you in the jury. Apparently, lack of evidence doesn't stop some folks from pronouncing the accused guilty. It's just "the usual suspects". We know that people like him are wrong 'und, so we'll just dispence with small difficulties like a total lack of evidence.

Of course there are some nasty people out there, and they are confined neither to the left or the right. I think that Corbyn has had his share of death threats against him. Do (generic) you have the same visceral dislike of Eagle or Smith because of the wicked actions of some of their unwelcome followers.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Confirmation bias is a fearful thing, and at the moment seems to rule on all sides. There are various paranoid narratives in Labour at the moment, but there seems to be a lack of skepticism towards one's own, or shall we say, a lack of postmodern distancing. As Brecht said ... oh fuck off, Brecht.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
Yes, the very people I would have anticipated knowing where their MP's ground floor office was... [Roll Eyes]

Let's face it, you've jumped to a conclusion, and you're sticking to it. May be you're right, may be you're wrong. But you don't actually care.
So what have we got so far: 1/ There has been a brick through the window of the building in which Angela Eagle's constituency office is based. 2/ When she was in the running to stand for the Labour leadership she had to be given police protection 3/ Her Constituency Labour Party has been suspended by the national party for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at her. Oh, and 4/ It has just been reported that she has been advised by Plod not to do her constituency surgeries for her own safety. In the circumstances, Watson, it is hardly unreasonable to surmise that there is clearly an element among Corbyn's support who are not entirely signed up to this kinder, gentler, politics malarkey. And whilst I have never met an 'out' member of the brick throwing community, my general impression is that they do not really have much of a grasp of very much, beyond the impact of certain types of masonry against glass windows and it does not strike me that they would be punctilious about putting a brick through exactly the 'correct' window. [Roll Eyes]

Now it may transpire to be the case that the brick was thrown by someone else, the Wallasey fuzz are gentle unworldly souls who mistake fraternal disagreement for intimidation, and that Labour Party central have got entirely the wrong end of the stick with regards to the state of play in the Wallasey constituency party. But, as things stand, there is a fairly solid prima facie case for expressing a certain amount of concern at the situation.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I don't like - really don't like what he inspires in his followers. As to violence - well we know that no matter what is reported it won't be accepted by his followers. The confirmation bias is turned up to 10!

I agree with almost all his programme but the violence that comes with this 'purer than thou' ideology stinks. I don't necessarily mean physical violence.

Anyone who is against Corbyn is morally bankrupt Anyone who disagrees with him is a Blairite (which I have learnt goes with scum implicitly or explicitly).
Thanks - that's really helped me understand what it is that's winding me up about this whole thing. It's the holier than thou attitude and the fact that dissent is treated as heresy. Really annoys me.

Oh and Anglican't - the Blairite scum/blocked bogs joke - really cheered me up.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Sipech, that helps me to understand the use of 'hard left' by some people as a description of Corbyn. That suggests to me the smashing of capitalism, or some such phrase, whereas for me Corbyn stands as a classic social democrat, mixed economy and so on.

Mind you, in today's climate, social democracy seems to be considered a fearful danger to the neoliberal position.
True enough. There is nothing resembling the Trotskyist Militant Tendency in the Labour Party nor any MPs like Terry Fields and Dave Nellist. It would be useful to have them to remind everyone of the real position of Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Confirmation bias is a fearful thing, and at the moment seems to rule on all sides. There are various paranoid narratives in Labour at the moment, but there seems to be a lack of skepticism towards one's own, or shall we say, a lack of postmodern distancing. As Brecht said ... oh fuck off, Brecht.
It does seem to be running in both directions, but not with equal vigour. For instance I've not seen anyone from the "anti-Corbyn" camp refuse to take his word for it when Jeremy Corbyn says he has received death threats and abuse. However, many of the "pro-Corbyn" camp do seem to dispute Angela Eagle's statement that she has been threatened. This is despite the fact that Jeremy Corbyn himself clearly takes what she says at face value since he has (rightly) condemned those responsible. As indeed do the police, who have investigated those threats and arrested someone on suspicion of making them, and who have apparently now advised her not to hold surgeries for the moment.

The window might turn out to have been broken by someone from the Royal Oak opposite, taking a shortcut down the path at the side of the Sherlock House at closing time. It's not THAT rough an area that windows are being broken all the time, and Wallasey Police Station is only about 200 yards down the street, but that's possible. It's certainly a coincidence that the damage occurred the very day she announced she would stand against Jeremy Corbyn, but coincidences do happen. But even if it wasn't broken by someone wanting to send Angela Eagle a message though, given that timing and the immediate history of threats and abuse, you can quite understand why she might suspect that it was.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My goodness, I hope I'm never unfortunate enough to be wrongfully arrested and come up against some of you in the jury. Apparently, lack of evidence doesn't stop some folks from pronouncing the accused guilty. It's just "the usual suspects". We know that people like him are wrong 'und, so we'll just dispence with small difficulties like a total lack of evidence.

Of course there are some nasty people out there, and they are confined neither to the left or the right. I think that Corbyn has had his share of death threats against him. Do (generic) you have the same visceral dislike of Eagle or Smith because of the wicked actions of some of their unwelcome followers.
I can only go on the evidence that I have seen first hand. I don't know which side has been more guilty in terms of threats of physical violence. All I know is that whenever the actions of the PLP are discussed by some of my acquaintances, people I have always found to be considerate and pleasant in the past, suddenly they adopt this zealot type attitude where any one who dares to suggest that there might have been wrong on both sides - that the PLP have a duty to those who had directly elected them as well as the party members who gave JC a mandate - is aggressively called a plotter or a traitor.

By coincidence I met a momentum just over a week ago who again had been pleasant enough previously - I didn't know at the beginning of the conversation that he was in the Labour party. When I mentioned that I knew a certain MP. He almost jumped down my throat pointing out that the MP had nominated Liz Kendall, he said with relish about how soon the MP would be deselected.

The Blairite scum (or wanker) coupling I have come across many times. Sometimes from friends - not aimed at me but when talking of all the PLP - who I have always found to be reasonable, considerate. It is the way this belief in JC affects people that bothers me.

I've only come across this problem in the past few weeks. However, the more people come across this aggression the more traction these ideas will get.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks. You appear blissfully unaware of the realignment in British politics that has seen the Labour left of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and, say, Eric Heffer relabelled as Communism and J Enoch Powell brought into the political centre.

[ 21. July 2016, 17:37: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Sorry should make clear. When I say:

"I've only come across this problem in the past few weeks. However, the more people come across this aggression the more traction these ideas will get."

I mean the more people come across this aggression the more traction the idea that the idealistic left is dominated by a bunch of thugs, will get. Which I think would be shame.

[ 21. July 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks.
You mean Corbyn isn't backed by Momentum and doesn't have support from neo-communist/militant groups? And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
So, basically, your position is that the whole business of abuse is a fabrication by Angela Eagle to avoid deselection and that the National Labour Party and the Wallasey Police are over reacting? Okeydoke, let's see how that thesis pans out over the next few months.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks.
You mean Corbyn isn't backed by Momentum and doesn't have support from neo-communist/militant groups? And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Thanks - that's really helped me understand what it is that's winding me up about this whole thing. It's the holier than thou attitude and the fact that dissent is treated as heresy. Really annoys me.
Plus the way any criticism of Mr Corbyn is instantly dismissed on the grounds that the speaker is right-wing. Perhaps could follow that line of argument to its logical conclusion, dismiss his supporters' defence of him on the grounds that they are social democrats, and decide the whole issue by throwing Messrs Corbyn and Smith into the Mersey and seeing which one floats.

[ 21. July 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
To be fair, Corbyn is the conclusion of Benn and Heffer, by other means, as it were. Not a communist as such but certainly further to the left than most of the British electorate. My recollection is that Peter Shore was on the right of the Labour Party but he was opposed to the EEC, as it was then, and would have undoubtedly have been in favour of the Leave campaign, although, to be fair he would have been honest about this.

I was mildly surprised when Jolly Jape contended that Corbyn's policies were indistinguishable from those of Hugh Gaitskell (hated by Labour's left), Harold Wilson (ditto), Ted Heath IA pro-EU Tory) and RA Butler (WTF?). Given Corbyn's general position on the defence of the realm, his work for Press TV and Russia Today, and his somewhat complicated relationship with the Jewish Community there was a gag that immediately occurred to me but as a discreet friend of Butler's memory I will let the occasion pass.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
Well that sort of inaccuracy actually.

I happened to see JC's campaign launch this lunchtime.

One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.

Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.

Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?
Labour's current rules state that if a new constituency encompasses at least 40% of an old constituency's territory, the MP for the old constituency may seek selection as a matter of right. Mr McDonnell stated last year that this rule would not change.

It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
Well, there is this. I heard a member of that group who was at the meeting state in a TV interview, quite specifically, that Angela Eagle's sexuality had indeed been denigrated by homophobic remarks as a part of the "heated meeting". No doubt these complaints have formed a part of the evidence provided which led to this.

Now of course these are allegations. But they must have carried enough weight to justify an investigation. And no doubt they have been supported by evidence from Angela Eagle.

I heard other interviews in the TV programme with others in the CLP whose hostility to Angela Eagle was quite open. The contents were disquieting. There is a case to answer here.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.
I have to assume you know how candidates are selected to stand for parliamentary seats, and are engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Where did the other 60% of new constituency come from? Narnia? Or might there have been a standing candidate for that too? Given that there are significant boundary changes and 50 fewer constituencies, might you possibly consider that there would be a democratic contest for the PPC in that case?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
As I understand the current rules (based on this site), if you have a situation where (for example) four MPs' constituencies are folded into three, then at least one constituency could see a selection battle between two MPs, but the selection would not automatically be open to anyone other than those two MPs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It seems from what I've just read to be a 'gentlemen's agreement' that there'll be no trigger ballot. Not that a trigger ballot can't happen, and that said trigger ballot is outwith the party's higher apparatus to invalidate.

There may be a lot of constituencies which will hold trigger ballots in the event of a Corbyn win. Obviously, what Corbyn says will influence the members one way or another, but if you give people the power to do something, it seems (certainly in the current climate) unwise to reel it back in in case they exercise that power.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks. You appear blissfully unaware of the realignment in British politics that has seen the Labour left of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and, say, Eric Heffer relabelled as Communism and J Enoch Powell brought into the political centre.
Sorry, but if you don't mind my saying this, that is rhetorical twaddle. I'm in my late 60s and have followed UK politics as an interested spectator since my mid teens. Tony Benn swung noticeably to the left during the seventies, about the time he shortened his name. Thereafter he regarded as being on the extreme end of the Parliamentary left by almost everybody, including his own supporters. Enoch Powell was regarded as a dangerous right winger and, to use the phrase from those times, racialist, from the mid-sixties and has been so regarded ever since.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The real realignment was over the 'grotesque spectacle' of Militant Tendency. New Labour was the child of that realignment. The underlying shift was all about electability and getting floating voters from the centre. Received wisdom was that the Old Labour agenda just made the Party unelectable.

BTW that is still received wisdom. Certainly Theresa May believes it which is why she hoped to see Jeremy 'for many years' over the Despatch Box in the House of Commons.

While I admire those who who believe in the electability of Jeremy Corbyn and essentially Old Labour agenda, and the persuasive power of that agenda, I think you are whistling in the dark to keep your spirits up. The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary. I think it scares sufficient people to make more moderate centre right or centre left mixed economy policies the way to go to defeat such shit.

Which is why the suspension of CLPs because of abuse allegations is so dangerous. It just adds to the impression that something akin to Militant Tendency is screwing up the Labour Party again. Which will screw up electability for several years to come.

That's what the majority of the PLP think. Sure, moves can be made to deselect them, replace them with True Believers. The replacements will learn that getting into government in the UK is a pragmatic process. And the wheel will turn again. Meanwhile we'll get a further '13 years of Tory misrule'.

Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Two words: John Smith
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
John Smith's death was a tragedy for Labour in many ways. But he was a reformer too, just a tad more cautious than Blair or Brown about how far reforms had to go in order to get elected.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary.
It is fear, fear moves people rightward. Conservatives have always played the minor chords well.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
I know you are claiming that Corbyn didn't threaten the MPs with deselection. OK - that is a credible reading of what he said, from my limited knowledge. But that isn't the question for me - clearly some of his supporters are very happy to look for revenge. The atmosphere within the Labour party is toxic at the moment.

I got the distinct impression that some Momentum supporters would really like to deselect their MPs. Is this not possible? The few I have spoken to would love to have that hanging over the heads of the MPs, at the very least. Even if the threat can only be realised in 2020.

Surely that is a viable threat?
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
If the proposed boundary changes go through, then I believe there will have to be a selection process for most constituencies.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Of course Jeremy was just stating the rules. No sitting MP has the absolute right to be chosen as the party's election candidate. Nor is there anything to stop a local CLP passing a vote of no confidence in a sitting member. The sitting member can remain as an MP whether or not they have lost the confidence of their local party, since the local party doesn't elect them.

But of course the rules are not the story. The story is "who will rid me of these rebellious 'priests'". Is that Jeremy's position? Can it be read into anything he says?

Modern politicians have to live and work with modern media. So the wise ones choose their words with care.

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

I wonder what Seamas Milne's advice was. Maybe there was none, maybe that was just Jeremy? Who knows? But either way, I'm not impressed with Seamas Milne. If he wasn't savvy enough to see it himself (and in my book he should have been) somebody should have warned Jeremy about that bloody silly open-goal job insecurity PMQ. And somebody should have warned him about reselection hypotheticals.

Being media savvy is part of the leader's job.

[ 22. July 2016, 08:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
I think "he always answers questions honestly" is a bit of a myth. He frequently avoids answering questions directly. And so he should do to!

Any halfway competent politician knows that some questions are traps and to answer them straightforwardly will give a hostage to fortune and possibly even more importantly a misleading impression. You want to give accurate impressions not inaccurate ones so you answer a slightly different question to the one you were asked. For example, when you are given a binary choice that is absurdly simplistic.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."

It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?

Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."

It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?

Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.
Yep - exactly! On a more general level being diplomatic is incredibly important when dealing with many competing positions. Sadly it is a skill that he appears to be somewhat lacking in.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You turn reselection questions around.... It's a necessary political craft.
Exactly. I think Corbyn is being treated incredibly unfairly by the press. The Independent had some data which appeared to be compiled by an outside group without a particular axe to grind that suggested he was regularly misquoted, not quoted when a right of reply would be usual, and caricatured in the press. But he isn't helping himself by being so credulous.

If, in the setting of a toxic parliamentary party split, a journalist asks you a question about deselection it isn't because they are giving you a helpful pointer to clarify technical details of the parties functioning, it's because they want a story. And the story is obviously "Corbyn talks about deselection".

"I don't think it's helpful to talk about that, my focus isn't on deselection of anyone and I'm not changing any rules. My focus is on bringing us together" would be an answer to the question that isn't slippery but isn't as crass as wading into a long discussion.

If a Doctor is asked "Am I dying?" then a technical answer on the ways in which one might be dying ending with the conclusion that we are all dying in one way or another is technically correct but is in (small p) political terms missing the point. And unfortunately so was Corbyn (big P too).

[ 22. July 2016, 10:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Arethosemyfeet re homophobic remarks at a CLP meeting.

Here is another Liverpool Echo link.

It contains this quote which applies to wider issues as well.

quote:
The MP (Angela Eagle) had earlier welcomed the investigation by party bosses and today said: “I can’t anticipate what will happen, that’s a matter for the party’s compliance department – but the party does have strict rule about threats misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings and they need to be properly respected.”

She said there are signed letters from “about 17 or 19 people who were at that meeting and saw what was going on”.
If your primary aim is to let bygones be bygones, then perhaps it would be a good idea to remind CLP members of the strict rules re "threats, misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings" rather than take the bait on reselection. That would seem to be a matter of much more immediate concern, given the increasing number of complaints from MPs over various forms of harrassment.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
He doesn't have the political and diplomatic nous needed in a potential prime minister. Neither does he have the necessary charisma.
He comes across to me as bumbling, he dithers and stutters, he's even disengaged when he should be engaged.

Just heard him on the BBC morning news: he talked about the attack on Angela Eagle's office (so he accepts it happened unlike some people, it seems) and he said that he had 'APOLOGISED for' .... stutter .... 'he was sorry'. A simple and silly mistake which he should not have made. (I don't think he was behind the attack BTW.)

He's been in the game for many years, he's had time to learn how to answer awkward questions and not get trapped by journalists.

The man isn't suitable prime ministerial material and should have the humility to accept that he does not command the support of his MPs and therefore needs to go. If he won't go, then Labour Party members must have the sense to vote for another leader.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
This is beginning to remind me of Archbishop Rowan Williams who would give very good, well thought out and honest answers to questions without having thought through how the journalist would use what he said.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.

Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal]

I have just reread the report and I accept that the question was indeed about boundary changes. I would still draw attention to the word 'every' in Mr Corbyn's response, plus the implication that it would be an open contest rather than a battle between the two amalgamated MPs.

[ 22. July 2016, 11:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.

Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.
That's not my recollection of what he said, but I don't have a transcript. I'll search on iPlayer. The actual questions weren't caught on mic, but I certainly don't remember JC referring to "all constituencies'
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
All of of the above may (or may not) be very true.
But i for one would rather like a non-point-scoring leader of the Labour Party for a while. Someone who is not all smarmy or out-talking others. Some of us Like the steady approach

And isn't the Labour party supposed to be opposing the Tory party? Right now, the alternative leaders are sounding all too similar to the Tories.

[and his from someone who is Not a member of the Labour party]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry, Ricardus, cross-posted.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A link to what he said.

Scroll down to the video link.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.

See here.

BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Another way Cornyn is like Trump. Trump just views his negative media attention as free publicity. He got the media to find his primary campaign.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.

See here.

BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"I speak to some of my supporters here. I regret the need to do this, but I have seen the evidence and cannot keep silent about your actions. Listen up. Whatever you may think, you are no friends of mine if you abuse, threaten and intimidate Labour MPs who do not support me. I disown such actions. They are repugnant to me. They are no part of what membership of this party means. You are doing me no favours. You are bringing the party into disrepute. Where sufficient proof of any of the abuses outlawed by our rules is forthcoming, your membership of the party will be cancelled forthwith. Where prosecution is believed to be in order, the evidence will be handed over to the police for further action. You have been warned"

Something like that, anyway.

[ 22. July 2016, 22:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
He's already said as much several times.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.
I agree with this, but put it differently.

JC's presence at the helm has let loose forces he is powerless to stop.

They believe in using aggression, viciousness, the power of the angry mob and even violence. Milliband, Brown and Blair were too centrist for them, so they didn't get involved. Now they have something to get nasty for, and get nasty they will. The enemy will be bullied into silence.

This will continue at least while JC is in charge.

They may act in Corbyn's name, but he has no control over them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.
I found this

quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.

He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.

“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”
That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Anyway, it seems that he is now going to make another statement on the subject.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.
I found this

quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.

He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.

“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”
That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.
I would have thought that most people reading Corbyn's condemnation with an open mind would be pretty clear what he thought of threatening or bullying behaviour, whoever was the source: a clear and unequivocal condemnation. I'm assuming that you, Barnabas, as an intelligent and fair minded person, believe that this is a true reflection of what JC actually thinks. So why the desire to make him jump through hoops? Don't you think a specific condemnation of those who are his supporters would lend creedence to the media agenda of portraying the bullying as being confined to his supporters with everyone else being whiter than white? Because that's how the daily heil would portray it: "see, even Corbyn accepts that his supporters are thugs and bullies". How is that a smart move?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There are unruly elements in Jeremy's supporters, JJ, and there is clear evidence that they have taken aggressive and abusive use of social media to a different level. The extent to which this is concerted or conspiratorial is not yet clear. The sheer volume of abuse is new, and the reports of intimidation by other means are coming from serious, reliable sources.

Jeremy has a problem with some of his supporters which is on a completely different scale to anything seen previously. I've looked at some of the recent Facebook entries and twitter feeds involving a number of dissenting MPs and needed brain bleach afterwards. With such "friends" who needs enemies?

Do I think Jeremy condones this abusive behaviour? No. Do I think that at least some of it is being orchestrated by folks who support his position as leader? Yes. Do I think enough positive action (suspensions of memberships, effective CLP checks and curbs on behaviour which contravenes the code of conduct) has happened yet? No. Do I think it will now happen? I hope so but there may be some CLPs whose local leaders are part of the problem, rather than prepared to be part of the solution. Wallasey may not be an isolated case.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If John Paul II, having decided to apologise for the Crusades, had in fact said something on the lines of 'of course We condemn the violence on both sides of the conflict, and did We mention the Almohad persecutions in Spain and the martyrdom of Isidore of Seville?' - then I think the Muslim world would have been justified in regarding his words as a non-apology.

To put it another way: Mr Corbyn has no need to condemn abusive behaviour towards his supporters because it is not being done in his name. Bringing it up in the context of an apology comes across as whatabouttery.

[ 23. July 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It does seem slightly reminiscent of the hoops that Muslims have to jump through to distance themselves from extremism. Did they condemn violence? Well did they condemn this specific instance of violence? Did they use the phrase "radical Islam"? And so on.

The press is again being unfair. However such has been the treatment of every Labour leader excepting T Blair. I suppose the difference is that the Guardian is joining in this time.

But having said that it seems the same themes continue to play out in this instance - of vitriolic unfair press, Corbyn apparently being very reasonable and technically correct, but not very inspired, communicative or media-savvy.

I think there are dangers in what Barnabas proposes along the "see, he admits it!" line that JJ says, but there would be a middle ground between a rather bland almost platitudenous statement about bullying and a more personally impassioned plea to end this. And an impassioned plea that acknowledges real things have taken place would be more helpful than one that doesn't acknowledge and real bullying and carries an overtone of "well I've had it too".
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Actually, I think it is a "smart choice" by Jeremy to slam directly and threaten disciplinary action against those JC supporters who are crossing the line "in his name". (That's the closing phrase in the open letter from 45 female MPs in the PLP.) And remind CLP leaders of their responsibility to ensure the code of conduct is applied locally.

If he takes a small hit from that now, that would IMO be better than the much larger hit he will get later if he doesn't do that before some of the investigations (e.g. Wallasey) come to book. Oh sure, that is second-guessing those investigations, but in Wallasey the evidence of abuse already in the public domain is impressive, along with the critical reports of unacceptable behaviour at local CLP meetings. Leadership includes the courage to grasp painful nettles, and take effective action to uproot them.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
FFS Jeremy Corbyn MP on Twitter: "I've just launched Respect & Unity: Our Code of Conduct for the Labour leadership election. Please read and RT → https://t.co/gpWHSQMEQD"

This has been out for days, plus about five other formal statements.

The idea he hasn't condemned abuse is just a lie.

(And every single time he has been asked directly, immediately, and without ambiguity.)

You might remember he also went into bat for Laura Kuenessberg, stating the petition for her to be sacked was unacceptable and that people should treat her with respect.

[ 23. July 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I also note though the press covered the 'keep it comradely' thing they've let that go virtually unreported.

[ 23. July 2016, 11:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.

Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.

If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Doublethink

I had read the Code of Conduct. What is the operational connection between abuse of the code and pre-existing disciplinary procedures? I can see shoulds, expects and tolerance limits. Classically, these are "warm words".

Codes of conduct normally do not have teeth and this one doesn't seem any different to me. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
This.

He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:

“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”

Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
This.

He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:

“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”

Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...
I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.

Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.

If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).
Actually, "keep it comradely" was Angela Eagle's pledge, the respect and unity one - which is more detailed - is from Corbyn.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...
I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
Apart from reporting abuse - which can lead to suspension or expulsion from the party, or reporting to the police - what else are you expecting ? There is no other mechanism, he can't very well go round and beat them up.

[ 23. July 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Meanwhile, T.May got off to a roaring start as 'Thatcher #2' ... JC got a bit of a spanking, although I do hope for the day when he can turn the words, 'Remind her of anyone?!' back at May ...

Labour members are concerned, I think, both at what is said, and the way it is being said. Many long-term party-people agree with 85% of what JC says in terms of policy but are nevertheless worried that no one other than the left are listening to him... This is a real issue the movement must face.

The idea of a truly radical-left party winning a General Election in the UK can still seem far-fetched (though there are debates to be had about how many votes Tony Blair actually won by, say, committing to the Tory spending plans to get into office in 1997)...

I will simply observe for now that there certainly needs to be something 'in the air' among the general public; a sense of an ever more urgent need for a 'new beginning' in the way we re-organise our society / our whole attitude to the way decisions should be reached. Not expressing myself very well here, as typing off the cuff, but have this feeling that there is some kind of common thread in the successes of Atlee, Wilson and Blair. I too have my doubts about JC's place in their company,, but at the same time have heard nothing as yet from his rival, beyond Millibandish-triangulation ...........
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think I may have an answer to my question to Doublethink.

Here is the Labour Party rulebook for 2016 (You have to download the pdf.)

Chapter 6 refers to Disciplinary Procedures. It begins this way
quote:
The NEC shall take such disciplinary measures as it deems necessary to ensure that all Party members and officers conform to the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party.
Is the Code of Conduct now a part of "the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party"? Or does it need first to be ratified by an NEC meeting? Its enforcibility depends on its status. Is that clear?

(edited for bad link - B62)

[ 24. July 2016, 00:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.

But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned. However, he can't change the party rules himself - those are agreed by the NEC to which representatives are elected by party members.

Part of the problem, is that Twitter accounts, or Facebook, or email - do not necessarily give a person's real name nor is their any guarantee that person is a member of the party. Sock puppets and trolls are a thing.

The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.

[ 23. July 2016, 22:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
IIRC, Corbyn opposed secret voting in the NEC, because secret voting in the NEC is highly irregular.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, Johanna Baxter, the NEC member quoted in Sarah G's link, says something even more amazing:

Quote: "The only reason to vote against that [secret voting] is so the intimidation can continue".

This strikes me again as highly inflammatory language - 'the only reason' - how does she know that? 'Is so the intimidation can continue' - this suggests that Corbyn is actively organizing abuse and intimidation.

WTF? She continues: 'he showed his true colours in that vote', well that is, according to her interpretation.

Who is being abusive now?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.

But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned.
Yes I had a look in Chapter 2 and came to the conclusion that "prejudicial conduct" was the broad category of offence which might be used.

I think that means two things.

1. Both the Code of Conduct and the Pledge are not directly subject to disciplinary action if they are transgressed. Adherence to them is essentially voluntary.

2. "Prejudicial Conduct" is too broad. The wording of the current rule book needs to be beefed up - e.g. by including something like the Code of Conduct as part of the "standing orders of the Party".

quote:
The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.
I accept your general argument as far as it goes. (The feeling in the PLP seems to be a mixture of fury and frustration with Jeremy.)

But it does look as though the weight of the dogpiling, whether or not it is co-ordinated, comes from folks who support Jeremy. I hope they listen to him and stop. But under the current Rule Book, there is not a lot that can be done easily if they don't, provided they stay within the law.

I still think he should talk directly to his supporters, in very strong terms. He may be doing this in the rallies. That would be good.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.

I think the disproportion is simply because - example percentage - 2% of a larger number of people, is a larger absolute number of people. Whilst more MPs who receive abuse over the leadership, are going to receive abuse from that 2% because there are more MPs who are anti-corbyn.

Conversely, Corbyn supporters are unimpressed with being referred to as trots / rabble / dogs - hence the emergence of the trotrabbledogs hashtag. Nor did a labour mp claiming poor people aren't interested in politics, so disenfranchising them doesn't matter, help.

[ 24. July 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.
Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)

And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.

quote:

As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.

All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.

There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.

There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.
Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.

Fury is no excuse for misconduct.

[ 24. July 2016, 08:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
After reading the story of access to Seema Malhotra's office this morning it seems pretty clear that no matter what, the party is not going to unite behind Corbyn. It's just got simply too toxic for that. In the interests of party unity he needs to step down to defuse the situation.

There have been far too many resignations and it is a sad day for any party to come to a vote of no confidence in their leader. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, it can't be healed by Corbyn staying in place. IMO.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
He would be playing a blinder, however, were he to urge all his supporters to get behind Smith, in the event of Smith winning -- and then call upon Smith's supporters to match the offer .....
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
When I read the headline "Jeremy Corbyn denounces media blackout at Labour parish council win" on Twitter, I presumed the accompanying link would be to the Daily Mash or another satirical website. But no, the link was to Politics Home and Corbyn actually said that.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.

Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.
Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)

And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.

quote:

As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.

All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.

There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.

There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.
Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.

Fury is no excuse for misconduct.
I am following the code of conduct, it doesn't stop me being tarred with the same brush - see any amount of commentary on this thread for example. I am not using the hashtag, I have no friends doing so.

People are promoting 'block don't bicker' on Twitter. But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option. There a re already clone accounts on Twitter posting repeated attakcs on corbyn using exactly the same phrases and graphics. All that will happen if Corbyn supporters don't use Twitter is that it will get colonised by those making the opposite argument - and then the relative volume of messages / hashtags will become a story about how corbyn is losing support.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.

[ 24. July 2016, 09:26: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.

Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?
If we had a sensible electoral system, a split would be inevitable, and healthy IMO.

If Corbyn is re-elected, as he will be barring something earth-shaking, then a split is likely. The centre-left/soft-left breakaway group will probably try all kinds of shenanigans to try and claim ownership of the valuable Labour brand, but I don't think they'll succeed. In the long term, there could well be a larger centre-left party, possibly in alliance/merger with the Lib Dems, but that raises all sorts of other issues that will take many, many years to work through. In the meantime, the Tories have the next election, and the one after that probably, in the bag.

In about 10 years time the Tories will have succumbed to the scandals/exhaustion/running out of ideas that afflict all parties that have been in power too long. A unifying centre-left person (who may not yet be an MP) will then have every chance of winning a general election.

That's best case, as far as I can see.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option.
Dunno. Couldn't both candidates call for a social media truce on the grounds that the dogpiling is prejudicial to Party unity, regardless of who wins?

I think you and I agree (probably) that the current levels of media dogpiling are prejudicial to the Party. I reckon Owen and Jeremy would do themselves and the Party a favour if they stood up together in front of this runaway train and shouted "STOP"!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It really isn't option, especially in terms of reaching the younger members of the party. We are now a country where the first announcement the chancellor was leaving office was on Twitter - you can't take it out of the equation it just won't work.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In which case, what the Hell is the point of the Code of Conduct?

I'm not talking about stopping tweeting and FBing. I'm talking about pleading to party members to stop using these media to vent, foster emnity and distrust. A joint appeal for better conduct along the lines of the code, when using social media.

This stuff is doing very great damage to party and to prospects of future party unity. The bitterness will linger on.

And the Tories cannot believe their good fortune.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.
I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive? I don't have any evidence of this, except anecdotal, but you don't have to be a genius to wonder why the right-wing media are so against him?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.
Unless there is any possibility that they really are being harassed and bullied. If that is true then it becomes understandable that they might want to vote in secrecy.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
And 40 female MP's have vivid imaginations? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive?
Since Murdoch's press was able to destroy Kinnock, make Blair, destroy Gordon Brown, destroy Miliband and deliver Brexit without any serious counter-productivity I doubt the Guardian joining in on this occasion will tip the wagon over.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.
Seriously? There's no part of you that wonders if there might be something to it? I desperately wanted Corbyn to succeed and still do to some extent, but I find it very hard to ignore the accounts of those who have tried to work with him.

It's very hard to know exactly what is going on amidst the maelstrom and it is crystal clear that the press is profoundly unfair on Corbyn. But that doesn't make him necessarily innocent. But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?
No. He's a politician of principle, which probably makes him more difficult to work with than say, many of his predecessors.

But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.

The metric here isn't difficult to ascertain. The PLP are completely and utterly out of touch with the membership of the party, who have always been more leftwing than the elected politicians. Over the last twenty years, with the rise of New Labour, those who voted Labour have been less and less the 'traditional' Labour voter.

There was always a tension here, and that tension has now snapped. Those who voted for Blair no longer see the point of a right-centre Labour party when they can vote Tory. Those who didn't vote for Blair but will vote for Corbyn also don't see the point of a right-centre Labour party.

The anti-Corbynists in the PLP literally have no base. They're stuck in the middle of no-man's land. They can go back to their own trenches, where they now risk being court-martialled as traitors, or they can defect en masse to either form their own party, or join another.

But they have brought this on their own heads, in very great part by their own lack of situational awareness and bone-headed pride. I have zero sympathy for them.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?

This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Remember that Corbyn was never supposed to win the leadership election. That the PLP were so entirely wrongfooted by their own members was simply a symptom.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.
I don't think those are the only choices though. I think he's probably a very principled socialist and I share many of his views. I also give him a lot of credit for being one of the few senior voices against bombing Syria.

However his handling of the anti-Semitism didn't seem very sure footed to me. I can see how if I was a Jewish MP experiencing anti-Semitism I would feel incompletely supported. He was very slow in bringing Ken Livingstone to heel. Having a chancellor who is caught on camera saying "fucking useless" doesn't seem all that professional even if it was accurate.

And I don't think stories like this and this one can be easily dismissed.

It seems to me that given the problem is, as you say, there is a split party that Corbyn has two alternatives. He either develops a consensus and brings the Blairites on board with posts in the cabinet and policies that take account of their views as some sort of middle ground, or he sticks to his principles, declares "my way or the high way" and tells them to get behind him or find another party.

He has tried to do the former but without any compromise on his part. Compounded by not being fantastic at handling the media and either personally lacking in management ability or lacking a team that is, it hasn't worked.

If he made it completely clear he had no truck with Blairites or the centre-left, intended no compromise, didn't want any in the cabinet and was going to run a socialist outfit and go to the people for a mandate I would have complete sympathy with that and it would be consistent. I suspect it would be suicide, but it would be consistent. The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.

The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I have come to feel that we are suffering from a massive universal outbreak of an overweaning sense of entitlement.

The universal id has been unleashed, ears are stopped, and everyone is screaming that they will have what they want and no one can stop them.

A perfect recipe for catastrophe.

The rarefied tips of the Labour party are feeding essentially off the Westminster consensus, then they have no legitimacy as the national expression of the party - they draw their legitimacy from their membership of the political elite, not of the party, and that is a very dangerous situation. It fosters disaffection with the political process itself, which is the last thing that our current situation needs: reconnection, not further disconnection, is vital to the future of the country, at all levels.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well I think that's the choice. Either socialist principles or compromise. Personally I think that a compromised labour party is a better choice than the conservative and the idea that one might as well throw in the towel is slightly fundamentalist in thinking. I respect those that want to keep the pure socialist faith, I just don't think they are going to be in power anytime soon in the UK.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?

This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.
Interesting point about the referendum. There also seem to be seismic shocks in different political parties and European countries.

Of course, you could argue that the ferment goes back quite a ways, at least to the 2008 economic crash. And there seem to be paroxysms across different countries, see Trump. But also, the Middle East collapsing, not sure if this connects.

Is there a 'cause' or a set of causes? Dunno, it's tempting to develop a thesis about Götterdämmerung, but I will leave that to you young whippersnappers.

I know this is an old one, but I still like it: the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum a variety of morbid symptoms appear. (Gramsci).

[ 24. July 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.

The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.

The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.
Yes, it is also interesting in a way, not just as a political development, but a cultural one. It strikes me as a sign of great morbidity a la Gramsci, but of course, nobody knows what it points to in the future, if anything.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.

The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.
Hasn't this partly produced Brexit also? I mean, the deprived areas voting Leave not only felt that deindustrialization had left them high and dry, neglected, with poor housing, crap jobs, poor services, poor NHS, but also that Labour wanted their votes, but didn't really bother that much about their lives. So Brexit enabled people to say fuck you to both Tory and Labour.

Of course, Corbyn has capitalized on the post-Blair disillusionment; whether anything more productive ensues, whether from him or someone else, dunno. It's all like a huge kaleidoscope, bloody hell, remember them?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.

Probably disaffection has a lot to do with Brexit, but given Corbyn's attempt to campaign for stay I don't think it is part of the Blair=>Corbyn shift. I suspect that immigration was the defining issue leading to disaffection over Brexit.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?

Do you believe that Jeremy's views on socialist principles and their relationship to policy are the only possible views that a good socialist can hold?

Good socialists can and do disagree on means even when they agree on ends. We always have done. Policy gets hammered out to accommodate different understandings of what is best.

The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.

[ 24. July 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.
I'm not too sure about (wider than the party members) the denial is still great.

Would agree Blair/Brown did some good things with the 3 obvious bad things (Iraq, PFI, crash stuff) being done with the support of the Tories and dividing his own party (&Lib Dem's). Likewise to be fair there's some good things* of Cameroon** but these have either been in word only, or with the support of Labour and Lib Dem's against his divided party.

*Obv in this case selection bias makes this really inevitable .
**It's vaguely interesting to see a Tory friend's digging at him and George, after years of apparent support (pre referendum campaign). The Hunt reaction looked a bit 1984 too (but that may have been misreading on my part).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.
Yes; but isn't an issue that the ground has moved leftwards under them since their election?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
As I understand it, what has happened is this:

* the current PLP consists of people elected on a manifesto that was fuelled by the last reheated, tired remains of Blairism, through the twin filters of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. IMHO, a lot of Labour's current problems lie with the fact that EM did not seriously consider the need for the party to consider seriously the alternatives to Blairism which had gained popularity over the course of his tenancy.

* the 2015 GE declared that those remains had rotted, and were no longer capable of carrying out their magic, i.e. of convincing voters who had no intention of ever voting for anyone other than a Thatcherite that Labour was safe. Thank God for that, say I: it cannot be the future of any left-wing party to allow its agenda to be dictated by the Daily Mail.

* JC's election was the firstfruits of that tired, limp manifesto being consigned to the fires of history. Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster. They now want to do a stitch-up, so that they can continue as they are, and they don't have to fight real enemies.

* the referendum happened so early precisely because DC saw that Labour was still focused inwards, and he didn't seriously think that it would have the Tories fighting each other to the death. He was, sadly, spectacularly right about the first, and, equally sadly for him, spectacularly wrong about the second.

I think I have accounted for every element of the current mess, and why the only way out is through. This mess of a leadership election cannot lead the Labour party back to 1994: that would be a tragedy. Those begging for a "progressive alliance" would do well to remember that no progressive manifesto is available in the pages of the Daily Mail or the Murdoch press. Centrists need to go through some serious detox before they will be credible.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.
What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Their ignorance of how much closer Corbyn's appraoch to the EU was to the public sentiment than their own approach ???
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.
What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.

Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.

Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.

Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.

A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.

Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.

But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?
It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism, so refined that the pursuit of it must be unquestionably correct. The seeming blind obedience it seems to engender in otherwise intelligent people is, as an outsider, fascinating in many ways.

And so it seems that the Conservatives might very well win the next general election with a massive majority. But it won't be because Jeremy Corbyn lost, because he can never lose, because he is pure. It'll be because of the Parliamentary Labour Party; or the 'right-wing press' (a term often used to describe the Mail and Murdoch-owned papers, but conveniently expanded to include the Guardian and probably anything except the Morning Star when it suits); it'll be because Labour voters weren't listening properly. It might even be because of MI5 or mysterious Zionists who exercise secret powers. But it won't be because of Jeremy. He cannot lose.

Barmy, but fascinating.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism
No. Most of them don't think he's a pure socialist, the only people making that identification seem to be projecting - a lot.

I think what he represents to most of his supporters is a break with the traditional politics of consensus around a neo-liberal center. Who don't really see the point in winning if the price is that there are two parties of the centre-right.

Their personal support of JC himself is perhaps more prone to change than people think, that he has retained support is more due to the lack of alternatives rather than anything else.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.

At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?
It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
Yes I saw that. I was still interested in your personal view. Some socialists are more pragmatic than others when it comes to matters of policy. That doesn't mean they have abandoned socialist principles. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.

Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas. There's currently a lot of anger around at the Tories but it didn't get expressed in Labour votes at the last election because the Labour campaign was so difficult to distinguish from the Tory campaign. Say what you like about Corbyn, he comes across as different. So who knows?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.
Perhaps I'm just a spawn of the Murdoch-Rothermere-Scott Trust nexus?

quote:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
Well, technically, yes they are. But...

Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.

This is true. But one of those by-elections occurred in a seat that hasn't returned a non-Labour MP (if one includes predecessor seats) since before 1918. For another, not since before 1935. To chalk these up as meaningful Labour victories in the context of the electoral success of the party or the leader is, I think, ridiculous. The only one of these four of note, I'd say, is Tooting in which Labour increased a fragile majority. But was that to do with Mr Corbyn's dynamic leadership of the Labour Party or because the departing MP had just been elected mayor and there was a strong local candidate? (I canvassed in Tooting, met a lot of Labour voters (sadly) and none of them mentioned Corbyn to me.)

Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.

Terrific. I don't know about the politics of Bristol, but Salford and London are traditionally Labour cities, are they not? And the Mayor of Liverpool was facing re-election so he was presumably campaigning on his record?

Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.

So why isn't Labour doing better now (after years of supposedly cruel Tory-led government) than it did when it had been in power for four years? Shouldn't it be doing far better than it did in 2001? I would've thought so.

Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.

Lovely. Will be interested to see whether this translates into actual people willing to tramp along pavements on wet Saturday mornings canvassing.

A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.

I haven't seen a breakdown of the result by party allegiance. Would be interested to see such a thing if it exists. There appears to have been some confusion, thanks to Mr Corbyn's (lack of) leadership on this issue as to what Labour's position even was. If such a view was widespread, it would seem that many Labour voters voted Remain in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.

Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.

But that's meaningful how? By comparison, if one were to add up the number of votes cast for Labour MPs who oppose Corbyn (something like 172 of them, right?) one would presumably get a figure that dwarfs the number of votes cast for Corbyn or his acolytes.

I'm not sure that this is all so reassuring.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.

I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party-768x558.jpg

Basically Corbyn carried the voters about as well as Sturgeon carried hers. [Okay -- you could of course claim that that poll is inaccurate too - though in that case on what are you basing your opinions on, because .. see below]
(Kept quote, as it means there's some disclaimer about the source, and uncertainties involved, and credit)

The adding individual contests doesn't seem quite right, without some kind of recognition of the nature of contest. I don't quite know how it should be scaled in terms of mandate, if Ron was an option, or even if AV, it would be a bit clearer.
For what it's worth, in simple terms, I'd guess it to be around 5m (the labour party as a whole got 9million, and I've guessed from there...).

But the use of mandate as solely a privilege annoys me anyway. The mandate is a responsibility to represent the people. Yes, situations change, and MP's should have the benefit of attending debates and being able to put more thought in.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to this line of thinking; however, as I've pointed out a few times, the ball is really in the court of the PLP to put up an credible alternate candidate and make a proper, reasoned case - which is something they have signally failed to do [preferring instead to mostly behave like Kevin the teenager in the media and on twitter].

Secondly, I think there are other things going on that make this particular era somewhat different. I think we have reached the limits of Blair style third-wayism, and that is something that isn't restricted to the UK, you can see reflections of this all across Europe. Simultaneously the power of business to steer politics both directly and indirectly has never been greater, and this has lead to the various contortions some of the previous set of leadership candidates went through (Liz Kendall's Nicola Murray-esque agreement in order to oppose).

I don't think that there was an halycon age where Labour was driven purely by the desires, political aspirations and needs of the working classes, but I think the contrasts at this point in time are stark. [There's a related crisis for any sort of paternal Toryism that isn't all that far away either].

In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.

I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.
I think you forget the fury which in my case arises from the huge waste of opportunity which was Blair. His opportunistic corrupt craven politicking got the country so much less far than could have been achieved if he had not been guided by George w Bush and the right wing media.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thunderbunk

I think chris styles' observations about the probable decline of the effectiveness of "third-wayism" (which was the essential DNA of New Labour) may well be right, but they had bugger all to do with George W Bush and the right wing media. This article re the origins and philosophy of New Labour is pretty good.

I'm absolutely furious about Iraq and it will forever besmirch Tony Blair's reputation, but it's not the whole story when it comes to evaluating New Labour and the more general European experiment with mixed economies.

Mixed economies are indeed pragmatic compromises between pure capitalism and pure socialism, but I'd be a lot more bothered about social stability in the UK if it became politically polarised around a choice between pure capitalism or pure socialism.

quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.
I have no problems with the aspiration to do that but how short do you think the short term might be?

An initial part of that answer must take into account the current disastrous divisions and how long it will take to recover from those. And what then will happen to the existing PLP MPs? Resignations, deselections prior to the next General Elections, a Labour Party conference or two revising existing policies along more purely socialist lines. Two years at least to get our house back in some sort of order before we even begin the job of persuading a suspicious electorate that the new radical Labour movement may have what it takes to run a government.

There is a transitional cost and time associated with a move to more purist policies. Making the transition now is bound to lose the next General Election and will probably lead to further loss of parliamentary seats. An aspirational policy to "change the terms of the question about electability" might enable some recovery of lost ground, but we will be coming from a long way back. I think it would take two elections to get a majority. Effectively, you're looking at being in opposition until 2030. By which stage I probably won't be around.

You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?

[ 25. July 2016, 01:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.

[ 25. July 2016, 04:12: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.
Surely the leader influences the votes? And the leader will set the policies that influence the votes?

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas.
But his new ideas where a centre-left approach, not so different from the approach favoured by virtually every challenger to Corbyn. Today these approaches are criticized as insufficiently different from Tory. And yet Blair won with them. This doesn't seem consistent. If the key thing was difference from the Tories then Foot would have won, Kinnock would have won and Blair would have lost. If Blair's victory had depended only on anger against the Tories he wouldn't have won more than the first election.

I accept it is possible the landscape has changed and Tory-lite/centre-left is no longer a winning formula, but one can't argue that changed landscape based on history.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.
The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.

And (with the caveat that this might be a strawman), if party members would really prefer a TUSC or Green agenda but campaign for Labour on the grounds that TUSC and Green candidates will never be elected, they can hardly complain that Labour MPs also compromise on pure socialism in the cause of electability.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
[Ish, but when the day after a close relative of the then PM says she wants to join the Labour party, they intentionally take the headlines. They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.

I guess there could have been a trigger discussion, but there can't have been much time for it.

[ 25. July 2016, 06:11: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.
I don't know who the story behind the close relative joining the labour party so might be misinterpreting you, but if electability isn't part of the deal then it really doesn't matter how pure anything else on the ticket is.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
The point was they (Hillary Benn et al) were giving both away.


It was Emily Sheffield (Samantha's sister)

The Independent version

To be fair, the mail version, has it to oust Corbyn (though only in the headline). But the tweets are from the day after the referendum, (and I'm sure I saw something Saturday, though can only see things from the Monday) before the events on Sunday (though obviously she's probably better informed). And wasn't ever true blue.

But the point being that would have been an ideal chance to woo those Tory's, whereas now (thanks ironically to the one's most in tune) they've lost that free chance, alienated a section of the workers (I.E the Brexity ones), and pissed of the liberal left. It might not have been enough, and pure socialism probably isn't a virtue anyway.

It might not have been enough, and perhaps an existing different leader, could have changed the balance and got more (or of another group instead). And you may have needed a future change to keep them.
[killed link and can't get it back in time, sorry] huff pst

(Independent link fixed - B62)

[ 25. July 2016, 08:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.

There is a huge gulf, that is not yet widely recognised, between the interests of small companies (including sole traders) and those of large corporations. To an unacknowledged extent, the latter rely on the operations of government to protect them from competition and create a favourable environment for them. They come into that category noted after the 2008 crash, "too big to fail", and they are an obvious point for governments to identify with, because they operate at a similar scale, and governments have for some time had an obsession with operating like private sector organisations - an ideological obsession every bit as damaging as the most abstruse and perverse Trotskyite mantra.

If I'm preaching pure socialism, then the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right as to be meaningless.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.
What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.

So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.
The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.
Which is a perfectly fair point. People in difficult marriages make all sorts of compromises they'd rather not, and couldn't have foreseen that they'd make.

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?
It is arguable that the more gradualistic set of policies were already tried and found wanting.

Prior to Corbyn's election to leader there were two schools of thought floating around. Firstly that Labour had lost a lot of their working class support because of not being insufficiently anti-migration whilst simultaneously being distrusted on the economy because they weren't sufficiently pro-austerity. At the same time, some more thoughtful commentators pointed out that the 'Labour heartlands' had been subsidised but never really re-developed economically during the Blair years, and this had led to a gradual ebbing away of support.

Both prior to the leadership campaign and during the campaign itself, mainstream Labour pushed the first line. Hence things like the 'Controls on immigration' mug, and abstaining from voting on the Welfare bill, as well as Liz Kendall branding anything to the left of Blairism as extremism. [The reason I keep returning to Kendall btw, is that at least the start of the leadership election she was seen as the pundits choice, with Yvette Cooper being too close to the previous administration and Andy Burnham being portrayed as a characterless droid].

The problem with playing on this ground is that you alienate parts of your core constituency, and those inclined to vote Tory won't believe you anyway. So the idea that the way forward once the 'Third Way' had run out of steam was to move to the right of Blair seems somewhat fantastical - as is the idea, incidentally, that the PLP could set up a successful technocratic party of the centre/centre-right.

I think we have hit a secular crisis, and the current issues within the Labour Party are just a symptom of a wider malaise in politics. I do not believe it is possible for the Labour party to win by endlessly triangulating on every issue - as they will always be outflanked by the Tories, whilst simultaneously losing every pretension of progressiveness. I do not think that having a right wing government with a centre-right opposition is a desirable state of affairs.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.

That is, of course, all Corbyn's fault. Because he's such a loser.

There'll be a by election in Jo Cox's constituency soon. If Labour retain the seat, it'll be despite Corbyn. If they lose it, it'll be because of Corbyn.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
If they retain it, it will (also) be in memory of Jo Cox herself. I predict an increased majority.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Batley and Spen, owing the the circumstances in which the vacancy arose, is currently going to be contested by Liberty GB, The English Democrats and the Labour Party. In those circumstances one would expect the Labour Candidate to win by an extremely comfortable margin. At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.
Personally I think that's a fair comment. "Possibly" is as much as anyone can ever say in politics.

But how does he get the PLP to get on board so he can turn the "no but better than expected" into "possibly"? Either he has to compromise his approach to win enough of them over to subdue the rest, or declare war and get a new PLP. Neither is easy, but those were the choices to start with and he opted for both. (i.e. lack of compromise and hoping they would all come on board). It hasn't worked. So now what should he do? Clearly some of his supporters would prefer a new PLP.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
For those who say not a hint of fault in Corbyn's approach I wonder what to make of stories like this and this one.

And since I originally posted now this as well.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
Saying what you really want to say in the way you want to say it, has to be balanced against what you judge will be well received by your audience. You might be a politician setting out your policies, or a candidate applying for a job, or someone thinking how to post right here: you have to pitch it right.

This compromise is always there; it is part of communication. Is the issue for the Labour Party simply about adjusting this balance? Is it something deeper?

From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.

In power under Blair and Brown they did mildly redistributive things, but dressed it up in tough language.

Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.

Electability can wait. When an election looms, one where 40 lost Scottish seats might not be decisive, then is the time to turn a project into a set of policies expressed so they don't frighten the floating voters. Maybe the new head of the Murdoch empire would like a conversation, too.

Maybe a majority of the PLP don't want a more equal society, would prefer to send immigrants back, are willing to kill 10 million people if a conflict gets out of control, and think we should all be grateful to the rich. Maybe a majority just believe they should sound as if that's how they think.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.
.. and further to my post above, I would say one minor triumph of Corbyn/Mcdonnell was to hold the anti-austerity line until it was picked up on by other politicians (and even May echoed parts of it in her initial speech).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.
Well, I don't know which members of the PLP you had in mind, there, but all of them were elected on a manifesto which involved raising the top rate of taxation from 45% to 50% and implementing a property tax on homes over a value of £2 million pounds. The same manifesto also called for the ending of non-domisciled status for wealthy people who pay no tax here. During the subsequent leadership campaign Liz Kendall, who to judge by some of the remarks on this thread is regarded as Mrs Thatcher's last horcrux, opposed the Chancellor's inheritance tax cuts on the grounds that the money could more usefully be spent on early years education. So, apart from all the Parliamentary Labour Party, including the Blairites, none of them have called for redistributive taxation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I thought chris styles' analysis was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all. Some have already been linked in this thread.

I don't think all Corbynistas are the same either.

[ 25. July 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought chris styles' analyses was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all.
The thing is these complaints are the tip of the iceberg that started the day after Corbyn was elected, almost immediately a number of the PLP stated very publicly that they would refuse to serve in a Shadow Cabinet should they be asked, a number of others then started giving statements to the papers about hypothetical scenarios in which they would rebel against the leadership (incidentally, reverse the sexes and ask yourself how acceptable a threat to 'stab X in the front' would actually be).

So no, the fact that amongst all of this dross they have managed to come up with a few reasoned statements doesn't raise my overall opinion of them.

Even if they had a case, there are better, more organised, more dignified and ultimately more electable ways of making the same set of points.

[ 25. July 2016, 11:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"
And undoubtedly Corbyn will be expected to answer the question: "These were all just shoo-ins, right? Bristol and London were Labour cities (never mind the previous independent and Tory mayors) and were easy victories. When are you actually going to win something?"
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Fair enough, callan. I don't follow politics enough to remember many facts, though I accept I am not entitled to my own (that was a great line).

I still think, though, that despite those marginal policies, the Labour Party has worked very hard to sell itself as a pro-business party and to shake off the accusation that it believes in benefits. Worse, it seems to have accepted the suggestion that our country has been brought to the edge of economic collapse by the overwhelming amount of benefit fraud.

I forget manifestos, but I listen to the Today programme and Question Time, and I do not hear Labour MPs talking as if there was much merit in welfare. I hear them accepting that it is a drain on hard working people that should be reduced at all costs. I do not hear them saying that benefit fraud is trivial in terms of costs. I do not hear them taking about what it feels like to be on benefits.

Nor do I hear them talking about the replacement of traditional industries by insecure and low paid work as drivers and packers and call-centre workers, or the relentless march of computer driven efficiencies.

There are important questions about who will enjoy the profits of future economies where low skilled work is replaced by machines. This is already happening. Will those who own the machines benefit, or will we all, and how on earth might that be managed?

If I want answers to such questions I have to look for them myself, because the politicians who might represent me are stuck in the small government, light regulation, everyone look out for themselves ideology of the day. They daredn't talk about the future, what we would like society to look like, what we think would be fair, still less what sort of people do we want to be. A 5% adjustment to a tax band is a little disheartening.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good post, hatless. Some of the plp have gone so far to the right, they sound like the old time and motion experts, (anybody remember measured day work?) I think Brexit is part of their inheritance, since some Labour areas feel neglected by all governments. I suppose something similar happened in Scotland, with the turn to the SNP.

A shift back to the left seems inevitable, but nobody can predict how this will be integrated in the future, and which personnel might be involved, usually somebody we haven't thought of. But for me, Corbyn is keeping alive the soul of the Labour, and for that, much thanks.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't think the issue is that the Labour party forgot the dispossessed of the North. I think the issue is that they got it wrong. They thought immigration and European anti-democracy were the big issues and didn't believe the stories about economic damage and the benefits of cooperation with and being in Europe.

I think the same is true of Corbyn's unelectability. The PLP moved right because it made them electable and they decided they liked being in power better than opposition. Then when they were in opposition and had moved right there are two pulls - stay right and have another go at being electable or go back left.

I am left wing. I wish socialism was electable. But it isn't. That's because the electorate are getting it wrong. They got it wrong on Europe, they get it wrong on immigration and wrong on benefits. I don't really know whose fault that is but I reject the article of faith that the electorate are right and if we only talked about the right things in the right way they would come around to see things our way. They don't necessarily and they haven't.

By all means let's keep trying but let's not delude ourselves that they is a majority of nascent socialists out there just waiting for the right explanation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, and until we've tried everything there is to try we don't know. The alternative is to not bet on it and compromise.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think that Labour forgot the deprived areas, they took them for granted. I mean they took a Labour vote for granted, and yes, also did provide some succour, in the form of investments, Sure Start, and so on.

There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think it is about actually making the argument in the first place, and until very recently that just hasn't been happening.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?
Look, the thing is really simple. If how individual members of the NEC voted was made public knowledge, those voting against JC would face an almighty reaction from the Corbynistas, based on, well, everything that's happened so far (the 44 female MPs and minority figures will do for just a start). Multiply by 10 if the vote had gone against Corbyn.

She knew that, others on the NEC knew that, and that's why they were scared. That's why some who ended up supporting Corbyn to be on the ballot paper, voted for a secret vote.

JC knew what would happen to those who could be identified as voting against him.

There is no excuse for putting NEC members in that sort of fear, and certainly not 'transparency'.

Now could you answer the question put to you by Ricardus, please, which is really what I'm trying to say and he put better?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.
Actually, it's not just the Mail. Most national papers seem to be carrying the story. The Mirror for one.

I would have thought that Momentum of all organisations would have gone for Fairtrade t-shirts. This is an absolutely dead serious request away from all the noisy politics- if anyone reading this has connections, could you suggest they go FT on this and other things?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
Do you think everybody should be paid the same salary, whatever their role?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.
What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.

So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?
Does the phrase "special advisors" mean anything to you?

In any case, it's a question of the drift of policy making, and how much difference a change of government made. To my mind, it didn't make nearly enough difference: there was still a tendency, at every turn, to make policy driven by the twin poles of lobbying and Daily Mail editorials, under New Labour as under the Tories. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time for a forensic analysis of the information available, but this is my memory of the accumulated impression, and why I voted Liberal Democrat in 2001 and 2005: they seemed to be the only people interested, at the time at least, in not being Tory. The irony.....

[ 25. July 2016, 16:49: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
Do you think everybody should be paid the same salary, whatever their role?
No.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Sarah G wrote:

quote:
JC knew what would happen to those who could be identified as voting against him.

There is no excuse for putting NEC members in that sort of fear, and certainly not 'transparency'.
But that sounds different from what you said before, where you seemed to be saying that Corbyn was deliberately egging on the abuse.

You may be right; if you are, obviously, he should not only be suspended as leader, but from the party. One problem is that it requires mind-reading.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
In a bizarre turn of events, Sarah Champion, who quit having said that Corbyn's leadership position had become untenable, has now resumed her position

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more whacky.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Looking on the bright side, Sarah Champion unresigns. Maybe there'll be an uncoup, decoup, reverse coup, whatever the word is. I vote for conscious uncoupling.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sarah-champion-unresigns-labour-shadow-8490897
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.
Although death threats, rape threats, and threats of violence should go straight to the police, surely. And should carry penalty of expulsion, as should making false or inflammatory allegations.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.
Although death threats, rape threats, and threats of violence should go straight to the police, surely. And should carry penalty of expulsion, as should making false or inflammatory allegations.
Clearly, but this is not a new recommendation - you should always report credible death threats to the police.

(By which I mean comments such Jess Phillips statement that if she's going to stab Corbyn she'll stab him in the front is not credible death threat, anymore than Rook's offer to stab denizen of Hell with a rusty pitch fork is.)
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.
Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.
Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
Conversely, list me a single occasion on which NuLab government policy was influenced by a Labour party conference, TUC motion or by any other expression of opinion outside a media organisation and/or the corporate lobbyists.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I think this illustrates a problem facing any political party. A party that wants to get elected needs to appeal to enough voters to get enough seats to form a government. In an ideal world it would be possible to do so by appealing to voters' sense of what is 'best'. Unfortunately much of modern democracy is couched in terms of encouraging voters to think "What's in it for me?", and therefore parties end up trying to appeal to that question - sometimes (often?) leading to compromise on their beliefs. The focus group approach doesn't ask 'is this right?' but 'does this appeal to you?'
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.
Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
Managing relationships with news media and powerful financial interests is just a normal part of government in the modern world. You can't just tell them to piss off. The process always contains the possibility of corruption. That's not the same as being in the pockets of the powerful.

On your second point re influence on NuLabour policy by Labour Party or TUC motions, or representations by other than powerful lobbyists, here are three documents.

The 1997 Manifesto

The 2001 Manifesto

The 2005 Manifesto

Now I recognise that there are elements in those election manifestos which were the subject of contrary motions at Labour Party and TUC Conferences. But the majority of pledges in the manifestos were not at all controversial in terms of Labour principles and values. And surely that is the main point. Those were the formal bases on which MPs were elected and were able to form a government. Delivery is another matter but that is always the case for any government which gains power.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
The irony is I think the two sides (most of the PLP) and Corbyists are nowhere near as far apart as is being assumed in the midst of this highly charged debate.

Let's take the anti-austerity position - which is probably the most quoted example of the PLP moving to the right post the last election. It also appears to be widely misunderstood as a term.

Simon Wren-Lewis (Economics Professor Oxford Uni) defines austerity as ‘premature fiscal consolidation’. He is one of McDonnell’s team of economic advisors and has blogged repeately defending anti-austerity positions and attacking the ineptitude of the austerity policies of George Osborne. Consequently he regards anti-austerity policies - when properly understood - as textbook economics.

Wren-Lewis has frequently argued that Osborne’s austerity position only makes sense when seen as a means of shrinking the size of the state for ideological reasons. Now all this so far is uncontroversial to anyone outside the ideological right of the Tory party – in fact even some of them might concede this.

There is little doubt that the vast majority of the PLP are not ideologically committed to shrinking the state significantly. And in many situations would commit to anti-austerity policies. After all Mark Carney has hinted we may need them post Brexit. (It is unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn is the person responsible for putting anti-austerity on the agenda and persuading all these macro-economists to adopt it as mainstream theory.)

It should also be noted that McDonnell has started (at times) to appear to back-track on his anti-austerity stance especially when he's been under pressure to appear fiscally responsible. The SNP another anti-austerity party have of course been more cautious, less overtly anti-austerity - once in office. Certainly they have sought to avoid the tax and spend label.

So my guess is that almost all the PLP believe that Labour were not reckless in power and that they acted correctly in 2008 (when they followed anti-austerity policies). And yet this is the issue on which the PLP are judged to have moved to the right. The simple anti or pro-austerity division is absurd. The PLP may well feel the need to be careful of how they speak so that the tax and spend label can’t be attached to them so easily but the difference between a McDonnell budget and a soft left one from the PLP would almost certainly be pretty minimal.

And yet it is presented as this great ideological divide.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
[tangent, mostly addressed to Barnabas62]

I meant what I said literally: RL is demanding more of my attention than usual, and will continue to do so for the next two weeks, so I really can't give this debate the attention it deserves.

As you may have noticed, the referendum has prompted me to take part in political debate in this august vessel more than I ever have before. It has been an instructive process, and I shall return. Meanwhile thank you to my fellow crewmembers for their kind attention and forbearance. Well most of them - the rest know what they can do (and probably wish I would too).

[/personal tangent - your normal programming is resumed/

[ 26. July 2016, 07:27: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Much appreciated, Thunderbunk, and best wishes with your RL challenges. And I think you've done the discussion a service by your vigourous and challenging posts. All of us who support the Party will not get over our differences by papering over cracks. One of the reasons why I still like the old word comrade is that comrades learn the importance of being honest with one another. We can live with differences better that way. We can work them out. At least I still hope so.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I think this illustrates a problem facing any political party. A party that wants to get elected needs to appeal to enough voters to get enough seats to form a government. In an ideal world it would be possible to do so by appealing to voters' sense of what is 'best'. Unfortunately much of modern democracy is couched in terms of encouraging voters to think "What's in it for me?", and therefore parties end up trying to appeal to that question - sometimes (often?) leading to compromise on their beliefs. The focus group approach doesn't ask 'is this right?' but 'does this appeal to you?'
The trouble with that particular critique is that it's not the question that Liberal Democracy was designed to answer. There isn't one single account of what is the best outcome. There are contending versions of the best outcome and, within those versions, contending accounts of how best we get there. I don't think that the average voter has the necessary skill set to assess those competing claims and counter claims. Frankly, I'm cleverer than the average voter and I'm not wholly convinced that I have the relevant skill set myself. But the humblest voter has some chance of working out whether or not the prospectus set forth by an aspirant government is going to make their life better or worse.

I have some sympathy when people complain that right wing politicians are able to use prejudice to vote against their own economic interests. But it's not really a problem when people vote for their own economic interests. It's particularly not a problem - or shouldn't be - for Labour politicians because improving the lot of the working class is pretty much Labour's reason for existing.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I see what you mean. I just weary of a system which tends to ask me to vote for what is best for my naked self-interest construed in purely economic terms. I find myself feeling "I don't want to know if I'll have more money in my pocket if I vote for you. What I want to know is whether you have a vision for making this country a better place to live in, and for it to play a positive role in the wider world."
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think the other problem it illustrates is that democracy is not made functional simply by winning an election. You need a consensus as well. And to get that consensus one needs to get enough of the group that lost on board to make it work.

The majority of the losing group will never be completely for winners, but you need to make the average member of that losing group not hate and oppose you and you have to get the moderate members of that losing group to work with you.

Otherwise the division grows and there is impaired functioning of the party or state until either the entity splits or a consensus is achieved.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the other problem it illustrates is that democracy is not made functional simply by winning an election. You need a consensus as well. And to get that consensus one needs to get enough of the group that lost on board to make it work.

The majority of the losing group will never be completely for winners, but you need to make the average member of that losing group not hate and oppose you and you have to get the moderate members of that losing group to work with you.

Otherwise the division grows and there is impaired functioning of the party or state until either the entity splits or a consensus is achieved.
Errr... yep
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Sorry was that just a tautologous statement of the obvious?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Friends telling me that Owen Smith has said that there are areas with too many immigrants, and that Corbyn isn't patriotic. Is this really correct? I can't find any transcript of the interview (Newsnight).

If he has said this, hello dog-whistles, hello UKIP vote.

I wonder if Labour is too far gone now to the right; not sure that Corbyn can resuscitate it.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
...patriotism [not] really part of his make up
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Friends telling me that Owen Smith has said that there are areas with too many immigrants, and that Corbyn isn't patriotic. Is this really correct? I can't find any transcript of the interview (Newsnight).

If he has said this, hello dog-whistles, hello UKIP vote.

I wonder if Labour is too far gone now to the right; not sure that Corbyn can resuscitate it.
There's a short clip on BBC news here in which Smith says that patriotism in not really part of Corbyn's make up. Preceded by him saying that Corbyn probably has a rather liberal, metropolitan view of identity, as opposed to a rather more small 'c' conservative , socially conservative view of identity associated with Welsh valleys or Scotland.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Friends telling me that Owen Smith has said that there are areas with too many immigrants, and that Corbyn isn't patriotic. Is this really correct? I can't find any transcript of the interview (Newsnight).
Here you go:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/owen-smith-says-jeremy-corbyn-8493150
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/owen-smith-there-are-too-many-immigrants-in-parts-of-britain
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The right wing of Labour must be terminally corrupt, if this is their contribution to the debate. Can Labour be saved from this shit?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Did he say anything positive and interesting, I wonder? Was it just another Labour MP trying to sound like a Tory?

I'd never heard of Owen Smith until a couple of weeks ago, so I've been trying to keep an open mind. What does he offer other than not being Jeremy Corbyn?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
He sounds like Farage. <Gets out Doors album: 'this is the end, my only friend, the end of our elaborate plans ...'>
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In case anyone is interested, the speaker has ruled that an office manager entering an office to see if it's been vacated yet does not constitute a breach of parliamentary rules.

Odd that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In case anyone is interested, the speaker has ruled that an office manager entering an office to see if it's been vacated yet does not constitute a breach of parliamentary rules.

Odd that.
Very odd. Why, you'd almost think that some MPs are casting around for any excuse to discredit Corbyn, but that can't be true, can it? I mean that brick actually had 'I love Corbyn' written on it.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
If anyone thinks that is the political answer to the question's posed by the phenomenon of Cornyn's grassroots support they are operating on some other planet.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sorry was that just a tautologous statement of the obvious?
Mdujon - it wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all. I thought the point was well made.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that sounds different from what you said before, where you seemed to be saying that Corbyn was deliberately egging on the abuse.

You may be right; if you are, obviously, he should not only be suspended as leader, but from the party. One problem is that it requires mind-reading.
I'm not sure mind-reading is required on this one. As I said, Ricardus put the issue far better than I can when he posted this:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
Could I invite you (this is now the third time the question has been put to you), and/or others, to answer the question?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If anyone thinks that is the political answer to the question's posed by the phenomenon of Cornyn's grassroots support they are operating on some other planet.
Actually, when I read this stuff from Smith, I felt disappointed. I thought there might be an interesting debate to be had, but this sub-UKIP stuff is ridiculous. But it depresses me also, if the right wing are thinking like this. Labour have dry rot in the foundations.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that sounds different from what you said before, where you seemed to be saying that Corbyn was deliberately egging on the abuse.

You may be right; if you are, obviously, he should not only be suspended as leader, but from the party. One problem is that it requires mind-reading.
I'm not sure mind-reading is required on this one. As I said, Ricardus put the issue far better than I can when he posted this:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
Could I invite you (this is now the third time the question has been put to you), and/or others, to answer the question?
Hold on. You made the claim that Corbyn is deliberately fomenting abuse. Your claim, your burden of proof.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
For what it's worth I think Corbyn will almost certainly win the leadership election. I think this will be off the back of the influx of new idealists.

I am not in any way on the right of the Labour party - indeed there are many areas where Corbyn is too conservative, too backward looking, for me. However, I think victory for Corbyn is very likely to set back progressive policies by quite possibly a decade or more?

Perhaps I just speak to different people to Corbyn's fans on here. Most of my friends were 'remain' and would be strongly on the left - if I based my expectations of the referendum result on them then remain would have walked it. However, in certain contexts I came across many more leavers, shy Tories and Express readers. They are not loud but boy do they vote in large numbers.

This is a not an argument for positioning the Labour party in the middle - but let's at least understand those that don't see things like we do.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
For what it's worth I think Corbyn will almost certainly win the leadership election. I think this will be off the back of the influx of new idealists.

I am not in any way on the right of the Labour party - indeed there are many areas where Corbyn is too conservative, too backward looking, for me. However, I think victory for Corbyn is very likely to set back progressive policies by quite possibly a decade or more?

Perhaps I just speak to different people to Corbyn's fans on here. Most of my friends were 'remain' and would be strongly on the left - if I based my expectations of the referendum result on them then remain would have walked it. However, in certain contexts I came across many more leavers, shy Tories and Express readers. They are not loud but boy do they vote in large numbers.

This is a not an argument for positioning the Labour party in the middle - but let's at least understand those that don't see things like we do.
Well, Owen Smith seems to be saying that immigration is too high in some areas, and that Corbyn isn't patriotic. I think he also said that the NHS should be deprivatized.

What point do you think there is in these policies? I might as well support a liberal Tory like Ken Clarke.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sorry was that just a tautologous statement of the obvious?
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Mdujon - it wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all. I thought the point was well made.
Too paranoid of me - blame the times.

I'm also interested in the speaker's ruling regarding the irregular access to office allegation by the way. I wouldn't have thought of the speaker as in Corbyn's back pocket so I think one has to take that as an impartial judgement.

[ 26. July 2016, 18:16: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In case anyone is interested, the speaker has ruled that an office manager entering an office to see if it's been vacated yet does not constitute a breach of parliamentary rules.

Odd that.
It just proves that that bloke Bercow is a big bully. But I refuse to be intimidated by him, so there. Never mind the deputy serjeant at arms either, obviously another bully. When will we children of liberty rise up and fight back, and defend our filing cabinets?

[ 26. July 2016, 18:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The right wing of Labour must be terminally corrupt, if this is their contribution to the debate. Can Labour be saved from this shit?
Oh...I don't know. A recent referendum in your country suggests that an anti-elite, anti-immigrant, and anti-austerity party would appeal to roughly 52% of registered UK voters. Granted you would need over 70% of those voters to win an election outright. However, what Labour ran on the past two times didn't work and third time isn't looking like a charm. So...Smith gets cynical.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sorry was that just a tautologous statement of the obvious?
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Mdujon - it wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all. I thought the point was well made.
Too paranoid of me - blame the times.

I'm also interested in the speaker's ruling regarding the irregular access to office allegation by the way. I wouldn't have thought of the speaker as in Corbyn's back pocket so I think one has to take that as an impartial judgement.
A big clue was that the office was opened with a keycard, by someone entitled to hold said keycard. One usually holds keys to places one can reasonably expected, and trusted, to enter appropriately.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all.
I did have Seema Malhotra’s claim in mind - thought it was a whinge.

Didn't think much of Owen Smith's contributions either.

Vote prediction. Jeremy 65% Owen 35%.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
What Mr Smith actually said about immigration:
quote:
Asked whether there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, he responded: "I think it depends where you are".

He added, however, that there were ways to mitigate those impacts, through extra resources for public services, but the Conservative attempt to put a target on net migration was a "bone-headed" approach to policy-making.

"I think in some places the way in which we saw rapid influx of – in particular Eastern European migrants after the accession of those countries to the Europe – definitely caused downward pressure on wages, definitely caused changes to local terms and conditions for some workers in some sectors," he said.

"We’ve got to acknowledge that. There are ways we can mitigate those effects – extra resources…extra money for doctors, schools places."

 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I agree what he said on immigration was oversimplified in the coverage, and there is certainly some research supporting part of the statement - however, I do think the patriotism stuff was ill conceived.

It may also go to show Corbyn's media wrangling is not much different from Owen's in terms of 'competence'.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
If I were either candidate, I would be talking about the introduction of zoning rules for multi occupancy houses and active town planning around industries that draw in immigrant labour. Rather than talking about hypothetical immigrant numbers.

But then I tend to think we should do skills audits on asylum seekers, and then give them the opportunity to take up paid work, following a period of intensive language tuition.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
On the question of secret ballots:

I am a Baptist, a congregationalist. We do things by meetings of members. Sometimes we have votes and occasionally they are secret ballots. The election of deacons and appointment of ministers are usually done by secret ballots.

'We're democratic', people often say. 'No, we're theocratic', some ministers, like me, reply. The difference is in whether each member votes for her or his opinion and we count up to find the majority, or whether we are doing something more subtle, which is seeking 'the mind of the meeting'.

When all is sweetness and light votes are unnecessary. We come to a common mind. But sometimes we are divided. Binary decisions are problematic. In such cases a vote is useful to check we're not just hearing the confident voices, the articulation of the group think. It may be that a significant number disagree, but their voices are unfashionable or unwelcome or they fear being shouted down (very subtly, no doubt). The vote is a way of checking that the apparent consensus is genuine.

A secret ballot protects those who feel intimidated. Anonymity can give them a voice. It may be that the meeting discusses something, rebuilding the church, say, and everyone who speaks is in favour, including the rich members who will largely pay for the new building, but the secret ballot reveals only 52% for and 48% against. Then the church has a real problem. Members weren't really listening to each other, weren't really being honest. The vote has revealed a deficit of grace. A time of careful discussion would have to follow.

You can also have a situation where a group within a church seeks to overturn the consensus, and, let's say, dismiss the youth minister. This group may not wish to make the case openly. They may want to conceal their identities, but to exercise power without testing their views in the meeting. It could be that they are scared of being ridiculed by the in crowd. It could be that they are motivated by reasons they don't feel comfortable acknowledging. Perhaps they don't like the youth minister's tattoos and piercings, or sexuality, or accent or something. Perhaps they don't want to think about the painful consequences of dismissing the youth minister. In the meeting no one says anything critical of the youth minister, but when the votes are counted, only 48% voted for her. The secret ballot in this case is a cloak for something unworthy.

In one case secrecy protects against bullying, in another it enables it. It depends on the hidden agenda, on what is really going on.

Corbyn clearly has support outside parliament, and support is power. Within the PLP, he is weak. If I was him I wouldn't have wanted a secret ballot. I would have wanted my enemies to speak openly. It's a tactical manoeuvre either way, but since his enemies are in a majority in the NEC, if he was youth minister in a church where I was a member I would have asked for an open discussion and a show of hands.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do think the patriotism stuff was ill conceived.

It may also go to show Corbyn's media wrangling is not much different from Owen's in terms of 'competence'.
Spot on. And weird too, given his broadcasting experience.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As I said to Owen, Owen, I said:

You'd nuke, Owen. As would the great Clem. That can therefore be forgiven [Smile] but WHY is what you say below any better or even equal to the effect of Jeremy's leadership now? The fact that the PLP won't be led is not due to any failure to lead on Jeremy's part IN PARLIAMENT after all. I do not understand what the centre-right have to fear by backing him. Labour cannot win until the Tories lose by 2025. Jeremy will retire soon, by 2019 I'd have thought. You wouldn't beat May in 2020. Plenty of time to be LOYAL. To be radical in opposition. Plenty of time to come up with a massive rent to buy green housing programme taking off from Andy Burnham in Manchester. What's Jeremy going to possibly say and do that will cost Labour constituencies?

I'm a former Thatcherite, Owen, which bespeaks mental instability I'm sure. Not that I was, but that I'm now a left wing Christian socialist.

And that nuking ... and your willingness to spend £200 Bn, to deter whom Owen? SCIS would say bring it on. Looks like an appeal to conservative Britain.

There's something not right Owen. The nukes and something else. The claim of left wing (i.e. truly democratic power in all its forms to the people) credentials as good as Jeremy's and the nebulous, implicit claim of something extra, some missing ingredient he doesn't have. Can't see it mate. Unless it really, only is form, not substance. Image. I'm not the demographic obviously. Who is? The women and men by association who voted for Blair because he was sexy?

Gordon allegedly had a socialist heart for the people. How did that manifest itself? Government spending, OK ... he had something missing too. But not as much as you do mate. It's just me I'm sure.

Ah well, Wilson got in on image and the "It's time for a change" whim of the people. 2020? No chance. You know that. You want to be leader of the opposition for NINE years? Never mind the image, keep your powder dry mate.

Regards

Martin

From: Owen Smith <theteam@labour.org.uk>
Sent: 26 July 2016 12:07
To: Martin Clarke
Subject: Labour's future, radical politics

Martin,

I grew up in South Wales during the miners' strike. That's when I came alive politically.

I saw the power of politics to change lives, for better and worse. We are seeing it again with a Tory government inflicting such damage through austerity. That's why we need a radical, united Labour Party and why I am standing for Leader.

Jeremy Corbyn has reconnected our party with its radical principles. But it's now time for a new generation with the energy and ideas to turn those principles in to action.

Under my leadership, we will be a powerful voice for social justice.

Together we can defeat this government.

Owen
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do think the patriotism stuff was ill conceived.

It may also go to show Corbyn's media wrangling is not much different from Owen's in terms of 'competence'.
Spot on. And weird too, given his broadcasting experience.
If this is the same 'broadcasting experience' that led him to call 999 in order to ask a senior police officer onto the Today programme, I think it fits all too well.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So, why, did the plp put him forward ? Both his and Angela Eagle's campaign have started terribly, and they were starting with a fair amount of potential infrastructure and support behind them.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I guess they feel that standing against Corbyn is a futile gesture. You don't ask one of your stars to do that. If there is a new party at some point ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do think the patriotism stuff was ill conceived.

It may also go to show Corbyn's media wrangling is not much different from Owen's in terms of 'competence'.
Spot on. And weird too, given his broadcasting experience.
That was my thought as well. I thought that his comments on immigration were ill judged in terms of soundbites but, if he's in favour of reinstating the migration impact fund he's on to something. The stuff about patriotism, OTOH, gave the general impression that he had been told that he was running for the leadership of a party and inadvertently come to the conclusion that he was running for the UKIP gig, rather than the Labour one. If your general case is that you are more competent than the other bloke, being more competent is the main bar you have to clear and it looks like his ankles have just clattered into it.

I don't know if Angela Eagle would have done better but I am increasingly inclined to conclude that when Labour is given a choice between an all right woman and a shit man it unfailingly goes for the the shit man. If the recent Tory leadership election had been held by Labour, I suspect that we would currently be in the middle of a gripping contest between Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hmmm. Right wing, nationalistic socialism. Sounds a vote winner. What could go wrong?
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
I guess they feel that standing against Corbyn is a futile gesture. You don't ask one of your stars to do that.
If they feel that, why did they start their campaign to force Corbyn to resign in the first place? And with such damaging timing to their own party? This is where we all came in.

The PLP's collective and individual behaviour is just getting weirder and weirder. I know we're entering the "silly season" but this is simply ridiculous. I mean, resigning from the shadow cabinet and then taking over a month to vacate your office? What planet are they on????
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't know if Angela Eagle would have done better but I am increasingly inclined to conclude that when Labour is given a choice between an all right woman and a shit man it unfailingly goes for the the shit man. If the recent Tory leadership election had been held by Labour, I suspect that we would currently be in the middle of a gripping contest between Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox.
This rings true. I think Labour has a problem with prejudice of all kinds, which it can't acknowledge or even see because "well, we're the party of, like, equality, aren't we?" Liz Kendall & Yvette Cooper would never have got the gig even if they were dyed-in-the wool lefties with Barbara Castle's pedigree.

Corbyn appointing no women to the top jobs until he literally ran out of men speaks volumes.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. Right wing, nationalistic socialism. Sounds a vote winner. What could go wrong?
[Waterworks] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
I guess they feel that standing against Corbyn is a futile gesture. You don't ask one of your stars to do that.
If they feel that, why did they start their campaign to force Corbyn to resign in the first place? And with such damaging timing to their own party? This is where we all came in.

The PLP's collective and individual behaviour is just getting weirder and weirder. I know we're entering the "silly season" but this is simply ridiculous. I mean, resigning from the shadow cabinet and then taking over a month to vacate your office? What planet are they on????
The Labour party have massive problems. Corbyn's supporters repeat time after time how inept almost all Corbyn's MPs are. Imagine selling that on the doorsteps. "Yes we had a lot of totally stupid MPs they may have appeared intelligent and capable but they were less competent than our leader. And anyway we have deselected them and our candidates are now in line with him!"

Whilst the whole coup is looked at through the lens of a conspiracy theory it makes no sense - as is so often the case. Perhaps the PLP should be regarded as a bunch of individuals who acted the way they did for many different reasons but one of the most common was desperation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Owen Smith making a bit of an ass of himself and Seema Malhotra’s OTT claim were pretty embarrassing. But they don't make Jeremy a good leader nor do they make the PLP actions an attempted coup. Desperate responses are often provoked by desperate circumstances.

I can't see how Jeremy will not be elected as Party Leader again. But Her Majesty's Opposition will remain in deep shit for sometime to come. And absolutely no good will come from putting all the blame on the PLP MPs for this parlous situation.

To avoid the next "longest suicide note in history" (1983 Manifesto) there needs to be a serious debate about what constitutes electability for the Labour Party in the near future. Neither turning into Tory-lite or idealistic hopes that we can turn a lot of folks around to thinking "our way" will do. Nor will ignoring our continuing ability to make a pig's breakfast of our hopes through lack of media savvy.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. Right wing, nationalistic socialism. Sounds a vote winner.
Well, nationalistic socialism won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland ...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
FWIW I didn't think Mr Smith said anything technically incorrect about patriotism but patriotism is definitely a 'show not tell' - if he wants to present himself as the patriotic candidate he should wrap himself in Draig Goch rugby scarves at the Millennium Stadium and/or show off his royal tea-towel collection. As it stands, he sounds like he wants to outflank both UKIP and Plaid Cymru without having any plan for how to do so.

Still think he's better than Mr Corbyn though ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
To avoid the next "longest suicide note in history" (1983 Manifesto) there needs to be a serious debate about what constitutes electability for the Labour Party in the near future. Neither turning into Tory-lite or idealistic hopes that we can turn a lot of folks around to thinking "our way" will do. Nor will ignoring our continuing ability to make a pig's breakfast of our hopes through lack of media savvy.
That's not going to happen, though is it. When Corbyn renews The Mandate both he, and his supporters, are going to take it as vindication. PLP out of touch with ordinary members, will be the line, the people have spoken. Any suggestion of compromise with the electorate will be roundly denounced as "Tory Lite", as you so eloquently put it, you will have a lame duck Leader of the Opposition supported by a handful of cronies augmented by a few more additions to Core Group Jellyfish, civil war in the Parliamentary Party and deselection battles in the constituencies - doubtless conducted with all the fraternal courtesy that characterised the reaction to Angela Eagle's decision to stand. There probably won't be an SDP Mark II, but enough Labour MPs will stand as independents or defect to the Lib Dems to either split the vote or defeat the official Labour candidate. This is the point in the electoral cycle when people have noticed the government enough to dislike it but not the opposition enough which is why, at this point, Ed Miliband had a reasonably good lead in the polls. Labour are currently 21 points behind.

Imagine how that stacks up when Mrs May calls an election and the electorate are asked to seriously put into number 10 Downing Street a man who is manifestly unfit for the job and who lacks the support of his Parliamentary Party. Academics will be asked into television studios to pontificate on the constitutional implications and will almost invariably conclude, with a wintry smile, that the whole question is entirely hypothetical given the Conservative lead in the polls. The press coverage of the Opposition will make their treatment of Mr Miliband look sympathetic. Every incautious public utterance of Mr Corbyn's during his Parliamentary career will be pored over. (Parenthetically, given the number of hostages to fortune out in the public domain, is there anything in a file, somewhere in the Home Office, which is officially confidential but which somehow finds its way into the hands of a sympathetic journalist?) A manifesto will be produced, torn to shreds on the grounds of its economic illiteracy whilst candidates and MPs announce that if elected they will not feel bound by its provisions. The Tories will canter to their greatest election victory since 1983, possibly since 1931. Mrs May will doubtless, on the steps of 10 Downing Street, say something withering about *her* mandate.

The only calculation she needs to make is does she move swiftly, and gain her own democratic mandate for the turbulent times ahead or does she get on with things and allow the Labour Party to subject itself to another four years of this before finally putting it out of its misery.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
To avoid the next "longest suicide note in history" (1983 Manifesto) there needs to be a serious debate about what constitutes electability for the Labour Party in the near future. Neither turning into Tory-lite or idealistic hopes that we can turn a lot of folks around to thinking "our way" will do. Nor will ignoring our continuing ability to make a pig's breakfast of our hopes through lack of media savvy.
That's not going to happen, though is it.
It will happen. Probably later, rather than sooner. I agree that "sooner" doesn't look very likely.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
To avoid the next "longest suicide note in history" (1983 Manifesto) there needs to be a serious debate about what constitutes electability for the Labour Party in the near future. Neither turning into Tory-lite or idealistic hopes that we can turn a lot of folks around to thinking "our way" will do. Nor will ignoring our continuing ability to make a pig's breakfast of our hopes through lack of media savvy.
That's not going to happen, though is it.
It will happen. Probably later, rather than sooner. I agree that "sooner" doesn't look very likely.
I'm not sure that the Labour party is capable of having a serious debate any more. The whole atmosphere is too toxic, too many things have been said on both sides that can never be unsaid.

As Callan says, recent polls have been a horror show for Labour. This provides ammunition for both sides in the civil war; the PLP will say it demonstrates JC's unelectability, the Corbynistas will say it's the PLP's fault for splitting the party. Theresa May must be coming under pressure from some quarters to call an Autumn election, although the actual mechanics of that may be tricky.

Speaking for myself, I now don't care whether Corbyn or the Owen bloke (can't remember his name and can't be arsed to look it up, not a good sign) leads the pathetic rump of Labour. I won't be voting, in fact I'm rapidly losing interest in Labour politics which would have been unthinkable a year ago. My trade union emailed me yesterday to inform me that I'm still on the affiliated supporters list, I almost replied to say "take me off it."

May is a canny operator who will finesse Brexit as best she can to minimise the damage to country and party. She will also talk up the "one nation" stuff enough to keep centrist voters on board, and the Tories are in power for a generation. I personally will be all right, heading towards retirement in a secure occupation, but I am filled with foreboding about what the next generation will inherit, economically and politically. Perhaps the aptly-named Mrs May can engineer a soft landing, but there are all manner of troubles waiting down the road we've chosen to follow.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
The Labour party have massive problems.
You never posted a truer word. The Labour MPs (whether supporters of Corbyn or not) seem to be acting like lemmings, racing headlong over a cliff.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Very much agree with Barnabus and Ricardus. Callan may well be right - sadly. And totally understand Rocinante's position.

The question of competence is interesting. For the left anyone who does anything that could be taken the wrong way is a sign of incompetence. Meanwhile Theresa May can appoint Boris and is still regarded as a safe pair of hands.

Competence means many things things but building a team that knows what it is doing, is good at getting things done and is going in the same direction seems to be at the heart of why the Tories are one of the most successful political parties of the last 100 years in the western world.

Meanwhile the left looks to slag off anyone who doesn't totally agree with them even if the level of agreement is above 90%.

And then it wonders why there hasn't been an out and out socialist government in the last 60 years.

[ 27. July 2016, 10:50: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. Right wing, nationalistic socialism. Sounds a vote winner.
Well, nationalistic socialism won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland ...
Two out of three. The SNP is not right-wing by any means.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
Looking at the SNPs economic policies, not to mention their defence policies, I would place them on the Labour left. Not necessarily with Jeremy Corbyn, but closer to him than to Owen Smith who is, AFAICT, aiming at Billericay Man, the target demographic identified by Peter Mandelson.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
Looking at the SNPs economic policies, not to mention their defence policies, I would place them on the Labour left. Not necessarily with Jeremy Corbyn, but closer to him than to Owen Smith who is, AFAICT, aiming at Billericay Man, the target demographic identified by Peter Mandelson.
m8
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
The Labour party have massive problems.
You never posted a truer word. The Labour MPs (whether supporters of Corbyn or not) seem to be acting like lemmings, racing headlong over a cliff.
I could well be misunderstanding you here! However if you are suggesting that PLP 100% at fault and Corbyn 0% to blame, then I disagree. The Labour party's inability to have a balanced (dare I say nuanced) discussion is in my view what is tearing it apart.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
Looking at the SNPs economic policies, not to mention their defence policies, I would place them on the Labour left. Not necessarily with Jeremy Corbyn, but closer to him than to Owen Smith who is, AFAICT, aiming at Billericay Man, the target demographic identified by Peter Mandelson.
m8
Oh dear, but thanks for that. It must be most ill-composed collection of sound bites I have ever seen. All good stuff but light on "How". Not a mention of immigration which, like it or not, is an issue for the angry people he mentions.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
Looking at the SNPs economic policies, not to mention their defence policies, I would place them on the Labour left. Not necessarily with Jeremy Corbyn, but closer to him than to Owen Smith who is, AFAICT, aiming at Billericay Man, the target demographic identified by Peter Mandelson.
m8
Oh dear, but thanks for that. It must be most ill-composed collection of sound bites I have ever seen. All good stuff but light on "How". Not a mention of immigration which, like it or not, is an issue for the angry people he mentions.
I concede that it's not exactly John Bright on the Crimean War, but the idea that it's somehow to the right of Nicola Sturgeon is, frankly, a bit daft.

Anyway, get with the programme Comrade. The official line is now that the traitor and arch-deviationist Smith is ripping off the sainted thoughts of Comrade Jeremy. It's saboteurs like you who would convince the masses that Oceania was once at war with Eastasia were they not entirely loyal to Comrade Jeremy! Thought Criminal! Deviationist! Blairite!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I don't know about that, but I'm sure that neither Corbyn nor Smith is any kind of leader. Then again, the PLP is notoriously difficult to lead. Oh for Denis Healey.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know about that, but I'm sure that neither Corbyn nor Smith is any kind of leader. Then again, the PLP is notoriously difficult to lead. Oh for Denis Healey.
Preach!
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
As the offspring of committed Labour voters, and a committed Labour voter myself while I lived in the UK, this all grieves me mightily. And yet, in a weird way, it gives me hope. Perhaps it does all need to be blasted apart, in order for a new order to be formed on the left.

And if that happened, perhaps it could trigger a similar process here, where I haven't felt able to vote Labor (sic) for years.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Oh for Denis Healey.
A head banger!

(Other peoples', obv.)
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
The Labour party's inability to have a balanced (dare I say nuanced) discussion is in my view what is tearing it apart.
I agree with you. The whole lot of them appear to me (a complete outsider) to be acting like over-excited 7 year olds.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
We shouldn't ever forget the role of the media in all this. Whilst I agree that the Labour Party is tearing itself apart ...
I heard a little of Owen Smith this morning. At one point he suggested smashing Teresa May against the wall(or something like that). Some may say this is intemperate langauge but I see it as the cut and thrust of political speaches - I don't particulatrly like it but I accept it. Owen Smith was asked about this (more later) and he gave what I thought was an excellent critique of why he had said it and what he meant / did not mean.
The point I want to make is that a reporter asked him if he did not think the remark was sexist. What? In no way is that sexist - I am sure he would have said it about Cameron or Johnson. This simply illustrates how the media will do all they can to put Labour Party words in a bad light.

When I think about it, I don't actually think that the in-fighting, bad as it is, harmful and self-defeating, is as bad as some are suggesting.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Oh for Denis Healey.
A head banger!

Now I'm visualising Denis Healy in a mosh pit...
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I think it was the line about 'smashing TM back on her heels' that was thought sexist. The left-wing do love 'smashing' things, don't they?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
And the Tories love heels?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I know Ricardus put up a list on the first page. Well here is my list of evidence of JC’s incompetence!

I used to defend Corbyn much more often than mention my reservations. I wasn’t entirely convinced by him but I thought he needed to be given a chance.


Now if someone says look he is a protester and campaigner, it is hardly surprising that building teams and collective responsibility across a range of people are not likely to be in his skill set. Fair enough, it appears he has hardly ever worked at this sort of thing before in his entire life.

However, when so many of the PLP say it is chaotic in the Labour party, then perhaps we should take them seriously. They have a massive mountain to climb and perhaps they think that they need a vaguely competent leader, particularly in the area of bringing the party together. The ultra-Blairites may never get on board but there are many left-wing MPs who could and should have become part of a properly functioning team.

[ 27. July 2016, 15:11: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I think it was the line about 'smashing TM back on her heels' that was thought sexist. The left-wing do love 'smashing' things, don't they?
Apparently, it's a Welsh rugby expression hence, understandable in context, but sounded ghastly to those of us who are neither Welsh nor rugby fans. At least Ed M. didn't expect us to pick up obscure references to the Boston Red Sox.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hold on. You made the claim that Corbyn is deliberately fomenting abuse. Your claim, your burden of proof.
I have already said, twice now, that Ricardus put what I was trying to say far better than I was able to. Therefore, let's run with what he said, please.

So, for the fourth and final* time, you are invited to answer this question:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
*I'll avoid a Paxman/Howard tribute.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I think it was the line about 'smashing TM back on her heels' that was thought sexist. The left-wing do love 'smashing' things, don't they?
Apparently, it's a Welsh rugby expression hence, understandable in context, but sounded ghastly to those of us who are neither Welsh nor rugby fans. At least Ed M. didn't expect us to pick up obscure references to the Boston Red Sox.
It is known in Welsh rugby circles, but to "Give 'em a good shoeing" is more common.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Whilst the whole coup is looked at through the lens of a conspiracy theory it makes no sense - as is so often the case.
The news is that the Labour MPs are now signing up for a course on Machiavellian Plotting taught by Eddard Stark.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
However, when so many of the PLP say it is chaotic in the Labour party, then perhaps we should take them seriously. They have a massive mountain to climb and perhaps they think that they need a vaguely competent leader
Perhaps they should start by demonstrating some competence themselves?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Whilst the whole coup is looked at through the lens of a conspiracy theory it makes no sense - as is so often the case.
The news is that the Labour MPs are now signing up for a course on Machiavellian Plotting taught by Eddard Stark.
That would make Corbyn Joffrey Baratheon, which seems implausible. Joffrey, for all his faults, could use a crossbow. I doubt that Corbyn has any similarly useful skills. I can see the scene at Foreign Office questions:

The Foreign Secretary: "Right, what ho! Jings! I've signed a trade deal with these Chinese Johnnies. There's been a bit of give and take - we gave and they took, actually, but you know, we are a trading nation and we are making a success out of Brexit! I'd make a Latin pun at this point but it's Quondam thing after another in this job!
A ragged cheer from the Tory benches. Theresa May sits with her head in her hands.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary: Is the right honourable gentleman not aware that this treaty is the most abysmal capitulation since...
Corbyn: Don't worry Emily, I've got this one. TWANG!

Six hours later. Laura Kuesenberg is on the case:

Extraordinary scenes here tonight. The Tories are furious at what they see as an abuse of Parliamentary Privilege by the Leader of the Opposition. I'm told that Michael Gove confronted Corbyn in the lobby, only to be told: "At least I shot him in the front". Meanwhile the latest polling indicates that, for the first time, Corbyn has pulled ahead of the Tories. Sources close to the Labour leadership have told me: "A Lannister always pays his debts". Meanwhile the Speaker of the House has issued a statement: "He who wills the end, wills the means". I'm hearing that shares in Hodder and Stoughton have rocketed, in the meantime, with the announcement that the late Mr Johnson's biography of Shakespeare will not be published. Back to the studio.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That would make Corbyn Joffrey Baratheon, which seems implausible.
He is more of a Stannis, true.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tomorrows Papers:
...MP's from both sides of the house were united in rebuking Jeremy Corbyn for failing to condemn threats ... son with a crossbow. The threats, allegedly made on a 'Christian' website...
MP XY said "It is disgusting that Corbyn's supporters can openly call for the assa..."

 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomorrows Papers:
...MP's from both sides of the house were united in rebuking Jeremy Corbyn for failing to condemn threats ... son with a crossbow. The threats, allegedly made on a 'Christian' website...
MP XY said "It is disgusting that Corbyn's supporters can openly call for the assa..."
Dan Hodges: "I THOUGHT THIS WAS A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE!"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Loving the Game of Thrones tangents! Is it too unkind to suggest that Seumas Milne is a reincarnation of Ramsay Bolton? And Seema Malhotra should take training lessons on vengeance from Sansa Stark (or Arya).

Clearly much fun can be had hereabouts.

Meanwhile the Labour Party "Rome" is burning and we are having difficulty in finding anything which looks much like a fire engine. Or agreeing who should drive it even if we could find one.

Ah well. This dangerous website is developing a useful metaphor for the disaster. Wildfire, anyone? Dragons to the rescue? Peter Dinklage for Party Leader? Oh, shame, he's a US citizen.

[ 27. July 2016, 22:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Martin thinks Mr Smith is right-wing. If he is right-wing, then so are the SNP.
Looking at the SNPs economic policies, not to mention their defence policies, I would place them on the Labour left. Not necessarily with Jeremy Corbyn, but closer to him than to Owen Smith who is, AFAICT, aiming at Billericay Man, the target demographic identified by Peter Mandelson.
m8
The discussion is spot on. Smith is far, far worse than Brown, who failed to follow his heart. Ever. Utterly unprincipled. Heartless. Should go far.

And May will call no election next quarter. What on earth for? Whereas Brown should have done of course. And that's not just hindsight. May can't lose in 2020, even with Corbyn and McDonnell retired and a massive, Labour, green rent to buy programme. Not with Smith. Or Eagle. Burnham or Khan, yes.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
The discussion is spot on. Smith is far, far worse than Brown, who failed to follow his heart. Ever. Utterly unprincipled. Heartless. Should go far.
Well, yeah, apart from keeping us out of the Euro, reducing pensioner poverty, reducing child poverty and saving the entire global freaking financial system what did Gordon Brown ever do for us.

If you have a list of equivalent achievements by Mr Corbyn, I would be interested to hear it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Well, yeah, apart from keeping us out of the Euro, reducing pensioner poverty, reducing child poverty and saving the entire global freaking financial system what did Gordon Brown ever do for us.
Steal our pensions?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Well, yeah, apart from keeping us out of the Euro, reducing pensioner poverty, reducing child poverty and saving the entire global freaking financial system what did Gordon Brown ever do for us.
Steal our pensions?
While on the one hand Labour abolished dividend tax relief, which reduced the rate at which pension pots would grow, but on the other they introduced pension tax credits, which are available to all pensioners.

"Steal our pensions" is hyperbole.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
The discussion is spot on. Smith is far, far worse than Brown, who failed to follow his heart. Ever. Utterly unprincipled. Heartless. Should go far.
Well, yeah, apart from keeping us out of the Euro, reducing pensioner poverty, reducing child poverty and saving the entire global freaking financial system what did Gordon Brown ever do for us.

If you have a list of equivalent achievements by Mr Corbyn, I would be interested to hear it.
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless. And my last three staccato sentences are directed at Smith. I accept Gordon achieved all those things, but there was something missing, a failure to communicate, as in calling that Labour supporting woman bigoted. Even if she was. The 2008 recession was nothing to do with him of course. But he totally mishandled the 10p tax rate abolition.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless.
I wonder why that might be?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.

I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
While on the one hand Labour abolished dividend tax relief, which reduced the rate at which pension pots would grow, but on the other they introduced pension tax credits, which are available to all pensioners.

"Steal our pensions" is hyperbole.
He took £5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions. Creating a new scheme that tops up pensions if they're below a certain threshold is hardly compensation for that.

If the Conservatives had done something with such a deleterious effect on pensions you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil they were.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.

I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.

If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.

I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.

If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
I agree with you that without the current Labour Party electoral system Jeremy Corbyn would not have been elected.

But does what you say mean that you consider "being in the shadow cabinet" to be the definition of having the levers of power?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
While on the one hand Labour abolished dividend tax relief, which reduced the rate at which pension pots would grow, but on the other they introduced pension tax credits, which are available to all pensioners.

"Steal our pensions" is hyperbole.
He took £5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions. Creating a new scheme that tops up pensions if they're below a certain threshold is hardly compensation for that.

If the Conservatives had done something with such a deleterious effect on pensions you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil they were.
The Conservatives allowed "Pension holidays" to permit companies to reduce and sometimes raid the pension funds of their employees and existing pensioners. When so many companies went tits up in more difficult times (eg, ever since the 1990 recession) the depleted fund went with it leaving a lot of people with much smaller pensions if anything at all.

Better state pensions, which the additional tax received by abolishing dividend tax relief has done, are a way out of this mess, and to be honest, annuity rates have fallen so far that private pension pots are rarely worth much to any other than high earners (£100,000+ pa).

As far as I can tell the Tories haven't reintroduced dividend tax relief.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.

I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.

If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
I agree with you that without the current Labour Party electoral system Jeremy Corbyn would not have been elected.

But does what you say mean that you consider "being in the shadow cabinet" to be the definition of having the levers of power?
I mean that if the opposition win an election, it's the shadow cabinet who end up in government. If you can't get into your party's leadership in opposition, you are unlikely to have a role in its leadership in government.

The fact that the membership have been to the left of new labour, means that Corbyn did not have a chance of being positioned in such a way as to hold a government position prior to one member one vote within the labour party.

In other words, I think it is his political ideas that have kept him out of the labour leadership (including when it actually was the government) no one has been in any position to make judgements about his leadership competence prior to 2015 - it has been about his political position. (Which is one of the reasons those who voted for him have been so sceptical about the competence claims.)

[ 29. July 2016, 12:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If the Conservatives had done something with such a deleterious effect on pensions you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil they were.
Under Nigel Lawson's spell as Chancellor the Tories originally introduced legislation to tax 'surpluses' in pension pots (the surpluses generally only existed because people had yet to draw down pensions, and the figures used for growth in actuarial calculations were optimistic to say the least). The legislation around Minimum Funding (also introduced by the tories) allowed employers to boost profits by underfunding pension schemes (to the estimated value of around £18bn).

Brown changed the regulation around Advanced Corporation Tax, but relief had already been reduced by Tory governments during the 1990s.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He took £5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions.
The primary cause of the mass closure of final salary pension schemes was the significant improvement in both pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates. Put simply, more people were living to retirement age than expected, and then after retirement were living longer than expected. The £5 billion was an additional blow, but it was a drop in the bucket compared with the long term cost effect of these changes on funded pension schemes. Final salary pension schemes could no longer be afforded without massively increasing employees' and employers' contributions percentages.

[ 29. July 2016, 14:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
My thanks to chris stiles and Barnabas62 for clarifying the pension contribution situation. I was going from simple recollection.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless.
I wonder why that might be?
Your tacit acknowledgement of your mineralogical comparison of chalk and oranges is noted.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless.
I wonder why that might be?
Your tacit acknowledgement of your mineralogical comparison of chalk and oranges is noted.
I was going to say "in the Kingdom of the blind", then realised the unfortunate implications. "Hyperion to a satyr" is probably over doing it. Perhaps the nearest analogy might be some Senator, towards the end of the Roman Empire, elevated to the purple by a barbarian conspiracy, whose power was a mere shadow, fancying himself, because of his title of Augustus, to be, in some way, comparable to the original holder of the office.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Glycerius, de nos jours. I'm not sure who that makes Brown. Probably Majorian, although a case could be made for Julian the Apostate.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
So well educated. Us comprehensive types are more interested in free school dinners and not bombing Syria, rather than Corbyno fucking delenda est.

[ETA got the expletive after the predicative adjective in first draft]

[ 29. July 2016, 17:40: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.

I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
That's one of the many big reasons why I've got not time for Jeremy Corbyn or his ilk. His claquist understanding of democracy and where a legitimate mandate comes from is 100% at variance with mine.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think you are missing the point, which was explained over the course of the exchange after the quoted post.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think you are missing the point, which was explained over the course of the exchange after the quoted post.
I don't think I am.

I accept that there's a subsidiary point about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition.

It is very difficult for those of us who are not totally sold on him already, to believe other than that if he were to become PM, he would still regard himself and his party as primarily there to implement the wishes of his own claque group.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition. ...[/QB]
Surely his accountability to the electors of Islington North is (almost totally) in his capacity of a local MP, rather than as leader. And conversely in his capacity of a local MP he has (almost no) authority from the labour party members. (with a little bit of a fudge, as there will be some consequences of having two hats). And I'm not aware of him having done anything to suggest that he's put not aware of that, on the contrary he's been in trouble a few times for attending his constituency duties.

If he became PM, presumably that would be on an election, that would include the entire population.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So well educated. Us comprehensive types are more interested in free school dinners and not bombing Syria, rather than Corbyno fucking delenda est.

[ETA got the expletive after the predicative adjective in first draft]
I can quote Hamlet because the local comprehensive made me study it at 'A' Level and I acquired an interest in Roman history from watching 'I, Claudius' on the telly and reading the books on the subject in the school library in my free periods.

My objection to Corbynism is not based on education - plenty of people are better educated than me, and plenty of the people who are worse educated than me are better people - or even intelligence, apparently I'm one of the cleverer members of the clergy, based on my scores at ABM, but I think that is more of a terrible indictment of the Church of England rather than anything else - but about intellectual curiosity.

Frankly, I have no particular interest in becoming a Councillor or Member of Parliament, let alone Prime Minister but I am sufficiently intellectually curious to take some interest in how the country is run and how politics actually works. It's actually embarrassing that we now have an opposition led by a man who thinks his saloon bar prejudices, because we cannot dignify them with any better description than that, are any substitute for understanding how the country is governed or how the world works, supported by people who think that expressing their saloon bar prejudices makes one remotely plausible as a candidate to govern the country. You simply cannot fucking turn up, announce 'behold my superior virtue, Oh muggles and bow down before me' and expect the British electorate to think, 'oh, good point, we didn't vote for your predecessor because we thought he was too left wing and wasn't up to it, but we'll vote for you because you're even more left wing and even less up to it".

If you are concerned about free school meals then, Nick Clegg, frankly is your go to guy. I'm not sure what, if anything, Corbyn has achieved on this score. If you are concerned about not bombing Syria, then I seem to recall that Ed Miliband persuaded the PLP to vote against and Corbyn couldn't. But by all means share your indignation about what the Tories are actually doing, whilst making it possible for them to keep doing it for the next decade or so.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition. ...
Surely his accountability to the electors of Islington North is (almost totally) in his capacity of a local MP, rather than as leader. And conversely in his capacity of a local MP he has (almost no) authority from the labour party members. (with a little bit of a fudge, as there will be some consequences of having two hats). And I'm not aware of him having done anything to suggest that he's put not aware of that, on the contrary he's been in trouble a few times for attending his constituency duties.

If he became PM, presumably that would be on an election, that would include the entire population. [/QB]
Well, no. As Orfeo often points out, in a system of parliamentary democracy, you cast your vote for the candidates in your electorate. Of course that vote will normally be for a candidate who is a member of a political party and your choice may well be influenced by your opinion of the present leader of that party. But it may not - at our recent federal elections, there would have been quite a few voters for a Liberal Party candidate who, for a variety of reasons, find it difficult to stomach the present leader of that party. They did so because they preferred the overall policies of that party. They also knew that Malcolm Turnbull had had substantial experience in ministerial roles as well as in private enterprise

With Corbyn as leader, OTOH, they would have to vote for a candidate whose party is led by someone whose experience has been as an organiser for a couple of unions and a member of a local health authority. The sum total of this part of his background looks to be 7 or 8 years at the most in what are pretty minor roles. He has sat on 2 or 3 committees. Not a promising start. Then they would have to vote for a platform of policies which introduce a substantial move away from the overall trend of Labour policies for well over 2 decades. Indeed, if you ignore the difficulties Labour had in the 1980s, a Corbyn led party would go to the electorate with a more radical platform than had any previous Labour campaign.

While Corbyn will probably obtain a high vote in this leadership battle, that simply will not translate into a vote for Labour candidates in the next few general elections. Indeed Corbyn will have to finish his political career with an entrenched Tory govt on his conscience.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I would be interested in knowing what, in either Smith's or Corbyn's platform is consider 'hard left', 'unelectable' or especially radical:

Here's an analysis of Smith's 20 pledges: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/owen-smith-makes-20-pledges-8502852
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
I accept that there's a subsidiary point about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition.
Please don't drag the electors of Islington North into this discussion. We've been electing Jeremy Corbyn as our MP continuously for what is it, about 35 years now. The evidence of Corbyn's continuing substantial majority indicates that, no doubt for a variety of individual reasons, we are very happy with his performance as our MP.

Corbyn's election as party leader is a separate issue. Nobody should be in any doubt about his continuing, long-term record of competence in representing his constituency to the satisfaction of the vast majority of his voters.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
A recent thing that Corbyn said that made me sit up was medical research should be "funded through the Medical Research Council (MRC) and not farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer."

McDonnell said this has been misinterpreted (although I can't think of any interpretation that makes sense) and that research could be better coordinated through the MRC.

This is an area I know something about and it makes no sense. It sounds like sounding-off without really having a plan or knowing the facts. I expect it was prompted by having a dig at Owen Smith with his Pfizer links but without really thinking it through.

The MRC and Pfizer do different research. MRC funds research that would never be commercially viable, and is probably one of the leading funders of such research in the world. The UK should be very proud of the MRC and it is pretty well funded.

Companies bring very much greater resources to bear on developing products that might make them money. The MRC doesn't have the resources to do this, and most academics don't have the regulatory and manufacturing expertise to be in the same game. I can't imagine how the MRC could take on elements of this, why it would be desirable, and how they could coordinate it. Companies will make decisions based on commercial interest and this can't be coordinated by government.

This happens to be the one area I know about. I know it is a tiny part of government but it does seem to be consistent with what others have said about Corbyn and team's technical competence in developing policy.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
I note "realistic". Policies guide strategies and implementation plans. The journey between ends and means requires both craft and competence in leadership. I think that is the real centre of the dispute between Jeremy and the PLP.

As noted earlier, there were indeed some New Labour policies which were, or could be argued to be, at variance with or compromised away from Labour policies and principles. There were two reasons for those. "Third Way" synthesism between capitalism and socialism, and practical electability.

But in the present situation, those areas of policy aren't the real issue.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
(Crosspost replying to major)

It is certainly a complex area, but things like the scandal over sertraline suggest to me that some additional oversight would be useful. Also a fair number of drugs are still used off label because it has never been commercially viable to put them through the processes to recommend wider prescribing.

I was astonished that the epilepsy society guidelines mention in passing that using buccal* midazolam as a rescue medication is an off label use.

(Originally auto correct gave this as buccaneer's midazolam which I rather like.)

[ 31. July 2016, 08:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
And the MRC does currently fund trials of "off-label" uses of drugs, particularly when they are off-patent and therefore there is no financial incentive to companies.

But the MRC has nothing to do with oversight of the use of drugs. There is a regulator that does that. There are failures of regulation and I wouldn't like to pretend there is anything other than a massive problem with drug companies developing drugs. But what Corbyn said doesn't make logical sense or address that problem.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
I note "realistic". Policies guide strategies and implementation plans. The journey between ends and means requires both craft and competence in leadership. I think that is the real centre of the dispute between Jeremy and the PLP.

As noted earlier, there were indeed some New Labour policies which were, or could be argued to be, at variance with or compromised away from Labour policies and principles. There were two reasons for those. "Third Way" synthesism between capitalism and socialism, and practical electability.

But in the present situation, those areas of policy aren't the real issue.
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy. Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy.
You and at least a quarter of a million others. But what is it that you behold which convinces you of his leadership abilities?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
That sounds like socialism as the path to capitalism!
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He took £5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions.
The primary cause of the mass closure of final salary pension schemes was the significant improvement in both pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates. Put simply, more people were living to retirement age than expected, and then after retirement were living longer than expected. The £5 billion was an additional blow, but it was a drop in the bucket compared with the long term cost effect of these changes on funded pension schemes. Final salary pension schemes could no longer be afforded without massively increasing employees' and employers' contributions percentages.
Or they could have been afforded by not paying multi-million pound bonuses to the few at the top, or by making less profit...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The Phantom Flan Finger

This is a bit long in the tooth.

Nevertheless it provides the following startling information

quote:
An extra year of life for a retired person typically means a pension scheme must increase its stock of assets by 3% to 4% to generate the necessary extra income.

The actuarial firm Aon Hewitt said that the latest data would add another £5bn to the cost of funding occupational pension schemes in the UK.
.

What was that latest data? That men aged 65 were now expected on average to live 0.4 years longer and women 0.8 years more than previously expected. Such marginal changes added another £5 billion to costs.

The article also gives you some idea of the longer term trends. In the last 9 years, male mortality rates have improved by 29%, female mortality rates by 20%.

And you can see more detailed information here.

A man who survived to 65 in 1982 could expect to live 13 years. By 2013 that figure was 18 years. For a woman aged 65 the figures were 17 and 21.

That means that the cost of paying out pensioners has increased by a quarter in 30 years. Plus the chances of making it to 65 have increased from about 80% to over 90%. That's a lot more survivors making it to about pensionable age. That will add a hefty additional liability to the pension funds.

The pension costs of mortality improvements in the last quarter of a century or so are absolutely huge and any alleviation by knocking down top executive salaries or profits would have made only a marginal difference. And the effect is ongoing.

The demographic time bomb is still ticking ..

[ 01. August 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy.
You and at least a quarter of a million others. But what is it that you behold which convinces you of his leadership abilities?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
That sounds like socialism as the path to capitalism!
I was wondering who'd spot that. It's a spiralling cycle B. You sell socialism NOW with capitalism tomorrow. One day it won't be capitalism you're selling, but post-scarcity economics. As Marx said. The Sixth Stage. Pure stateless, classless, property-less communism.

[ 01. August 2016, 23:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
That's the underpants gnomes version of the Communist Manifesto.
1/ Elect Corbyn 2/ umm? 3/ Onwards to full communism comrades!

Meanwhile, an economist from the reality based community would like a word.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Corbyn is not a communist.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I suspect you are in a minority in the country as a whole. Sadly.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sorry B! Didn't answer on Jeremy's leadership. PMQT. Is there any other criterion? What do you bring to the party B? I see him as a breath of fresh air, courageous, consistent, coherent. That's psychoenergetic leadership that. I can't see any failure of leadership at all. I like his style, the cut of his jib and that of John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Richard Burgon.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I suspect you are in a minority in the country as a whole. Sadly.
Like Doublethink, I'd rather be in the minority than mistaken. Like on June 23rd.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This is the problem with current political discourse, everything is treated as pure opinion - infinitely contestable. There are clear definitions of what a communist manifesto would be - I believe there's a rather famous book of that name - Corbyn's policy positions, voting history, rhetoric etc have never been communist. He is a democratic socialist. I am equally confident in saying he is not a nazi, or an English nationalist.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think Callan's post was in response to Martin's immediately above it, which does appear to imply that Martin sees electing Corbyn as a step towards Communism.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sorry B! Didn't answer on Jeremy's leadership. PMQT. Is there any other criterion? What do you bring to the party B? I see him as a breath of fresh air, courageous, consistent, coherent. That's psychoenergetic leadership that. I can't see any failure of leadership at all. I like his style, the cut of his jib and that of John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Richard Burgon.
Ah yes, Mr Burnham, the only Health Secretary to have actually privatised a hospital. The man for whom 'These are my principles; if you don't like them I have others' could have been coined.

But that doesn't matter; sticking to your principles is the absolute supreme virtue only if your principles match Jeremy's. If you stick to any other principles you're a Blairite traitor.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Personally I think Corbyn has a lot of interesting stuff to say and on some really big policy issues (like not bombing Syria or going to war in Iraq) he is part of the only group in politics to say what I want to hear. I'd like to believe but unfortunately I found it increasingly difficult to, and now impossible.

What worries me are stories like this, this, this, and this.

It does point to a pattern of disorganization, a failure to engage and follow through on developing policy, and an inability to think in terms of a party structure rather than individuals.

When taken together with the fact that there was a period when he could appoint a shadow cabinet, and now a period where he's clearly struggling, it worries me that he just can't do political negotiation and organization. He can be right on some of the big issues but just not execute on the details of running the show.

What do those who remain thoroughly supportive make of this? Are these stories just put-up jobs to make him look bad or just irrelevant? Help thou my unbelief.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I don't particularly want to vote for Corbyn, but I do want to vote with those hundreds of thousands of people who got him elected, who went to hear him speak, who represent the most hopeful thing to have happened in UK politics for fifty years.

Why is the PLP obsessed with finding the one true leader? Everyone has deficiencies, but if there is a will, then a collegiate approach can make them good. There needs to be a will on both sides, of course, and I see no evidence of it on either. Judgement is hard, though, when we're peering through the distortions of the media.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Martin60

mdijon's links and indeed his post represent my views re leadership. I also agree in principle with hatless's post. There is no such thing as a perfect leader and the collegiate approach enables the best use of the strengths and weaknesses of any leader.

Unfortunately, Jeremy's whole parliamentary career and to some extent his life outside parliament mark him out as a non-dominant loner. IME loners have as much difficulty with collegiate leadership as dominant types.

I don't like dominant leader types either BTW. Mrs Thatcher's claim to be able to sum people up in 15 seconds is a classic example of the kind of delusion to which they are prone.

Although it is cynical, there is something in the view that isolate leadership types are either controlled paranoiacs or controlled psychopaths. The fearful and the fearsome who control by fear. Collegiate approaches are much easier for non-isolates.

I use this quote a lot to illustrate the dangers of isolate leadership. "If you put away those who seek to tell you the truth those who remain will know what you want to hear". Another one is this. "First class people appoint first class people. Second class people appoint third class people". Non-isolate leaders are not afraid of divergent opinions powerfully expressed by team members. The resulting debates leads to better thought out policies. And creates precisely the sort of give and take which makes teams work well. People will walk through fire for leaders who generate that kind of working environment, are not afraid of it.

Does Jeremy have what it takes to be a successful isolate leader or a successful collegiate leader? I really don't think so. This isn't all about the media and the PLP MPs gunning for him.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.

It rings true to me, as whenever I've seen him on TV he seems to have a 'pretend it's not happening and it'll go away' attitude.

[fixed link]

[ 03. August 2016, 07:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
"Some people have said that I’m lying. That I’ve made it up.” She gives a weary laugh. “But you couldn’t make it up, could you?”
Perhaps one person could be making it up but I doubt they all are and it fits with those in the party who tried to work with him all giving up as well.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless;
Why is the PLP obsessed with finding the one true leader?
Perhaps it's not the perfect leader the PLP wants, just someone who's got some hope of winning a general election! Last week's opinion poll makes grim reading for Labour. OK so the Tories ended their leadership contest quite bloodlessly, while Labour is hemorrhaging, but these figures suggest a repetition of 1983. A woman in 10 Downing Street and a Marxist numpty in charge of the opposition. This can only have the same result. A Tory landslide.

As in the 1980's and 90's, when Labour got fed up of losing elections, it repackaged its image, and the same will happen here unless it dumps Corbyn asap. He is simply not someone who the British public will ever trust to be PM, however much idealogical Labour activists love him. Unless Labour recovers its Scottish support, which at present seems unlikely, it has a mountain to climb in order to win a British election. This isn't goint to happen under Corbyn, and the PLP knows this.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That worked for Kinnock didn't it?

And thank you B. Nice analysis. And I'm afraid it's happening! The shambles over Thangam Debbonaire is ... shambolic.

[ 03. August 2016, 09:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
B62, your description of Corbyn as an non-dominant loner, an isolate, rings true to me. I think that's a weakness in him that does rule him out as an effective leader, because it means he won't work collegiately - as we have seen.

However, it also, I think, explains his appeal. Corbyn came from nowhere, like a newly discovered Dalai Lama. Hardly any of the throngs who voted for him had heard of him before he was nominated. He was not part of the media groomed Westminster world. He was different - as a loner would be.

Crucially, he lacked the anxiety about electability, the revolting desire to please and be loved. As a loner he had a strength without arrogance or manipulation, and people responded.

Trump and Farage are also free of the desire to please and be loved. They will say anything, and this attracts some people, although they are full of arrogance and pride.

Politicians look weak. Most of our problems are international, and our politicians are national. On their own they can do very little about climate change, migration, corporate tax evasion or recessions. They are also in thrall to the media circus, which picks up on anything unusual or different (news), and picks over it, judges it, and generally denounces it. You can't step out of line. The Overton window has shrunk to a porthole.

Only it's all bluff. The media has no real power, and doesn't even understand public opinion. People want change and a change in style.

Corbyn .. yeah, problem, mm, I suppose not. But Owen Smith? Who? Why him? What's that about?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That worked for Kinnock didn't it?

It didn't work for Kinnock because (a) the process of becoming electable again takes a very, very long time and (b) the Tories recognise when their leader is a liability and dump him/her without sentiment or ceremony. Kinnock might well have beaten Thatcher in 91/92, but under Major the Tories had a new lease of life, or at least a final convulsion.

[ 03. August 2016, 09:16: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Kinnock was necessary to get Labour electable again even if it didn't work for him.

Personally though I would not preclude someone like Corbyn reaching out to enough in the PLP and enough middle-ground voters to pull it off. A highly competent negotiator and pragmatist could perhaps have done it, despite all the opposition against him. It's just that he doesn't seem to be doing it and there are stories like the ones quoted above that might demonstrate why he can't do it.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.

As someone who has in the past suffered from (and to some extent still does suffer from) a paralysing fear of difficult conversations, particularly on the phone and/or with people I don't know very well, I am starting to wonder if this is part of Corbyn's problem. It is something you can work on, but you have to accept that it is a problem first.

Strangely I, like Corbyn, have no problem at all with public speaking to large groups of people.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nice one hatless. Owen Smith? NEVER. Revolting creature.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.

As someone who has in the past suffered from (and to some extent still does suffer from) a paralysing fear of difficult conversations, particularly on the phone and/or with people I don't know very well, I am starting to wonder if this is part of Corbyn's problem. It is something you can work on, but you have to accept that it is a problem first.

Strangely I, like Corbyn, have no problem at all with public speaking to large groups of people.
My husband is the same. He avoids difficult conversations like the plague, but is an excellent public speaker. The difference is that public speaking can be pre-planned like conversations never can.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I think Owen Smith just represents back to where we were, and misses the moment. There is something trying to happen in politics, and maybe Corbyn can only be a trigger and not the thing itself, but Smith surely is an irrelevance.

We shouldn't be talking about leaders and picking over their personality traits (interesting, though, and I think Rocinante is probably right about Corbyn and fear of picking up the phone). We are not little children who need someone to adore or blame.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Very good posts, hatless, esp. the long one above. There are so many contradictions in Labour at the moment, but I think Smith represents a retrograde step. Surely, he is a lightweight and a stalking horse.

I can see the problems with Corbyn, but I think he is going to be there for a while yet. I was looking at the meeting in Liverpool with 5000 people, and I think that is hard to resist.

One problem is the lack of alternatives. I think if an interesting and authentic MP stepped forward to oppose Corbyn, he/she would get support. But where are they?

As a footnote, my family are mad on Corbyn; whenever he is on TV, the room goes silent, and everybody listens avidly. This is quite something, but of course, not everything, and probably, not enough.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
We are not little children who need someone to adore or blame.
True, hatless. Idolatry and iconoclasm are a doleful pair of fashionable attributes in our modern world.

From an old Moody Blues song

quote:
I've been searching for my dream
A hundred times today
I build them up, you knock them down,
Like they were made of clay
Trouble is, sometimes we are all the builders up, sometimes the knockers down, sometimes both, particularly when disillusionment sets in.

Thangam Debbonaire's truly sad story is not a single, unfortunate, forgivable episode, but it is a series of episodes strung together, which paint the same picture. And that picture is reinforced by mdijon's other links.

It's hard to accept our common humanity, warts and all, be honest about our individual strengths and weakness. Sometimes we have to draw painful conclusions. Then the tide rushes in, and washes our castles away.

(edited for xposts and page turn)

[ 03. August 2016, 10:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I'm afraid my family's opinion of Corbyn is not so high. "A bit weird", "not up to much", "the most boring man in Britain" are example comments. YMMV, anecdotes are not polling.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm afraid my family's opinion of Corbyn is not so high. "A bit weird", "not up to much", "the most boring man in Britain" are example comments. YMMV, anecdotes are not polling.
Strangely enough, that's why I said 'as a footnote', since I agree that anecdotes are useless.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm afraid my family's opinion of Corbyn is not so high. "A bit weird", "not up to much", "the most boring man in Britain" are example comments. YMMV, anecdotes are not polling.
Strangely enough, that's why I said 'as a footnote', since I agree that anecdotes are useless.
Whatever. I don't think rallies of 5,000, or even 50,000 are any more significant. In 1983, Michael Foot ran an old-school election campaign, consisting largely of him "preaching" to large "congregations" in town halls, chapels etc. Every venue was packed to the rafters with adoring crowds, to the point where Foot was able to convince himself that the polls were all wrong and Labour would win by a mile. Not leaving your comfort zone is very dangerous.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm afraid my family's opinion of Corbyn is not so high. "A bit weird", "not up to much", "the most boring man in Britain" are example comments. YMMV, anecdotes are not polling.
Strangely enough, that's why I said 'as a footnote', since I agree that anecdotes are useless.
Whatever. I don't think rallies of 5,000, or even 50,000 are any more significant. In 1983, Michael Foot ran an old-school election campaign, consisting largely of him "preaching" to large "congregations" in town halls, chapels etc. Every venue was packed to the rafters with adoring crowds, to the point where Foot was able to convince himself that the polls were all wrong and Labour would win by a mile. Not leaving your comfort zone is very dangerous.
Well, I think large rallies are significant to some people. They may be wrong, as you say, if the polls show negatively, but I don't see a lot of members turning to Smith. If some people agree with Corbyn (to an extent), what are they to do, vote for Smith?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I would encourage members to vote for whoever would be a good leader of the party, which means that I shall not be voting.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think one of the problems for Smith is that the coup by the plp, or part of it, was cack-handed and badly timed. So it's a bit weird to hear criticisms about incompetence from the same people. I think many Corbyn supporters are arguing that the polls were OK until the coup, and that the right-wing and centrists have basically sabotaged the struggle against the Tories; well, it seems impossible to prove that one either way.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Labour's polling has been dire for months. The Tories have recently had a "new leader boost", Labour never got one from Corbyn. There have been a handful of small Labour leads, otherwise it's been solid Tory leads since the general election (I believe in 95% of polls). Considering the Tories are a second-term government in mid term and have just perpetrated the most shocking political blunder since the Suez fiasco, this is remarkable.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And Suez affected Tory electability how?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Suez affected Tory electability how?
It finished Eden's Career, and Labour had large poll leads immediately after Suez. Fortunately for the Tories an election was not imminent and McMillan had several years to turn things around.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Considering the Tories are a second-term government in mid term and have just perpetrated the most shocking political blunder since the Suez fiasco, this is remarkable.
This too has echoes of 1983. Thatcher was in full force with her dream to change the UK into a deregulated American style economy. Unemployment had passed 3 million as industrial output collapsed. The government was the most hated I can ever remember. The result was a Tory landslide. Down to only one thing. The total unelectability of Michael Foot's Labour Party. The Tories are now in their second term. The fiasco of this EU referendum is such that an opposition party should be riding high in the polls. Winning councils all over the country.

It isn't happening, and it won't as long as extremists are running the party. They appeal only to their own clique. The country doesn't want the likes of Corbyn, or the detestables like McDonnel or Ken Livingstone within a mile of power. Only when Labour gets this can it become a credible opposition and later government. If it starts the process now, there is hope before a 2020 general election. Otherwise prepare for the 18 years it endured in the wilderness last time around.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Exactly. And Eden was a shoo-in after Churchill. These things aren't comparable at all. ConservatISM is the natural party of government. I agree Corbyn hasn't got a cat in hell's chance one way and another, I don't care. Labour is the natural party of opposition until it goes conservative, as it would under the appalling Smith (would not have under John, God rest his soul).

If Labour don't find a way to roll out rent to buy they will have NOTHING to offer the working class in terms of its perception. They are expecting a reward for Brexit. They are that deluded. Poor buggers. And yes I know that a larger proportion of the technical and professional middle class voted Brexit.

Rent to buy SHOULD buy the entire working class and their dependents and the worse off than their parents children of the middle class. No?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Don't get too hung up on Suez, Martin60. I was only using it to put recent events in context.

If Labour ever resigns itself to being the natural party of opposition, I will be leaving. Politics has to mean more than going on demos and sticking your tongue out at the Tories.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ah come on Rocinante, I'm re-entering my baby Bolshevik second childhood! I'll be reading And Quiet Flows The Don again next! Followed by A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich of course.
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich of course. [/QB][/QUOTE]

A book I read every year. Superb and moving. Every four or five years I re-read The First Circle.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That's been on my mind A LOT this year. Introduced my youngest to the former on Youtube late one night two years ago, the Tom Courtenay (Eric Magic Roundabout Thompson!) film. Did the trick.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich of course.
Continuing the wild tangent to say I reread this a few months ago. It confirms my theory that while there are many variables, the prison experience also features many constants across the ages, continents, and political systems.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ah, Ivan Denisovich! My intro to Solzhenitsyn. Denisovich, who survived by being bad at floor washing and brilliant at bricklaying.

What were we talking about? Oh yes. I agree with Doublethink. Jeremy is not a communist. I just wish he wasn't so prone to dropping bricks.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I am interested in what happens after the leadership election. What are the most likely possibilities? Just supposing Corbyn gets in with an increased majority (as currently seems likely) what do JC's supporters hope will happen?

Best case scenario? - few or no Labour MPs leave to form / join another party. Those who don't regard the result as legitimate (there will be some), are deselected or they are quickly informed they will probably be deselected come the next election - sadly MPs who know they are out of a job in 4 years time could do a great deal of damage. However, most of the MPs try - with varying degrees of success - to start being more loyal than Corbyn ever was to previous leaders. The NEC is radically overhauled - to reflect the JC's vision.

I think this scenario won't be easy to sell on the doorsteps and will be depicted appallingly by the Tories / the press (why does Labour make the Tories job so easy?) It will be easy to portray JC's Labour as a bullying cult that tolerates no dissent.

The positive (for me) would be Corbyn supporters would have to stop blaming the PLP for every failure of the Labour party.

Worst case scenario: the party splits - in spirit or in actuality - with many MPs forming an alternative party in power*. The left is split for a generation and the Tories get a majority of around 100. A majority so large it cannot realistically be turned around in 2025.

Admittedly I can't see either Owen Smith or Corbyn winning in 2020. Even keeping the Tory majority to roughly where it is now, will be quite a challenge. (Most Psephologists would probably agree.) However, Smith (should he win) would have a much better chance of keeping the party together. He already has the goodwill of the PLP and he would also have the support of most of the members.

I also think he has done ok so far - I am not wild about him. But then I wasn't wild about Corbyn or any of his challengers. And I really see Corbyn winning as deeply destructive to the very fabric of the Labour party - it isn't about how left he is. I think the left wing Clive Lewis has the potential to do a much better job.

I will vote for Owen Smith as a tactical vote because I don't want the left to be split for a generation - which is all too possible if JC wins.

So come on - what is the best outcome? Even the best case scenarios sound pretty bleak to me!

*They could even be given the privileges of having the second largest number of MPsand be regarded as the official opposition.

[ 03. August 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If some people agree with Corbyn (to an extent), what are they to do, vote for Smith?
They have to decide if Corbyn's appeal to a particular group is more important than immediate electability. Personally I think it's pretty finely balanced - the appealing and principled but impractical and failing versus the unappealing, apparently unprincipled with a dash of practicality but untested. Hobson would not be jealous.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If some people agree with Corbyn (to an extent), what are they to do, vote for Smith?
They have to decide if Corbyn's appeal to a particular group is more important than immediate electability. Personally I think it's pretty finely balanced - the appealing and principled but impractical and failing versus the unappealing, apparently unprincipled with a dash of practicality but untested. Hobson would not be jealous.
I can see what you are saying. I must admit I have a problem with principled. People who stick to their principles come what may, will struggle to build bridges with others as that would mean compromise. Whilst compromise is regarded as a dirty word by some, I think the vast majority of the electorate know that compromise is an important part of everyday life as it means we can actually get things done.

As Maynard Keynes may have said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" Anyone who thinks politics can be done without compromise is deluded.

[ 03. August 2016, 19:02: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
People who stick to their principles come what may, will struggle to build bridges with others as that would mean compromise.
Yes, we like principled politicians until we don't like them. It's a two-edged sword.

It is a horrible and undeserved parallel, but I see something slightly Ayatollah-Khomeini-esque in Corbyn. It is the combination of the unflinching, calm expression, complete belief, unwavering conviction and seriousness and deliberate and measured mode of speech while outlining forthright views. A white beard and principles.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
People who stick to their principles come what may, will struggle to build bridges with others as that would mean compromise.
Yes, we like principled politicians until we don't like them. It's a two-edged sword.

It is a horrible and undeserved parallel, but I see something slightly Ayatollah-Khomeini-esque in Corbyn. It is the combination of the unflinching, calm expression, complete belief, unwavering conviction and seriousness and deliberate and measured mode of speech while outlining forthright views. A white beard and principles.
One of the things that makes me smile is when people claim they want politicians to stick to their manifesto commitments. What they seem to mean is they want them to stick to the policies they agreed with and ditch the ones they didn't like.

I also presume they actually want the politicians to respond to events.

[ 03. August 2016, 19:26: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think one of the problems for Smith is that the coup by the plp, or part of it, was cack-handed and badly timed. So it's a bit weird to hear criticisms about incompetence from the same people.
I think the incompetence and cackhandedness you mention are largely the responsibility of whoever drew up the rules in such a way as to allow the possibility of a Parliamentary leader with no support from the people he's supposed to lead. Which AIUI makes the NEC incompetent, rather than the PLP.

Regarding timing: you think that a leadership challenge should not happen while the Tories are in disarray, because it's passing up a chance to exploit Tory chaos. Surely the alternative is to launch a challenge when the Tories are functional and therefore able to exploit *Labour* chaos. I don't see how that's better. Remember that at the time it was predicted that the Tories would be leaderless until September.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the incompetence and cackhandedness you mention are largely the responsibility of whoever drew up the rules in such a way as to allow the possibility of a Parliamentary leader with no support from the people he's supposed to lead. Which AIUI makes the NEC incompetent, rather than the PLP.
Who was it who nominated a man they would never vote for because they thought a left-wing representative ought to be on the ballot (so their candidate looked better when he or she won)? Why, yes - it was a number of members of the PLP.

If the stupid idiots had stuck to nominating a candidate they would actually vote for then Corbyn wouldn't have made it on to the ballot, and we'd be sitting around discussing Andy Burnham.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If some people agree with Corbyn (to an extent), what are they to do, vote for Smith?
If people are serious about providing an alternative to the economics of austerity, they might want to ask why the economists whom Mr Corbyn appointed to help him draw them up now back Mr Smith:
quote:
Originally posted by David Blanchflower:
Blanchflower, who is advocating a 5% cut in VAT, also said Smith had been better at consulting businesses and economists in three weeks than Corbyn’s leadership had over the last nine months.

 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the incompetence and cackhandedness you mention are largely the responsibility of whoever drew up the rules in such a way as to allow the possibility of a Parliamentary leader with no support from the people he's supposed to lead. Which AIUI makes the NEC incompetent, rather than the PLP.
Who was it who nominated a man they would never vote for because they thought a left-wing representative ought to be on the ballot (so their candidate looked better when he or she won)? Why, yes - it was a number of members of the PLP.

If the stupid idiots had stuck to nominating a candidate they would actually vote for then Corbyn wouldn't have made it on to the ballot, and we'd be sitting around discussing Andy Burnham.
Clearly Andy Burnham didn't want to go through it again. Who should the PLP have nominated then?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think one of the problems for Smith is that the coup by the plp, or part of it, was cack-handed and badly timed. So it's a bit weird to hear criticisms about incompetence from the same people.
I think the incompetence and cackhandedness you mention are largely the responsibility of whoever drew up the rules in such a way as to allow the possibility of a Parliamentary leader with no support from the people he's supposed to lead. Which AIUI makes the NEC incompetent, rather than the PLP.

Regarding timing: you think that a leadership challenge should not happen while the Tories are in disarray, because it's passing up a chance to exploit Tory chaos. Surely the alternative is to launch a challenge when the Tories are functional and therefore able to exploit *Labour* chaos. I don't see how that's better. Remember that at the time it was predicted that the Tories would be leaderless until September.
Exactly!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Clearly Andy Burnham didn't want to go through it again. Who should the PLP have nominated then?
My point was that (part of) the PLP caused this problem last year, by acing like a bunch of idiots and nominating Jeremy Corbyn when they didn't want him to win.

The nomination stage is the point where the PLP gets to have their say. If you start voting against your own interest because you think the other guy deserves a look-in as well, it's your own bloody stupid fault when you get stuck with the other guy.

If they hadn't acted like idiots, Corbyn wouldn't have made the cut, and the party would have elected Andy Burnham.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Clearly Andy Burnham didn't want to go through it again. Who should the PLP have nominated then?
My point was that (part of) the PLP caused this problem last year, by acing like a bunch of idiots and nominating Jeremy Corbyn when they didn't want him to win.

The nomination stage is the point where the PLP gets to have their say. If you start voting against your own interest because you think the other guy deserves a look-in as well, it's your own bloody stupid fault when you get stuck with the other guy.

If they hadn't acted like idiots, Corbyn wouldn't have made the cut, and the party would have elected Andy Burnham.
Fair enough, but I do accept the argument that it was good to widen the debate. Yes they were naive - it really was the law of unintended consequences. We have all made that mistake many times in life - I'd have thought.

However, having got a leader they didn't want, from what I have seen the majority felt they'd have to try to work with him until either he proved them wrong or he proved to himself that he wasn't up to the job.

How on earth could they have anticipated he'd have been so incompetent* and so arrogant / stubborn.** A lethal combination.

*See numerous examples: I will go with his response to the Paris shootings.
** Most politicians understand that carrying both your PLP and your members is important. Certainly any Tory would have, but then they understand electability.

[ 03. August 2016, 22:24: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Clearly Andy Burnham didn't want to go through it again. Who should the PLP have nominated then?
My point was that (part of) the PLP caused this problem last year, by acing like a bunch of idiots and nominating Jeremy Corbyn when they didn't want him to win.

The nomination stage is the point where the PLP gets to have their say. If you start voting against your own interest because you think the other guy deserves a look-in as well, it's your own bloody stupid fault when you get stuck with the other guy.

If they hadn't acted like idiots, Corbyn wouldn't have made the cut, and the party would have elected Andy Burnham.
Answering this and your previous post - IIRC, the PLP gave Corbyn only a vote or 2 more than the absolute minimum needed to get onto the ballot paper, somewhere around 20% of the membership. Then all over the country, people started paying their 3 pounds to beome members of the party and voted for Corbyn. The result of the present poll will be the same, with the PLP voting solidly against Corbyn and enough in the wider party to get him over the line.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Then all over the country, people started paying their 3 pounds to beome members of the party and voted for Corbyn. The result of the present poll will be the same, with the PLP voting solidly against Corbyn and enough in the wider party to get him over the line.
Just to correct one possible misinterpretation of what you said above. In last year's leadership election Corbyn would won a majority even if you discount the £3 votes.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
AFAIK that is true. This recent poll suggests that he would lose with pre-Corbyn era members but with those paying £3 or £25 he'll win easily. Here

[ 03. August 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Sorry for the double post. On the subject of the coup - don't know if this has been posted before but this is the most credible version of it I have come across. At least it avoids the more ridiculous conspiracy theories. Click

[ 03. August 2016, 22:58: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Clearly Andy Burnham didn't want to go through it again. Who should the PLP have nominated then?
My point was that (part of) the PLP caused this problem last year, by acing like a bunch of idiots and nominating Jeremy Corbyn when they didn't want him to win.

The nomination stage is the point where the PLP gets to have their say. If you start voting against your own interest because you think the other guy deserves a look-in as well, it's your own bloody stupid fault when you get stuck with the other guy.

If they hadn't acted like idiots, Corbyn wouldn't have made the cut, and the party would have elected Andy Burnham.
Answering this and your previous post - IIRC, the PLP gave Corbyn only a vote or 2 more than the absolute minimum needed to get onto the ballot paper, somewhere around 20% of the membership. Then all over the country, people started paying their 3 pounds to beome members of the party and voted for Corbyn. The result of the present poll will be the same, with the PLP voting solidly against Corbyn and enough in the wider party to get him over the line.
All sections of the membership, including full party members, voted for Corbyn by some distance - it is not true to say he won the leadership via the £3 supporters.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Speaking as someone who voted for Corbyn, and probably will again - it is not so much about Corbyn personally, as about the political direction he represents. If Smith wins the leadership election, I have no confidence he will promote a left wing policy platform for any length of time. Corbyn losing would become to the excuse to say, oh everyone has changed their mind - we can forget about that now.

Corbyn's election has already changed the political debate, even the tories are talking about ideas that they haven't even bothered to pay lip service to for decades.

And like many members, I am furious with the shadow cabinet for letting down, not just labour, but the country at a crucial moment. I don't ever want to see a front bench try that again - and therefore I don't want it to succeed.

Even if Corbyn were re-elected then resigned a few months later, it would be better than their having behaved in such a totally irresponsible way and then been directly rewarded for it.

Moreover, Owen Smith is not more electable of effective than Corbyn. And therefore giving my vote to him is even more futile.

Most,of the problems described about Corbyn come down to needing a better press team, having to jump from backbench to front bench in five seconds flat, and what looks like expecting to be able to delegate.

Jamie Reed's objections to his cabinet meetings seemed to boil down to - he didn't tell us what to do. That is an expectation from a very specific type of model of leadership, there are others.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What is irritating about this is absolutely none of these complainants talk about trying to do anything meaningful about the issues. You are not happy with his performance at the dispatch box - OK so what constructive suggestions did you make about that ? When they say they tried to make it work, I see little evidence of that.

Take Lillian Greenwood's example, why the leadership reshuffle on that date - well because the party had been leaking it to the press for weeks building up pressure for it to happen - why did take so long, because the plp were playing silly buggers about not being prepared to serve under Corbyn.

Moreover, what is the point of doing the kind of operation she describes about rail fares she describes ? Everybody already knows rail fares are fubar. And then she was trying to prep 'lines' for interviews - part of the point of a politician like Corbyn is that they avoid sound bite politics. Though I notice he is gradually getting pushed in that direction.

I have far more sympathy with her comments re hs2 negotiations.

I don't think Corbyn is perfect, but I think he is our current best option - I also think we would be doing a lot better in the polls if the plp stopped shooting us repeatedly in the foot, they are creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

My best case scenario currently is, Corbyn wins - plp therefore agree to serve in cabinet, on the proviso that he replaces his press team. Policy manifesto then finalised at conference, including the post-brexit party position. As I said earlier in the thread, I think there are technical solutions that could be used to improve working practices and relationships across the plp and its leadership. (I also think that might benefit from a balint group, but I doubt they will do that.)

I support unilateral nuclear disarmament, and Imwould like to see the party adopt that at conference, I think they would have more chance of convincing the British public if they drew on military professionals who support this in making there case - rather than solely justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

I think you address the immigration issue by agreeing a points system - even though we don't like it. But making a point of isolating the problem, and proposing a solution: e.g. You have said the problem is waiting times for a doctors appointment, we will tackle this problem by doing x, you have said multi-occupancy housing is a problem, we will do y. We will pay for x from this bit of the budget, and y from this bit of the budget etc etc

Essentially demonstrating these problems arise from political choices that have little to do with immigration.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When they say they tried to make it work, I see little evidence of that.
What evidence would you see?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Take Lillian Greenwood's example, why the leadership reshuffle on that date - well because the party had been leaking it to the press for weeks building up pressure for it to happen - why did take so long, because the plp were playing silly buggers about not being prepared to serve under Corbyn.

Moreover, what is the point of doing the kind of operation she describes about rail fares she describes ? Everybody already knows rail fares are fubar. And then she was trying to prep 'lines' for interviews - part of the point of a politician like Corbyn is that they avoid sound bite politics. Though I notice he is gradually getting pushed in that direction.

I have far more sympathy with her comments re hs2 negotiations.
I think this misses the point. You can find excuses for individual items in the list, but her story is only one, but the point is he did lose someone who looks like they were "trying to make it work".

If Corbyn didn't like her line he needed to talk to her and get an agreed alternative position at a reasonable point in the process so that she wasn't apparently hearing about a new policy in the press. The sort of politician who just speaks their mind with no negotiation and no prior discussion is also the sort of politician that a team are going to find it very hard to work with. And there is a general theme of disorganization and disengagement in all these stories.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Who was it who nominated a man they would never vote for because they thought a left-wing representative ought to be on the ballot (so their candidate looked better when he or she won)? Why, yes - it was a number of members of the PLP.
I take your point, but what I was trying to get at was that the PLP looks ineffective because the rulebook currently gives them no means of being effective.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Most,of the problems described about Corbyn come down to needing a better press team, having to jump from backbench to front bench in five seconds flat, and what looks like expecting to be able to delegate.
I would suggest that if the leader is making policy announcements without consulting the relevant shadow ministers, then his problem is probably not 'expecting to be able to delegate'.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Most,of the problems described about Corbyn come down to needing a better press team, having to jump from backbench to front bench in five seconds flat, and what looks like expecting to be able to delegate.
I accept my error in the voting last time around.

I don't agree with this. Yes, it is a problem that he had to jump from the back bench to the front, but why had he been on the backbench so long? One reason is his continued disloyalty to voting decisions. But the real issue is that Corbyn has shown little ability to develop policies. He's great on ideas and aspirations, but shows no comprehension how those are to be translated into reality. He has not yet shown an understanding of the need to articulate his positions carefully and without leaving hostages to fortune.

It's a bit of chicken and egg perhaps - was he left on the backbench because of his lack of some very necessary abilities, or vice versa? I think it's probably the former, but the sad truth is that over his time as leader, he has shown as little understanding of the demands of his position as Trump is in the US. A very odd couple.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it was reasonable to hope he would make the leap. Clearly many in the PLP didn't think he could and were totally against him, but for outsiders it was hard to see what the evidence was.

Now that we see the collection of stories from shadow ministers who seem to have tried but just haven't had the right level of engagement it seems clearer that he isn't able to lead a party.

If there is a problem with not being able to delegate it seems to be to do with not wanting to let others develop or contribute to policy, probably because of an unwillingness to negotiate so that it is a team effort rather than a decision taken by him and a few like-minded friends.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Doublethink - read both of your posts... twice. Thanks for a much more detailed and reasoned explanation of your pro-Corbyn position than is normal on social media. I'll respond later if I have time.

However, on the question of electability. Just look at all the elected leaders of our country over the past 100 years. No look wider, look at the elected leaders of similar democracies over the past 50 years. How many times have they elected an out and out pacifist?

Now look at how Corbyn questioned the shoot to kill policy at the time of the Paris shootings - he couldn't be arsed to be well-informed on current police policy even though he brought the subject up. (Yet more evidence of his incompetence.)

One of my non-political friends thought he came across as someone who in the middle of a terrorist attack would be phoning up the chief of police to check they weren't doing anything that might go against his 'precious principles'. Absurd I know - but you get the point.

Most people don't list all the policies and work out if they are right wing or left wing enough. They ask two simple questions: is this person going to be a safe pair of hands in a time of crisis; and do I trust them with the economy. In the current context, are the British public willing to trust Corbyn to lead us in a time of crisis. I think the answer will be a resounding no.

As to whether Owen Smith is more electable. We don't know yet - though he would almost certainly get a new leader bounce. However, I find it hard to believe that he could make himself even more un-electable than Corbyn.

[ 04. August 2016, 08:39: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it was reasonable to hope he would make the leap. Clearly many in the PLP didn't think he could and were totally against him, but for outsiders it was hard to see what the evidence was.

Now that we see the collection of stories from shadow ministers who seem to have tried but just haven't had the right level of engagement it seems clearer that he isn't able to lead a party.

If there is a problem with not being able to delegate it seems to be to do with not wanting to let others develop or contribute to policy, probably because of an unwillingness to negotiate so that it is a team effort rather than a decision taken by him and a few like-minded friends.
To add to your very valid points. Three reasons I think there is good reason to think that most of the PLP were trying to make it work. The number of interviews I saw where the Labour spokesperson spoke very carefully so that differences within the party were minimised. Put simply they worked very hard at covering Corbyn's back.

Also many spent weeks / months working incredibly hard on policies - some of which were undermined by Corbyn flying by the seat of his pants. We never heard of them at the time: they were very patient and discreet. We have only heard of them since the leadership election and all patience has run out.

Thirdly, the PLP knew that he had been elected as a leader and was popular with the young idealists and the old-fashioned left. They knew they had to work with him and try to make it work for the sake of the party and their own jobs. The only reason this all changed was Brexit. The utter despair at both his campaigning (which was the straw that broke the camel's back for me) and his appalling decision making - announcing triggering article 50 without consulting or telling anyone else.

[ 04. August 2016, 09:26: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
All that rings true Luigi and mdjohn.

If only the Lib Dems hadn't sold out to the Tories this would have been their hour. Tho if they hadn't done that Brexit wouldn't have happened, the referendum wouldn't have happened.

Ho-hum, 'what ifs' help no-one.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All that rings true Luigi and mdjohn.

If only the Lib Dems hadn't sold out to the Tories this would have been their hour. Tho if they hadn't done that Brexit wouldn't have happened, the referendum wouldn't have happened.

Ho-hum, 'what ifs' help no-one.
I'll be honest Boogie. If the Libdems apologised for that rubbish about Labour crashing the economy. And accepted that Coalition Economic policy was with hindsight misguided - particularly in the first two / three years - I might even consider voting for them myself.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As long as Jeremy's half trillion anti-austerity plans include a massive rent to buy programme, perfect.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

If only the Lib Dems hadn't sold out to the Tories this would have been their hour. Tho if they hadn't done that Brexit wouldn't have happened, the referendum wouldn't have happened.
An EU referendum was, of course, a Lib Dem manifesto commitment (and in opposition Lib Dem MPs even marched out of the House of Commons when they couldn't get one). That was before they decided that holding a referendum was the worst idea ever.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

If only the Lib Dems hadn't sold out to the Tories this would have been their hour. Tho if they hadn't done that Brexit wouldn't have happened, the referendum wouldn't have happened.
An EU referendum was, of course, a Lib Dem manifesto commitment (and in opposition Lib Dem MPs even marched out of the House of Commons when they couldn't get one). That was before they decided that holding a referendum was the worst idea ever.
Indeed - at one point the Lib Dems were the only main party offering a referendum on EU membership. This, like the abolition of tuition fees, is the sort of thing third parties say when they want to get populist headlines and (despite what they say to the contrary) don't expect to be in a position to act on it... Rearrange own by petards hoist.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And like many members, I am furious with the shadow cabinet for letting down, not just labour, but the country at a crucial moment. I don't ever want to see a front bench try that again - and therefore I don't want it to succeed.
And if they genuinely thought it was not in the national interest for Mr Corbyn to be Leader of the Opposition?
quote:
Moreover, Owen Smith is not more electable of effective than Corbyn. And therefore giving my vote to him is even more futile.
He may or may not be more electable, but regarding his effectiveness I would refer you to the comments of Danny Blanchflower. If you are serious about wanting an alternative to the economics of austerity, why would you support a candidate whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I am suffering from iPad typing constraints - I'll try to do a more detailed post tomorrow night.

In the meanwhile, if they didn't think he could function as a leader, they should have launched a leadership challenge - and as the tories demonstrated, that doesn't mean you have to fuck off out of the cabinet and stop doing your job. It is this in particular that was so self-defeating, opposition is not just policy making, it is also policy scrutiny - they should simply not have walked away from that in the middle of a national crisis. It was incredibly irresponsible.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
What you are saying is that the leadership challenge should have been the first response instead of the last resort.

I don't see it. A leadership challenge was always going to drag on for months. If, on the other hand, Mr Corbyn had accepted the compromise proposed by the PLP -- if he had stood down like a normal person, in exchange for continued support of his key policies -- then the whole issue could have been resolved in a week.

Imagine what that could have been like! Bearing in mind that at this point everyone assumed the Tory leadership crisis would drag on into September. So while some permutation of Mr Johnson, Mr Gove, Ms May and Ms Leadsom spent the summer reminding the country how ghastly they all are, a professional and focused Opposition could have provided a coherent alternative to how the country should be run, bolstered by the expertise of the economists whom Mr Corbyn claims to like but doesn't talk to.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Geoffrey Howe 1 364 Economists NIL
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A moment for his ego in the sun. Something he can tell his grandchildren, "I knorr, coz I was THERE!".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
- and as the tories demonstrated, that doesn't mean you have to fuck off out of the cabinet and stop doing your job.
Point of order - the tory leader stepped down so all that could happen.

But having said that the scenario was different. The Tory cabinet was not claiming they couldn't work with their current leader. I think that if one is a member of a team where difficulties have become intractable and one is no longer able to support it then resigning probably is the only thing to do.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
Because any parliamentary party has to both reflect its members and the general electorate that voted each MP in. This is often a difficult thing to do, but in order for a party to function it has to do it. To emphasise one to the exclusion of the other is too misunderstand how democracy works.

The irony is that so many of his supporters have suddenly found they really believe in parliamentary discipline.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
If we're going to get all Highlander about this one the same is true about Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May. Which may answer your question.

I don't think Smith can win either, to anticipate your obvious retort, but given the choice of another defeat on the scale of 2015 and another defeat on the scale of 1983, it seems reasonable to prefer the former.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
I guess that it's partly the logic of a coup - you have to have a figure head, and also, that Smith is a patsy. I mean, presumably serious challengers are standing at the back shouting forwards, biding their time.

On the other hand, it is all so cack-handed, that even that vaguely logical scenario may be wide of the mark, well, 'somebody has to do it, it's your turn'.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Jeremy Corbyn used to be in favour of annual leadership elections, so it's odd that his supporters now talk of a 'coup' one year into his leadership. Or is it that Our Jezza has gone off the idea of them now that he's leader himself?

Also, isn't this a proper leadership challenge, like in accordance with the rules and stuff? 'Coup' suggests tanks on the street and seizing the post office, which doesn't quite seem apt here (to me, anyway).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Actually, I think one of the problems with Corbyn is that he loves contests like this (the leadership challenge). I think he could go on for years having hustings with people like Smith, and he would tend to wipe the floor with them.

This is easy for Corbyn; it's the other stuff where he looks cack-handed.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, I think one of the problems with Corbyn is that he loves contests like this (the leadership challenge). I think he could go on for years having hustings with people like Smith, and he would tend to wipe the floor with them.

This is easy for Corbyn; it's the other stuff where he looks cack-handed.
I think you are right - he loves the adoring crowds etc. Who are mostly adoring because he hasn't ever really done anything - which of course would have meant compromise (boo hiss!) - he is a protester first and foremost.

The question is how this plays with the wider electorate. Not something most Corbyn supporters seem to care about.

The other thing I have found interesting is how many Corbyn supporters are not treating this as 'what is the best next step from where we are?' but 'I don't think we should be where we are and so I am going to protest against that.' Fascinating!

Put simply they are trying to engage with a world that doesn't exist.

[ 05. August 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One of the interesting things about Smith is that he seems less competent, less popular, and less well known than somebody like Burnham. Of course, if he began a series of brilliant performances on the hustings, he might turn it around, but I'm not offering odds on that.

Some people have said to me that they would be interested in a challenger who was competent and authentic. As I said earlier, I suspect that there are some, but they are cheering at the back. Come on, faint heart never won fair lady.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the interesting things about Smith is that he seems less competent, less popular, and less well known than somebody like Burnham. Of course, if he began a series of brilliant performances on the hustings, he might turn it around, but I'm not offering odds on that.

Some people have said to me that they would be interested in a challenger who was competent and authentic. As I said earlier, I suspect that there are some, but they are cheering at the back. Come on, faint heart never won fair lady.
Well they can't enter the race now can they. One of the main differences between me and Corbyn supporters is they seem to value the inspirational leader. Indeed the leader is everything. Whereas I am of the view that for Labour to get back into government they need every member of the team playing to their strengths - the team is essential.

I think Owen was trying to sell the whole: I will ensure all the party are involved. I think he is ok - much better than Corbyn. But obviously with time he could prove to be just as inept.

Concerning the lack of other MPs coming forward. I think most of the party just don't want the aggression / bile / anger they'd almost certainly get should they stand. (See The Canary and Another Angry Voice for evidence.) They know there are likely to be moves to deselect them over the next four years so why make that time any more painful. Many - quite possibly a majority - are resigned to the strong probability they won't have a job in politics come 2020. Just about the worst possible scenario I'd have thought.

Labour needs to present itself as a broad church in order to get any sort of halfway decent result in the next election. (Keeping the Tory majority down to say 50!).

[ 05. August 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Point of information: When people say they want a leader who is 'authentic', what do they mean by the word?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Not Smith.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Point of information: When people say they want a leader who is 'authentic', what do they mean by the word?
I think you have to put this in the context of the Labour party, where PR became a high art under Blair and Campbell. It's often said that Cameron and Osbourne admired this and copied it, don't know how true that is, but I think Cameron certainly has a very good PR presentational ability.

Well, some Labour members are tired of this. Of course, it's a moot point as to when anyone is being authentic, whether or not it's another presentational performance. Well, Blair could do this also, I am now being sincere, if you like.

Is there an alternative?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Quetzalcoatl - I don't know whether you were responding to me.

To clarify, when I said that Smith was ok but time would tell whether he was as inept as Corbyn, I was not referring to his presentational skills.

IME when leaders complain about their team, that normally means they are particularly poor leaders. Poor teachers always complain that it is the children that are the problem.

He is a leader and should lead. I have already listed just how many ways in which he is incompetent / poor. Yes he is competent in some areas - indeed pretty good in a few areas. Sadly I don't think those areas matter much to the typical unengaged voter. Areas where he needs to be pretty damn fantastic he is totally out of his depth. They are areas where we won't know if Owen Smith is competent until he has a go. But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Luigi - usually when I cite someone's previous post, as I did with Eirenist, that means I am responding to them. I realize that this is rather eccentric, but there you are.

[ 05. August 2016, 15:26: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think the point of Mr Smith is that the membership have indicated that they want someone left-wing and outside the Labour establishment, and by definition the MPs outside the establishment are either career backbenchers or relative newcomers to Parliament.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Luigi - usually when I cite someone's previous post, as I did with Eirenist, that means I am responding to them. I realize that this is rather eccentric, but there you are.
Sure - very poorly worded on my part! I thought you might be indirectly commenting on something I said as well.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Which people and do the people agree with his assessment of their best interests?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)

[ 06. August 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I saw a TV interview many years ago with veteran left winger Dennis Skinner, in which he said that he opposed proportional representation because it would end our chances of achieving a socialist Britain. This speaks volumes. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that even our first past the post system will ever put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing St. He's unelectable, and without Scottish MP's,he's in real trouble. But suppose we get an economic crash post Brexit that really starts to hurt ordinary people, then our electoral system could just about do it. Many governments, Tory and Labour, have had parliamentary majorities on less than 50% of the popular vote. At the last election UKIP got one seat in spite of polling more votes than the SNP and Lib Dems combined.

In fact Marxist activists are presently joining the Labour party in droves, because for the first time in a generation, they see the possibility of changing British politics. This is why Skinner and his ilk would hate PR. There isn't and never will be a consensus in British politics, or among the people for Corbynista politics. They are an ideological clique whose ideology I personally despise. It could come in a moment of madness due to our distorted electoral system. PR means permanent coalition. Coalition requires compromise. Hard left politics, like hard right politics, can't tolerate compromise, or even questioning of its agenda. So what Dennis Skinner meant all those years ago, is that we have a chance, under our present system, to force a socialist(his definition of socialist) on a British public who don't want it. But of course we're the clever ones who know what's best for everybody, they can't be allowed to choose for themselves.

That's the history of hard line socialism everywhere in the world. Corbyn and his clan will try and bring it about. Many of us will oppose it with every means possible. Social democracy is another entity altogether, which I fully support.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.

Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?

[ 06. August 2016, 11:42: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.

Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.

Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
Indeed.

As a starter, we can take a look at Corbyn's 10 point manifesto and see if it contains such hard-left policies as seizing the means of production, a command economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm somewhat disappointed that he didn't suggest the internment of counter-revolutionaries in 're-education centres', but I suppose it's early days.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I agree Mr Corbyn is closer to Mr Miliband than to, say, Lenin, but there must be some qualitative difference between his leftiness and the leftiness of, say, Ms Cooper or Mr Burnham, or else why would his supporters talk about the PLP running scared of him because of the form of socialism he represents?

What word would you use to describe him that you couldn't use for Mr Miliband?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'd put him on the left end of social democrat. He might well believe in more socialist principles, but his policies are generally moderate, mixed-economy, marginally redistributive, and pro-environment.

You'd have to ask Cooper and Burnham what they find so terrifying about that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd put him on the left end of social democrat. He might well believe in more socialist principles, but his policies are generally moderate, mixed-economy, marginally redistributive, and pro-environment.

You'd have to ask Cooper and Burnham what they find so terrifying about that.
This seems undeniable to me. But people who use the 'hard left' term, rarely define what they mean, and rarely look at Corbyn's policies in detail. I suppose it's a kind of scare tactic, look at the beardy man, he's going to nationalize all the women, and your favourite beer.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I agree Mr Corbyn is closer to Mr Miliband than to, say, Lenin, but there must be some qualitative difference between his leftiness and the leftiness of, say, Ms Cooper or Mr Burnham, or else why would his supporters talk about the PLP running scared of him because of the form of socialism he represents?

What word would you use to describe him that you couldn't use for Mr Miliband?
I would think that quite a lot hinges on the fabled neo-liberalism, which involves deregulation, privatization, low taxes for the rich, cuts in welfare, and so on. I think the left allege that Blair (and the Blairites) flirt with these policies. Well, Miliband and Balls certainly supported austerity.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's a kind of scare tactic, look at the beardy man, he's going to nationalize all the women, and your favourite beer.
you joke

[MP's (unnamed) talked of a forced takeover of single pub to act as temporary commons bar, and decided against it, so not really the same]

[ 06. August 2016, 14:05: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.

Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
Indeed.

As a starter, we can take a look at Corbyn's 10 point manifesto and see if it contains such hard-left policies as seizing the means of production, a command economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm somewhat disappointed that he didn't suggest the internment of counter-revolutionaries in 're-education centres', but I suppose it's early days.
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from. [/qb]
It would be nice to have the details.

It's invest and over 10 years* (in theory, which does suppose it working). Which still leaves it it at £50B, about the same size as the deficit.

I guess £10 bill comes back from the benefit bill (in theory everyone in decent job, cuts Jobseekers, income support, council tax).

The houses will be worth around £100B (at least) and I presume 1/2 of that is to be realised short term, and the other half kept as listed assets. So after the first year that's probably £5B back.

Some of the money invested in companies should find it's way back (although part of that is already counted). Similarly I'm not sure how quick Trans/Energy/Comms... would repay, it's presumably not too quick or else it would have happened. But on the other hand unlike a pure bank loan 'repayments' happen via other channels.

And lets be honest some of the money is probably already counted in a different fashion. The BOE just pledged to buy £10bil of corporate debt this year (and 100B for something else). So it may be, for instance, that this could be replaced be investing £15bil in the company, for instance (with presumably the hope of at least £5b of other good outcome).

But that's a lot of speculation...and it would be good to have the numbers (OTOH if we did, no doubt we'd still complain)

*that was tricky to find

[ 06. August 2016, 15:21: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from.
Yes, I'd like to see some figures too.

But we pissed £1trn against the wall bailing the banks out, and £375bn between 2009 and 2012 in QE. That's almost £100bn a year just by rolling the presses, and we've precious little to show for it.

His shopping list is a decent one. I'd want more detail, but on paper, it's viable.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

In fact Marxist activists are presently joining the Labour party in droves
I think at this point the idea that there are 100s of thousands of Marxists in this country is a fantasy only believed by subscribers to the Morning Star and retired readers of the Telegraph.

[ 06. August 2016, 17:03: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)
Voting is a complicated thing at best, but many people don't do a proper reckoning of what their interests are. Brexit would be a good example. Trump another.
I'll repost
Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
 
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Well before we get to Corbynomics, lets add up the cost of 'moderate' Labour and its neo liberal policies shared with the Tories shall we !

1) Bank de-regulation. £375 billion in QE to bail out private banks.
2) Private finance initiative. Good news for bankers, bad news for taxpayers. £300 billion wasted.
3) Wars to fight terrorism that cause more terrorists. £75 billion and hundreds of thousands killed. Only ISIS to show for it.
4) Austerity cuts. Thousands dying after benefits removed (often incorrectly). 1 million using foodbanks. Huge rises in homelessness.
5) Privatisation. Now we are unable to build our own nuclear reactors and have to rely on the Chinese ! Our railways offer poor value, our post office sold off at a loss to the tax payer. Housing has been 'privatised' with disastrous consequences. Rents are sky high and a generation are priced out. Exactly what happened before we had council housing.

In 2010 I voted Tory. This year I joined Labour and support Corbyn. I have lost a relative to these cuts and I have nothing but utter contempt for neo liberal politicians. They claim we can't afford to feed the poor, or provide decent mental health care - but they can ALWAYS print money to bail out feckless bankers and their ponzi house price bubble.

If we can print money to kill people and to keep pushing up house prices, we can print money to re-build our industrial base. Put it this way - when (not if) the house price bubble collapses - ask yourself what we will have to show for the half a trillion in QE ?(Carney has just added another £150 billion to the pile). I'll tell you - absolutely nothing except savers and pensions robbed.

You are being lied to by the press. The needs of the 1% are being put ahead of the needs of the rest of us. Tax havens are booming, corporate tax avoidance is rife. New Labour, and the majority of the PLP did NOTHING to stop any of these neo liberal policies - instead voting for them at every opportunity. I sincerely hope the whole rotten lot of them are deselected.

Corbyn's policies would mostly be considered pretty mainstream in Germany. Its a mark of the biased media in this country that he's portrayed so inaccurately. The recent LSE research confirmed this.

And finally - if anyone thinks the present state of capitalism where 80 people own 51% of the wealth of planet earth is in any way acceptable as a Christian you are living in dream land. Jesus clearly stated that the rich had responsibilities to the poor - and he didn't mean ripping them off as a business opportunity through austerity.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Well before we get to Corbynomics, lets add up the cost of 'moderate' Labour and its neo liberal policies shared with the Tories shall we !
quote:
4) Austerity cuts. Thousands dying after benefits removed (often incorrectly). 1 million using foodbanks. Huge rises in homelessness.
5) Privatisation. Now we are unable to build our own nuclear reactors and have to rely on the Chinese ! Our railways offer poor value, our post office sold off at a loss to the tax payer. Housing has been 'privatised' with disastrous consequences. Rents are sky high and a generation are priced out. Exactly what happened before we had council housing.
I don't think it's fair to conflate even New Labour with the Tories. Darling's policy at the 2010 election was to put off cutting spending until the economy was in full recovery. At which point, according to Keynesian orthodoxy of the kind I believe Corbyn adheres to, the spending wouldn't be needed. The problems of austerity are down to being austere in a weak economy.
Obviously that's harder to explain to a hostile press than Osborne's version of austerity. But it doesn't help to have the left wing of the Labour Party treat Darling and Osborne as essentially interchangeable.

While it's true that Brown oversaw the introduction of private enterprise into state provision - and that set a bad precedent - what happened under New Labour is little compared to what happened under the coalition and the Tories unchecked.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:


In 2010 I voted Tory. This year I joined Labour and support Corbyn. I have lost a relative to these cuts and I have nothing but utter contempt for neo liberal politicians. They claim we can't afford to feed the poor, or provide decent mental health care - but they can ALWAYS print money to bail out feckless bankers and their ponzi house price bubble.
My question above still stands:
quote:
If you are serious about wanting an alternative to the economics of austerity, why would you support a candidate whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?

 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'll repost Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
Speaking for myself I'd sign up to all of it. It is the impracticality of actually implementing any of it that doesn't represent me. He can't do it for all the reasons discussed up the thread.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Speaking for myself I'd sign up to all of it. It is the impracticality of actually implementing any of it that doesn't represent me. He can't do it for all the reasons discussed up the thread.
I'd sign up to it all too. I don't even think any of it is impractical. It just needs to be implemented by someone whose colleagues can actually work with them.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That's what I meant by impractical. I didn't think it was intrinsically impractical (at least no in the detail that I read) but in this context think it is not a viable manifesto for Corbyn or the current Labour party to deliver.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, a viable manifesto would be one that swung the party back towards the right?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Not necessarily. The viable manifesto needs a guy behind it who looks like he understands how to lead a party.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)
Voting is a complicated thing at best, but many people don't do a proper reckoning of what their interests are. Brexit would be a good example. Trump another.
I'll repost
Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
I looked at it - again - and I still got that sinking feeling. About the only thing he didn't promise was free Chocolate for everyone in the world forever. It was just a set of aspirations with little or know indication of how he is going to get there.

Linked to that my other criticism is that so much of his agenda doesn't acknowledge the current context - e.g. in the current Brexit context is a 1% rise in Corporation Tax a great idea. We are going to struggle to hang on to many of he larger companies as it is. He almost makes out that only the Labour party under him will unpick neo-Liberal globalisation - as if companies cannot relocate.

I think quite a few of the aspirations are going will be really hard to make much headway on particularly in 5 years. That is because they are tough challenges. He might even look a little Blairite!

Finally I don't see any deviation from what he is suggesting, as a move to the right. In many areas thinking 'is this policy a move to the right or the left?' is incredibly unhelpful and misleading.

[ 10. August 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I looked at it - again - and I still got that sinking feeling. About the only thing he didn't promise was free Chocolate for everyone in the world forever. It was just a set of aspirations with little or know indication of how he is going to get there. ....
Couldn't agree more.That gets a [Overused]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Arminan

Couldn't agree more. That gets a [Overused]

[ 10. August 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
... and from me [Overused]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The thing that amuses/amazes me is that the PLP, or the Blairites and Brownites, look astonishingly shambolic. Their coup has been ham-fisted, witness the to-ing and fro-ing of Angela Eagle, then Smith turns up and announces he is as left-wing as Corbyn! Eh?

Add to this the bricks through office windows, which weren't, the offices broken into, which weren't, the legal appeals on their own gerrymandering, the timing of the coup, when the Tories were in disarray. WTF is going on? They make Corbyn look like an icon of smooth efficiency. Is it panic?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it panic?
Probably. Almost certainly some of it is. I would be too in their position.

By the way your comment about the window that wasn't broken (or at least that was broken but wasn't in Eagle's office) made me do some googling as I hadn't heard that twist. And it really does look like an extraordinary example of biased reporting. If it was of significance that the window was broken then the story that the location of the window may have been misrepresented is surely of equal significance.

[ 10. August 2016, 14:08: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Likewise, the police deny they advised her to cancel her consituency meetings. Connor McGinn's claims to have been threatened by 'thugs' form momentum outside a labour meeting have also been debunked.

One of the infamous internet trolls apparently threatening an mp (claimed by others, not the mp herself) to be a corbyn supporter, who was actually brought to court, turned out to be - unsurprisingly and internet troll with a history of abuse toward women who had absolutely nothing to do with either momentum or the labour party.

These smear stories are not helping. Nor does Tom Watson stating that young Corbyn supporters are being maniuplated by older trot entrists.

(Oh and Watson now wants to get rid of one member one vote.)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I felt disappointed in Watson, blathering on about revolutionary socialists.

But I thought that one member one vote would come under the cosh, far too democratic, comrades. The right wing basically want a top down party, where the members follow orders, and turn up once a year at conference to rubber stamp some stuff decided by the top brass. It's socialism, comrades, but not as we own it.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Likewise, the police deny they advised her to cancel her consituency meetings.
This is the sort of thing that, in reverse, the Corbyn camp rightly complains about. DCI Kenwright did release a statement saying, truthfully, that the decision to suspend surgeries was ultimately made by Angela Eagle herself. Which is true. Certainly the police wouldn't want to be seen to have forbidden a member of parliament from meeting with her constituents if she chooses to. But it's not the complete truth. The Echo had sight of the advice emailed to Angela Eagle by the police adviser and they quoted from it:
quote:
“I believe it would be a good idea to, if possible, cancel or postpone these surgeries.

“Failing that I would recommend that a different location be used that can offer some form of access control or security on site to deal with any awkward situations.

“If you do decide to go ahead with the surgery I would recommend that you inform the local beat Inspector and advise him of the situation surrounding possible disorder.”
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/police-advice-led-angela-eagle-11652120

All of which would suggest that the police take quite seriously the threats to her safety, apparently from people who support Jeremy Corbyn but who are beyond his control. So too does Jeremy Corbyn himself, even if many of those who claim to support him choose not to follow his lead. Very properly he condemned those responsible.

Obviously, not every claim is going to be true or credible that someone who either supports or opposes Jeremy Corbyn has been threatened or abused by someone of the opposite view. But all too many of them are true and cannot be characterised as "smear stories".
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The thing that amuses/amazes me is that the PLP, or the Blairites and Brownites, look astonishingly shambolic. Their coup has been ham-fisted, witness the to-ing and fro-ing of Angela Eagle, then Smith turns up and announces he is as left-wing as Corbyn!
It's almost as if the Parliamentary Labour Party are not a hivemind of Machiavellian power grabbing conspirators.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The thing that amuses/amazes me is that the PLP, or the Blairites and Brownites, look astonishingly shambolic. Their coup has been ham-fisted, witness the to-ing and fro-ing of Angela Eagle, then Smith turns up and announces he is as left-wing as Corbyn!
It's almost as if the Parliamentary Labour Party are not a hivemind of Machiavellian power grabbing conspirators.
I don't think anybody has claimed that, have they? For one thing, the PLP contains various groups, who don't see eye to eye - in fact, some of them support Corbyn.

As to plotting, there are all kinds of stories about MPs plotting against Corbyn from day one, but I don't have enough information to say one way or t'other. The resignations from the shadow cabinet did look suspiciously regularly timed, but again, I don't know enough detail.

I suppose inept is the word, which characterizes Labour as a whole at the moment. Maybe in the shadows a future Blair lurks, with a masterful plan and masterful gift of rhetoric, things are too rough at the moment.

It will probably become a future political joke - Labour couldn't even organize a decent coup, never mind a piss up in a brewery.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I believe "fucking useless" was the statesmanly description of it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes. I think it's the electoral cycle - after a big figure like Blair, political parties tend to have nervous breakdowns. It's necessary, I guess, to wash the old stuff out of your hair, get smashed, break the crockery, shag somebody unsuitable, and so on. Eventually, people sober up, and they can function again.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The thing that amuses/amazes me is that the PLP, or the Blairites and Brownites, look astonishingly shambolic.
Which would suggest it probably wasn't planned ... But I stand by my previous comment that the PLP looks ineffective because the rulebook doesn't give them a means of looking effective. On your specific complaints:

Ms Eagle's indecision: I think the whole point was to avoid a protracted leadership contest, but Mr Corbyn rejected every single compromise that would avoid it. If you accept the premise that it is reasonable for a Parliamentary leader to remain in position without the support of his MPs, then yes, I suppose the unreasonableness is on Ms Eagle's side, not Mr Corbyn's. I have not yet seen a convincing demonstration of that premise, though.

Mr Smith claiming to be left-wing: Don't see why this deserves a WTF. Don't you want all the MPs to perform this sort of volte-face in honour of Mr Corbyn's mandate?

Gerrymandering: A stupid decision, but one made by the NEC, not the PLP.

Timing: As I said before, if a leadership challenge has to take place it makes sense to do it when the Tories can't profit from it because of their own disarray. And as I also said before, if Mr Corbyn had stepped down like a normal person in exchange for continued support for his policies, as was offered by the PLP, then the whole thing could have been resolved in time for the Tories' expected summer of self-destruction. The fact that the Tories, by good luck rather than good management, united around Ms May was not predicted at the time.

Brick through window: Done to death above. I agree the thing with the office key was petty though.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose inept is the word, which characterizes Labour as a whole at the moment. Maybe in the shadows a future Blair lurks, with a masterful plan and masterful gift of rhetoric, things are too rough at the moment.

I doubt the future Blair figure is even an MP yet. Assuming that Corbyn is re-elected leader (although cracks are appearing, the GMB have just endorsed Citizen Smith), Labour need to Re-run their 1983 fiasco, then elect a Kinnock figure as leader. This will be the one senior figure who, like Kinnock, is generally considered to have performed well in an otherwise disastrous campaign. This person will do the heavy lifting of making Labour electable again, ready for the Blair-type voter-friendly leader to be the next Labour PM. In the best case of this best case scenario, this person is more like John Smith than Blair.

The alternative is that Labour splits in two, and/or disappears into obscurity.

[ 10. August 2016, 17:45: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was interested in Starmer, until I saw him speak, kind of dull. Needs refurbishment. Also, can he play rough?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Starmer was Mrs Tor's old boss. He's a lawyer. Lawyers are usually dull and competent.

Dan Jarvis is often mooted as the face of 'electable Labour'. I don't know enough about his politics to say.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Rocinante is probably right. Some rough beast is even now slouching towards Westminster, with nary a gleam in its eye that its future will be to lead comrades to the bright new dawn.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I often toy with the idea of getting more involved and standing for public office. Then I think of my internet search history and decide against it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I often toy with the idea of getting more involved and standing for public office. Then I think of my internet search history and decide against it.
Very good. I used to think of it, then realized how much of an anarchist I am. Not a Trot, so fuck off, Watson.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The thing that amuses/amazes me is that the PLP, or the Blairites and Brownites, look astonishingly shambolic.
Which would suggest it probably wasn't planned ... But I stand by my previous comment that the PLP looks ineffective because the rulebook doesn't give them a means of looking effective. On your specific complaints:

Ms Eagle's indecision: I think the whole point was to avoid a protracted leadership contest, but Mr Corbyn rejected every single compromise that would avoid it. If you accept the premise that it is reasonable for a Parliamentary leader to remain in position without the support of his MPs, then yes, I suppose the unreasonableness is on Ms Eagle's side, not Mr Corbyn's. I have not yet seen a convincing demonstration of that premise, though.

Mr Smith claiming to be left-wing: Don't see why this deserves a WTF. Don't you want all the MPs to perform this sort of volte-face in honour of Mr Corbyn's mandate?

Gerrymandering: A stupid decision, but one made by the NEC, not the PLP.

Timing: As I said before, if a leadership challenge has to take place it makes sense to do it when the Tories can't profit from it because of their own disarray. And as I also said before, if Mr Corbyn had stepped down like a normal person in exchange for continued support for his policies, as was offered by the PLP, then the whole thing could have been resolved in time for the Tories' expected summer of self-destruction. The fact that the Tories, by good luck rather than good management, united around Ms May was not predicted at the time.

Brick through window: Done to death above. I agree the thing with the office key was petty though.
Agree with pretty much all of this. I think the problem is that the two sides point to one big example of incompetence and they then imply that this example proves that their opponents are generally incompetent in all areas of life.

I work in education and most of the staff and leaders I have come across whilst capable of making some big mistakes have an impressively wide range of competencies and skills. They tend to come across as incompetent if the area in which they are asked to operate is really not suited to their skills and experience. Or when they are put in a situation where none of the options are good.

Take Corbyn, having a fair mastery of your brief is difficult especially when it is across a number of areas. Corbyn, clearly isn't a detail person or a natural team player, and so his incompetence is apparent because he is being asked to operate in an area that is almost completely foreign to him. He is very skilled in some areas however: he's very good at enthusing his home crowd and is clearly excellent one to one with the public.

The PLP - people complain about the inept 'coup'. I'd love someone to lay out how the challenge to Corbyn's leadership should have been done. When would be a better time? If they'd planned it more - probably impossible in the time frame - would it have come across any better?

The problem is that the PLP were in a Catch 22. You have a leader who was very popular with 60%+ of the members and really motivated many, particularly the younger idealistic ones. And yet you have opinion polls, personal ratings and local elections results that were pretty dire. History suggests that an opposition have to be ahead by 14% or more in such elections to have a good chance of forming the next government! Labour were just 1% ahead and this was after Tory EU infighting and Osborne's most unpopular budget.

The PLP knew that what might happen if they acted could be dire but the slow lingering death that they saw happening before their eyes was unsustainable. The many stories of the chaotic nature of Corbyn's leadership (quite a few coming from natural allies) suggest that there was an issue. Personally I am not surprised that they did what they did. The choice was rubbish but all other options looked even worse.

[ 10. August 2016, 19:43: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the GMB have just endorsed Citizen Smith
Well at least the GMB held a vote of their members, which produced a 60%/40% split in favour of Smith. Len McClusky is putting Unite's 1.4 million votes behind Corbyn without balloting his members. This is democracy Trot style. Of course it's quite likely that Unite would have backed Corbyn, after all they've voted for mandatory re-selection of all Corbyn opponents in the PLP. This will get worse. Governments always get the blame for economic disasters even when they clearly aren't to blame. Like Gordon Brown after the 2009 meltdown. I hope nothing bad enough happens in the next few years which could give this Marxist/Trotskyite faction any chance of power, and that Labour stays in the wilderness until it relearns the lessons of the 1980's and 90's on the electibility of its leaders and policies.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the GMB have just endorsed Citizen Smith
Well at least the GMB held a vote of their members, which produced a 60%/40% split in favour of Smith. Len McClusky is putting Unite's 1.4 million votes behind Corbyn without balloting his members. This is democracy Trot style. Of course it's quite likely that Unite would have backed Corbyn, after all they've voted for mandatory re-selection of all Corbyn opponents in the PLP. This will get worse. Governments always get the blame for economic disasters even when they clearly aren't to blame. Like Gordon Brown after the 2009 meltdown. I hope nothing bad enough happens in the next few years which could give this Marxist/Trotskyite faction any chance of power, and that Labour stays in the wilderness until it relearns the lessons of the 1980's and 90's on the electibility of its leaders and policies.
Absolute bollocks. It's a total disgrace that you keep using terms like 'hard left' and 'Trotskyite', without defining them, despite being asked to. This is not what I call discussion. God help us all if this is how political discussion is conducted in the future.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Absolute bollocks. It's a total disgrace that you keep using terms like 'hard left' and 'Trotskyite', without defining them, despite being asked to. This is not what I call discussion. God help us all if this is how political discussion is conducted in the future
Membership of the Labour Party has doubled since the last election at a time when national support for the party has plummeted. This is an influx of activists whose motive is to move the party to the left. Left and right in party politics are quite well known terms and we all know what they mean. Perhaps Marxist and Trot are OTT and I apologise if you find them offensive. But the 2018 boundry changes have given Corbyn, by his own admission, the opportunity to reselect all Labour candidates for the 2020 General Election. Let's see how many of the current PLP survive this reselection. Let's see if long serving, well respected members such as Alan Johnson or Frank Field survive this cull. I could almost bet that you won't see Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall representing Labour in 2020. Because they belong to the Blairite/Brownite faction, and now that Citizen Jezz is in charge, which he will be again after the vote, they will be purged. Now you are entitled to your opinion, but mine is that this represents a surge to the left. This is how most of the country sees it. You may gain power, but I pray to the living God that you never do.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is an influx of activists whose motive is to move the party to the left. Left and right in party politics are quite well known terms and we all know what they mean. Perhaps Marxist and Trot are OTT and I apologise if you find them offensive.
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters. It's like describing Michael Gove as a Nazi.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters.
OK so the popular press describes Corbyn's leadership as a surge to the left. That is to the left of the party which made Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Prime Ministers. Do you deny that definition, given the common understanding of right and left in politics? Apart from Atlee's post WW2 government, we've never had a true socialist government in Britain. When Michael Foot took Labour to the left in 1980, he consigned them to almost 18 years in opposition. Labour had to rehabilitate itself in stages. Neil Kinnock did a great job in this, but he was Moses, who could never go to the Promised Land. John Smith could have, but for his untimely death. It's likely that the party will have to repeat all those stages, because I don't believe that the British electorate will want a Corbynite Labour government any more than they wanted Michael Foot.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And still there is no explanation of what Trot and Trotskyite mean. This is so anti-intellectual, and replaces clear discussion with a smear.

Good grief, we must be in a worse position that I thought, when this kind of lazy verbiage is being used. Amazing that Corbyn is called extreme, when this kind of smearing is being practised by his opponents. Labour is doomed when this kind of rhetoric is being used.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Will this do?

And then there is this.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I don't think Mr Corbyn's supporters are Trotskyists or Marxists (except in the generic sense that most left-wing ideology has been influenced by Marx to a greater or lesser extent whether its proponents are aware of it or not).

It's worth point out that the full quote from Mr Watson was this:
quote:
There are Trots that have come back to the party, and they certainly don’t have the best interests of the Labour party at heart. They see the Labour party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism, and they’re not remotely interested in winning elections, and that’s a problem. But I don’t think the vast majority of people that have joined the Labour party and have been mobilised by the people that are in Momentum are all Trots and Bolsheviks.
Source here (and the interview as a whole is worth reading). Having said that, Mr Watson is media-savvy enough, or claims to be, to know how that would be spun so I don't have all that much sympathy for him.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Some of the recent Labour joiners (and re-joiners) can probably be accurately described as Trotskyists in that they see themselves as the vanguard of revolutionary socialism in this country. However the large majority probably just want to take Labour back to democratic socialism as in the days of Attlee and Bevan. Whether this constitutes the right course for the Labour party, or is a viable path back to government, are separate issues.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
From Barnabas62's link:
The Socialist party’s leader, Peter Taaffe, a founder member of Militant who has continued to be involved since the 1980s, told the Guardian earlier in the day that he hoped to be readmitted to the Labour party if Corbyn saw off the leadership challenge from Owen Smith.
Militant were expelled from the Labour Party by Neil Kinnock in its last attempt to purge the hard left. Now men like Taaffe see a way back with Corbyn. Those who seem to object to my definition of Corbyn as hard left need to take note. Only if he keeps this riff-raff out can he make any claims to social democracy. Otherwise it's plain for all to see what he really is.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters.
OK so the popular press describes Corbyn's leadership as a surge to the left. That is to the left of the party which made Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Prime Ministers. Do you deny that definition, given the common understanding of right and left in politics? Apart from Atlee's post WW2 government, we've never had a true socialist government in Britain.
Attlee's government was arguably the best government the UK has ever had.

Otherwise, your post seems to me irrelevant flummification. Yes, Corbyn is to the left of Blair and Brown. Blair and Brown were not borderline Marxists. There's plenty of room to their left. On the whole I don't think Corbyn is going to get himself elected. That's not because he's a Trot; it's because he seems to be making no effort to preach to people who aren't already converted. (And because the right-wing popular press are smearing him.)

Taafe is irrelevant, a smear by lack of association. He has not been in fact let back into the Labour Party under Corbyn. To argue that he might be is counterfactual speculation.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Trotskyism presumably refers to the violent overthrow of capitalism, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, it's close to Leninism, in those respects anyway.

To link these ideas with Corbyn or the Unite union just seems unintelligent to me, but I suppose if you are going to smear, smear hard, Daily Mail style.

I'm not sure what place this degraded rhetoric has in Labour or in fact, anywhere.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think there are Trotskyists within Momentum, but the relevant question is whether Momentum and the pro-Corbyn movement would look significantly different if they all miraculously vanished. And I don't think it would.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
IIRC Taafe and the rest of Militant was expelled because of the Labour Party rule that no one could be a member of another political party while a member of the Labour Party. It took a while for Labour to see through the fiction of the Militant "Tendency", but once it had, that was it for the "Mutants" as some dubbed them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't think the labels are all that useful. Infiltrators normally get their feet under the table before revealing their true colours, their particular agenda. But those true colours are always revealed by the way they behave.

In practice, how can you tell whether someone whose previous associations have been more with the revolutionary socialist movements will continue that way if they join a mainstream democratic party. Maybe they have changed their minds? Maybe they have decided that social democracy is a better way to go?

Personally, I have been disturbed by some of the aggression shown towards PLP MPs at local constituency meetings, and at other public meetings. And I've seen comments online (on Facebook pages and reports of the Corbyn/Smith debates) which give me cause for concern; folks stepping over the legitimate criticism line. My antennae are up. But I don't believe it's fair to go for more generalised criticism of the newer members of the Labour Party.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
As far as aggression to MPs goes, I think rank-and-file Labour supporters are fed up that the PLP have spent the last year attacking their democratically elected leader, rather than providing an effective opposition to Tory policy. That frustration is naturally going to spill out in face-to-face meetings.

My own MP (who is leftish) has accepted the vote, and has got on with working hard and welcoming new members. My previous MP (by boundary changes) is also Labour (and was an utter waste of space - little more than a seat-warmer) and has been wringing her hankie in public ever since Corbyn was elected.

Only one of these people comes in for serious criticism by their own constituency party. But perhaps I'm naive in sensing a pattern.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Begs the question, Doc. Why do you think that 80% of the PLP MPs are so fed up with Jeremy that they have openly lost confidence in him? To read many of the online comments, you'd think they were all a bunch of pathetic, stupid, traitorous, Blairite or pseudo-Blairite, crybabies. There is a lot of contempt, and a lot of it is levelled at the "temerity" of the PLP MPs who have dared to behave like constituency representatives (who are not delegated clones of the Labour Party members) have a perfect right to behave in a representative democracy.

Read the late Jo Cox.

[ 11. August 2016, 13:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Begs the question, Doc. Why do you think that 80% of the PLP MPs are so fed up with Jeremy that they have openly lost confidence in him? To read many of the online comments, you'd think they were all a bunch of pathetic, stupid, traitorous, Blairite or pseudo-Blairite, crybabies. There is a lot of contempt, and a lot of it is levelled at the "temerity" of the PLP MPs who have dared to behave like constituency representatives (who are not delegated clones of the Labour Party members) have a perfect right to behave in a representative democracy.

Read the late Jo Cox.
I don't think the majority of the PLP are crybabies, but I do think they are bending over backwards to gain the votes of what they perceive to be a selfish, greedy and increasingly mean-spirited and xenophobic electorate.

Sadly, they aren't wrong.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Begs the question, Doc. Why do you think that 80% of the PLP MPs are so fed up with Jeremy that they have openly lost confidence in him?
That also begs the question. The way you phrase it implies that the PLP MPs were at some point behind JC, and his subsequent actions have 'lost confidence'.

You know, as well as I, that was never the position. They hated him from the start, were and are utterly bewildered by the support he has, are at a complete loss to explain why he's struck such a chord with Labour members (despite having it explained to them at every opportunity), and are frantic to be rid of him.

It's not JC who's lost the confidence. It's the PLP. And the members are going to voice their opinions in the weeks and months ahead. As you sow, so shall you reap.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
There was a period of time when enough of the PLP thought their best interests were served by cooperating to some degree and it was possible to appoint a shadow cabinet.

Now they don't think that anymore. Did they always intend to go through this loop? I expect some did, but Corbyn had an opportunity to negotiate, develop a team and show some managerial competence and leadership. However well he's done considering his decades in the back benches it hasn't been enough to put a party together at the top.

I predict Corbyn's re-election and then de-selections of anti-Corbyn MPs at constituency level. I don't think that is going to go very well towards an electable functioning opposition. Corbyn will then be reaping.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Mr Corbyn has a mandate from his members. His MPs have mandates from their constituents. Normally, when two groups find their interests in conflict, and neither group is obviously in the wrong or subordinate to the other, the correct resolution is a compromise. The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Mr Corbyn has a mandate from his members. His MPs have mandates from their constituents. Normally, when two groups find their interests in conflict, and neither group is obviously in the wrong or subordinate to the other, the correct resolution is a compromise. The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.
Well, that's the narrative of the PLP. Apologies if I find it somewhat self-serving.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You know, as well as I, that was never the position. They hated him from the start, were and are utterly bewildered by the support he has, are at a complete loss to explain why he's struck such a chord with Labour members (despite having it explained to them at every opportunity), and are frantic to be rid of him.
I can believe there are a sizeable minority of MPs who disliked Corbyn solely on ideological grounds. But he can't get even 20% of MPs to back him. And I'm not hearing any MPs saying that they were against him at the start but he's not as bad as they feared.

At which point you have to either posit that the Labour MPs are a Blairite hive mind, or else that some of the problems stem from Corbyn.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm sure some of the problems do stem from Corbyn. But only some of them. I don't believe he's particularly easy to work with - ideologues often aren't - and I can imagine that 'his way of doing things' needs refinement, as despite his experience as an MP, he doesn't have the experience of a office of State, or leadership of a large organisation.

The PLP has, mainly, been an utter disgrace, but somehow it's all Corbyn's fault. But if you listen to everything written about him, you'd think next door's cat going missing was Corbyn's fault.

Owen Who will be thrashed in the election. Then it's up to individual MPs to decide what to do. Hopefully, they'll do what they should have done in the first place: stand with their leader, against the Tories, and work with him to promulgate Labour policies. Otherwise, deselection will inevitably follow, democratically, according to the party rules.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure some of the problems do stem from Corbyn. But only some of them. I don't believe he's particularly easy to work with - ideologues often aren't - and I can imagine that 'his way of doing things' needs refinement, as despite his experience as an MP, he doesn't have the experience of a office of State, or leadership of a large organisation.
But he's the leader. It's his job to find the compromises on some points, and to force through his agenda and win on others. When he was a back-bench voice of protest he didn't need to compromise and could be an ideologue and have his special way of doing things. That won't work as party leader.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Owen Who will be thrashed in the election. Then it's up to individual MPs to decide what to do. Hopefully, they'll do what they should have done in the first place: stand with their leader, against the Tories, and work with him to promulgate Labour policies. Otherwise, deselection will inevitably follow, democratically, according to the party rules.
I think if it comes to this a lot of MP's will jump before they're pushed and initiate the Big Split. How this might play out, it's very hard to say. It would be a healthy development in some ways, but our electoral system doesn't favour new or breakaway parties.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, that's the narrative of the PLP. Apologies if I find it somewhat self-serving.
How is it self-serving? At the moment support for Mr Corbyn gets you nominated as Metro Mayor for Liverpool whereas opposing Mr Corbyn gets you threatened with deselection.

And even if it is self-serving, how does that make it less true?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, that's the narrative of the PLP. Apologies if I find it somewhat self-serving.
How is it self-serving? At the moment support for Mr Corbyn gets you nominated as Metro Mayor for Liverpool whereas opposing Mr Corbyn gets you threatened with deselection.
I think you meant to say, 'elected in an open contest of several potential candidates, to stand as the Labour Party's candidate in an election for Metro Mayor of Merseyside, where other candidates from other parties will also stand'.

Which puts a slightly different gloss on it. You make it sound like the Mayorship is in Corbyn's gift.
quote:
And even if it is self-serving, how does that make it less true?
Sorry, when I said 'self serving' I was being polite. How about 'at variance with the truth'?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you meant to say, 'elected in an open contest of several potential candidates, to stand as the Labour Party's candidate in an election for Metro Mayor of Merseyside, where other candidates from other parties will also stand'.
The candidate himself, in the article I cited, acknowledges his support for Mr Corbyn was a factor in his success at getting the Labour nomination. In this area, getting the Labour nomination is pretty much equivalent to getting the job. Ergo, supporting Mr Corbyn is an advantageous thing to do.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it would tend to suggest that not supporting Mr Corbyn is not a self-serving act.

quote:
Sorry, when I said 'self serving' I was being polite. How about 'at variance with the truth'?
In what way is it at variance with the truth?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The candidate himself, in the article I cited, acknowledges his support for Mr Corbyn was a factor in his success at getting the Labour nomination. In this area, getting the Labour nomination is pretty much equivalent to getting the job. Ergo, supporting Mr Corbyn is an advantageous thing to do.
It's a factor. Heavenforefend that those who subsequently voted might have considered that when casting their ballots. It's all Corbyn's fault, of course.
quote:

Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it would tend to suggest that not supporting Mr Corbyn is not a self-serving act.
The narrative the Chicken Coup have constructed is utterly self-serving. That Corbyn is impossible to work with and therefore they have absolutely no choice but to rescue the Labour Party from this itinerant hard-left prophet and his Trotskyite followers, who even now are swamping the membership lists with infiltrators and entryists, threatening decent MPs with deselection and physical violence if they don't get their hard-left way.

Sorry, it's bollocks.

quote:
In what way is it at variance with the truth?
See above.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry, it's bollocks.
I think there's emerging quite a lot of evidence that he's difficult to work with. Granted, not difficult in a hard-left-Trot kind of way but difficult in a no-notice-press-announcement-no-engagement-in-committee sort of way. He also seems like a no-compromise type which is a bit wearing in the world of realpolitik.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there's emerging quite a lot of evidence that he's difficult to work with.
As I've acknowledged.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The PLP has, mainly, been an utter disgrace, but somehow it's all Corbyn's fault.
Well, if the PLP has been an utter disgrace, I think it is fair to expect the PLP leadership to take some responsibility for that.

I have to say that until about Jo Cox was killed I was largely hoping Corbyn could make it work. Because I support his policies. But ever since then, every time I see one of his supporters write about his critics a little part of my left-wing idealism dies.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure some of the problems do stem from Corbyn. But only some of them. I don't believe he's particularly easy to work with - ideologues often aren't - and I can imagine that 'his way of doing things' needs refinement, as despite his experience as an MP, he doesn't have the experience of a office of State, or leadership of a large organisation.

The PLP has, mainly, been an utter disgrace, but somehow it's all Corbyn's fault. But if you listen to everything written about him, you'd think next door's cat going missing was Corbyn's fault.

Owen Who will be thrashed in the election. Then it's up to individual MPs to decide what to do. Hopefully, they'll do what they should have done in the first place: stand with their leader, against the Tories, and work with him to promulgate Labour policies. Otherwise, deselection will inevitably follow, democratically, according to the party rules.
I've got some questions because I don't know how the process works. How hard would it be for the Labour MP's who oppose Corbyn to leave on their own and start a new party before being deselected? If they did that, could they then elect a new leader of the opposition?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think many Corbyn supporters are arguing that the polls were OK until the coup, and that the right-wing and centrists have basically sabotaged the struggle against the Tories; well, it seems impossible to prove that one either way.
Well, if one looks at polling averages, Labour under Corbyn have never been ahead of the Tories. I'd say that wasn't OK from a Labour perspective, but then again you never know what's going through the minds of these Corbynistas...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've got some questions because I don't know how the process works. How hard would it be for the Labour MP's who oppose Corbyn to leave on their own and start a new party before being deselected? If they did that, could they then elect a new leader of the opposition?
They could presumably start a new party overnight and after that the issue of deselection would fall away as they are no longer members of the Labour Party. If 150-odd Labour MPs defected to this new party they'd easily be the largest opposition party and therefore the Official Opposition.

What would be interesting is whether they could take the 'Labour' name with them. My understanding is that senior Labour legal figures like Lord Falconer are looking into who actually owns the name.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've got some questions because I don't know how the process works. How hard would it be for the Labour MP's who oppose Corbyn to leave on their own and start a new party before being deselected? If they did that, could they then elect a new leader of the opposition?
I think - I'm not an expert on this - but I think:

An MP is elected on their own merit. If they 'cross the floor' or join a new party, there's nothing the constituents can do but wait for a by-election or General election to make their views known.

So by that metric, if the number of Labour MPs leaving the party and forming a new party, or joining an existing party (LibDems, Greens) is greater than the those remaining, and greater than the number of SNP MPs (currently 56), then they'll be the official opposition, with access to the Short money.

There are currently 230 Labour MPs. Each of them will need to work out whether they can, in 4 years, gather enough support and resources in their constituency to avoid the Labour apparatus/money (that they can't take with them) to avoid defeat in the 2020 election.

It's possible that they can. It's probably more likely that many of them will lose their seats to the new Labour candidate, or split the left vote and allow another party to win the seat, given our FPTP rules.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
This takes me back 30+ years when the Labour Party had a left-wing leader (Michael Foot) and some 30 sitting MPs left to form the Social Democrat Party. It later merged with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democratic Party.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The narrative the Chicken Coup have constructed is utterly self-serving.
Doc, there is the problem, illustrated in a nutshell. "The Chicken Coup" is labelling by insult.

Here are some representative quotes from the online comments on the Corbyn/Smith debate in Cardiff (available on Youttube)

quote:
literally, Owen Smith has to be the biggest idiot ive ever heard in my life, its almost as if he fell off the production line for the Ed Miliband action figure before they put his brain in
**
Owen Smith eats shit
**
Blairite red tory fucking scum.
**
NOW YOU KNOW WHAT A POLITICAL CRY BABY SOUNDS LIKE,,(WHINING SHAME) AND LOOKS LIKE, SMITH waste of Time and money.
These comments from Corbyn supporters all ignore Corbyn's own wishes that the debates should be conducted in a serious and respectful manner. They represent the noise of a claque.

Doc this sort of stuff is dangerous to democratic processes.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm sorry. You expect me to take Youtube comments seriously?

The barrel is so scraped as to be the entrance to a labyrinthine tunnel complex even Escher couldn't navigate.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In your case, I guess it may be the effect of HellHosting, I suppose. And in my case it's probably a sign of my age. If I'm being too sensitive, maybe you aren't being sensitive enough?

Those kinds of entries are by no means limited just to that Cardiff youtube feed. There is a segment of Jeremy's supporters who are a cybermob on the loose. I don't like that very much. I don't think Jeremy does either. I don't think they are good for his reputation or the reputation of the Labour Party.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there's emerging quite a lot of evidence that he's difficult to work with.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As I've acknowledged.
Yes you did, but then in another paragraph followed that with "Sorry it's bollocks".

Anyway the question is whether he is so difficult to work with that he can't lead a political party. I'm sorry to say it seems to me he is. Perhaps if he was dropped into a situation with a fantastic, experienced team who shared his ideology very closely it would work, but he hasn't managed to produce either of those conditions. At one point he had more experienced members of a shadow cabinet but he lost them. And he does have some like-minded characters around but they seem as difficult to work with as he is.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That Corbyn is impossible to work with
I repeat the question above. If you are serious about wanting to end the politics of austerity, why would you support the candidate that even anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?

quote:

and therefore they have absolutely no choice but to rescue the Labour Party from this itinerant hard-left prophet and his Trotskyite followers, who even now are swamping the membership lists with infiltrators and entryists, threatening decent MPs with deselection and physical violence if they don't get their hard-left way.
I said above that they're not Trotskyists. I've never used the word 'entryist'. I did bring up the brick way back in the thread but then acknowledged I'd gone too far. And you yourself have brought up deselection as an option.

So how any of that relates to what I wrote is beyond me.

quote:
Sorry
Apology accepted.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In your case, I guess it may be the effect of HellHosting, I suppose. And in my case it's probably a sign of my age. If I'm being too sensitive, maybe you aren't being sensitive enough?

Those kinds of entries are by no means limited just to that Cardiff youtube feed. There is a segment of Jeremy's supporters who are a cybermob on the loose. I don't like that very much. I don't think Jeremy does either. I don't think they are good for his reputation or the reputation of the Labour Party.
Even those of his fans that aren't as aggressive are certainly as dismissive. The number of times I have read an article which is largely balanced with just a minority of it implying criticisms of JC - immediately his supporters pile in. Any writer who has the temerity to criticise in some small way is a Blairite or a traitor. If I were running the next Tory election campaign I'd love it - so easy to depict him and his followers as an intolerant bunch of thugs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If I were running the next Tory election campaign I'd love it - so easy to depict him and his followers as an intolerant bunch of thugs.
Someone's obviously never read below the line on the Daily Mail website.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So how any of that relates to what I wrote is beyond me.
IIRC we were discussing the PLP's self-serving narrative. Which I summarized (somewhat sarcastically, but reasonably accurately).
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If I were running the next Tory election campaign I'd love it - so easy to depict him and his followers as an intolerant bunch of thugs.
Someone's obviously never read below the line on the Daily Mail website.
Wrong assumption. Yes I have - but not that often. Don't recall many of them self-identifying as Theresa May groupies. Or David Cameron supporters. It is Corbyn's supporters overt zealotry that means they can be dismissed so easily.

[ 12. August 2016, 07:39: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Owen Who will be thrashed in the election. Then it's up to individual MPs to decide what to do. Hopefully, they'll do what they should have done in the first place: stand with their leader, against the Tories, and work with him to promulgate Labour policies. Otherwise, deselection will inevitably follow, democratically, according to the party rules.
Yebbut, yebbut… if it was SOP for MPs who didn’t follow the party leader nicely to get deselected, Jezza’s own political career would have been over a LONG time ago. He is the second most rebellious MP in the history of rebellious MPs.

He can dish it but he can’t take it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
But say it does happen. Then what? Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In your case, I guess it may be the effect of HellHosting, I suppose. And in my case it's probably a sign of my age. If I'm being too sensitive, maybe you aren't being sensitive enough?
I guess the point is that if you are going to be trawling youtube comments then they are pretty much all at that level (or much much worse) regardless of what the topic is.

quote:

I don't like that very much. I don't think Jeremy does either. I don't think they are good for his reputation or the reputation of the Labour Party.
and with respect there are a number of anti-corbynites who are equally vocal - especially on twitter (and I could point to people right up to the level of former advisors and MPs). That isn't exculpatory, but perhaps it does mean that we shouldn't look to those sources as indicative of a movement (unless they are equally indicative of all movements everywhere).

[ 12. August 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Yebbut, yebbut… if it was SOP for MPs who didn’t follow the party leader nicely to get deselected, Jezza’s own political career would have been over a LONG time ago. He is the second most rebellious MP in the history of rebellious MPs.
Not necessarily. De-selection would be carried out at the local level - and he is fairly popular with his CLP.

[ 12. August 2016, 09:01: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So how any of that relates to what I wrote is beyond me.
IIRC we were discussing the PLP's self-serving narrative. Which I summarized (somewhat sarcastically, but reasonably accurately).
I said: 'Mr Corbyn has a mandate from his members. His MPs have mandates from their constituents. Normally, when two groups find their interests in conflict, and neither group is obviously in the wrong or subordinate to the other, the correct resolution is a compromise. The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.'

You replied: 'That's the narrative of the PLP.' Apparently I was supposed to realise that 'that' referred not to the words you were quoting but to an entirely different narrative about Trotskyists.

[ 12. August 2016, 09:06: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Owen Who will be thrashed in the election. Then it's up to individual MPs to decide what to do. Hopefully, they'll do what they should have done in the first place: stand with their leader, against the Tories, and work with him to promulgate Labour policies. Otherwise, deselection will inevitably follow, democratically, according to the party rules.
Yebbut, yebbut… if it was SOP for MPs who didn’t follow the party leader nicely to get deselected, Jezza’s own political career would have been over a LONG time ago. He is the second most rebellious MP in the history of rebellious MPs.

He can dish it but he can’t take it.
You've got this arse about face. It's not loyalty to the leader that's the deciding factor. It's the constituency party that selects/approves the candidate to stand for that particular seat. If the sitting MP enjoys the confidence of the constituency party, there's little to nothing a leader can do, short of withdrawing the party whip and expelling the person from the party.

And from what I can gather, despite JC's voting record, he's not had the whip withdrawn or been expelled from the party. And therefore, having enjoyed the continuing confidence of his constituency party, he's remained an MP.

It's up to the constituency party members to choose a candidate for the seat. It's not in the leader's gift (they can draw up shortlists and have preferred candidates, but such are the limits on any leader of a democratic party).

To reiterate: the constituency party will decide, not Corbyn. And since he's someone who apparently suffers from a crashing deficit of leadership and organisational skills, please tell me how he's going to engineer the situation to his advantage.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.
We appear to be talking across each other, then.

This bit here, is part of the wider narrative that appears hourly in the mainstream media, and the part I was taking issue with.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

I don't like that very much. I don't think Jeremy does either. I don't think they are good for his reputation or the reputation of the Labour Party.
and with respect there are a number of anti-corbynites who are equally vocal - especially on twitter (and I could point to people right up to the level of former advisors and MPs). That isn't exculpatory, but perhaps it does mean that we shouldn't look to those sources as indicative of a movement (unless they are equally indicative of all movements everywhere).
I have checked that out and that's not what I've found. If you look at the Cardiff youtube feed for example, there are some responses from Smith supporters but they are nothing like as vitriolic and offensive as those from the majority of Corbyn supporters.

This would bother me a good deal less were it not for the fact that Jeremy has made a point in pleading for civilised and respectful behaviour during the contest and in the wider field. Personal loyalty to Jeremy does not appear to include listening to him when he talks about standards of personal behaviour. These folks are "off the reservation". And my guess is that many of them will be fickle in their support. It's an idolatrous and iconoclastic age.

This reprehensible behaviour is a feature of modern communications. That doesn't make it any less offensive, unfair, unreasoned and unreasonable.

[ 12. August 2016, 09:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.
We appear to be talking across each other, then.

This bit here, is part of the wider narrative that appears hourly in the mainstream media, and the part I was taking issue with.
OK. So are you saying that Mr Corbyn has offered a compromise, or that the MPs haven't?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The MPs have shown themselves willing to compromise by supporting policies and/or an alternative leader to the left of where they presumably stand. Mr Corbyn has not offered any compromise.
We appear to be talking across each other, then.

This bit here, is part of the wider narrative that appears hourly in the mainstream media, and the part I was taking issue with.
OK. So are you saying that Mr Corbyn has offered a compromise, or that the MPs haven't?
Yes, and yes.

Take the closing remarks of the Gateshead hustings last night, where Corbyn offered Smith his old post back, and said he'd been doing an effective job. Smith's response was a blunt "no."

Actually, it was more than a blunt "no", but you'll not want to take my word for that.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think what is needed is a compromise in terms of his way of doing things and determining policy, not giving an obedient and tamed dissenter their old job back.

For their part many MPs clearly did try to work with him and found it impossible. Some of the stories are about the impossibility of his way of doing things, talking to the press unbriefed and undermining them by doing so, not simply about policy choices.

[ 12. August 2016, 11:27: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
That's one way to look at it. But to me, it seems he's caught in a cleft stick of other people's opinions.

If he has a broad range of voices in his cabinet, engages in a collegiate approach and discusses matters with colleagues, he's a weak leader.

If he insists on policy and discipline, he's uncompromising.

*shrugs*
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't;
Labour under Corbyn have never been ahead of the Tories.
Given that the boundry changes could give the Tories an extra 25 seats after 2018, that UKIP is likely to fade away now that an EU out vote has been achieved and given that Labour has effectively lost its Scottish base, its position is completely hopeless unless it regains some form of credibility. Now into the Tories second parliament, Labour should be surging in the polls, not 13% adrift. Do Corbyn and his supporters care nothing about winning elections?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If he has a broad range of voices in his cabinet, engages in a collegiate approach and discusses matters with colleagues, he's a weak leader.

If he insists on policy and discipline, he's uncompromising.
I don't think he's done either of those effectively. He didn't get a collegiate approach going, he lost them all. And he hasn't insisted on policy and discipline. I agree either strategy would have its detractors but he needs one of them (or likely a combination of the two for different parts of the party) and he needs to make it work.

Having the constituency party on his side is great but it isn't enough.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there's emerging quite a lot of evidence that he's difficult to work with.
As I've acknowledged.
It's possible that being difficult to work with may be an undesirable trait in the leader of the opposition; especially if you think that job entails being a potential prime minister.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do Corbyn and his supporters care nothing about winning elections?
As I think I may have said upthread, I suspect a lot don't, prioritising some perceived ideological purity instead.

Of course the other thing is, if they do win elections, who can they protest against on a Saturday afternoon?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Being difficult to work with can be part of a successful package if you have a forceful personality and can get everyone to toe the line. If you aren't going to be forceful and sort them all out then you need to make it easy for them to work with you.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do Corbyn and his supporters care nothing about winning elections?
As I think I may have said upthread, I suspect a lot don't, prioritising some perceived ideological purity instead.
Does the notion that the economy should serve man, rather than man serve the economy, really constitute ideological purity?

It looks like a sound principle for any political party, although how you achieve this may be open to debate. The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work, neo-liberalism accentuates wealth and income disparity and centrally planned economies only work in the short term (eg, when there's a war on).

There's bags of room for a Labour Party.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The narrative the Chicken Coup have constructed is utterly self-serving.
Doc, there is the problem, illustrated in a nutshell. "The Chicken Coup" is labelling by insult.

H
As an outside observer, I have to say that reading some of his supporters' comments about Corbett and his detractors makes me wonder whether they have confused one JC with another, one who lived 2,000 years ago.

John
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do Corbyn and his supporters care nothing about winning elections?
As I think I may have said upthread, I suspect a lot don't, prioritising some perceived ideological purity instead.
Ed Miliband's approach didn't win elections either. If you're going to lose an election anyway you might as well do so with ideological integrity.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do Corbyn and his supporters care nothing about winning elections?
As I think I may have said upthread, I suspect a lot don't, prioritising some perceived ideological purity instead.
Does the notion that the economy should serve man, rather than man serve the economy, really constitute ideological purity?

It looks like a sound principle for any political party, although how you achieve this may be open to debate. The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work, neo-liberalism accentuates wealth and income disparity and centrally planned economies only work in the short term (eg, when there's a war on).

There's bags of room for a Labour Party.
That's a very nice post. I think a lot of the debate hinges on the various proportions of the themes you have cited. So, for example, a left-wing criticism of Blairism is that it tends too much towards the neo-liberal, hence the support for privatization, benefit cuts, and so on.

I suppose Miliband and Balls are seen as accepting some Tory narratives, e.g. that Labour caused the economic crash, that deficit reduction is top priority, that the poor and disabled should be targeted, and don't forget the immigration mug.

Of course, how far you move to the left from those positions is an open question. I suppose Smith is saying a lot.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Forgot to say that some of the Brexit votes in some 'left behind' areas could be seen as revolting against both Tory and Labour narratives, esp. in relation to neo-lib policies, deindustrialization, and so on. That doesn't mean that Brexit voters in Sunderland have a clear idea as to what should happen now, but then neither does anybody else. But in relation to Labour, there's a link here with Scotland, is't there?
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As an outside observer, I have to say that reading some of his supporters' comments about Corbett and his detractors makes me wonder whether they have confused one JC with another, one who lived 2,000 years ago.

John
And plenty on both sides are behaving like Christians, ie, struggling with each other rather than alongside each other. They should look at the polls, which show Labour flatlining on 30% and the Tories pulling way ahead now that UKIP support is beginning to trickle back to them, and concentrate their minds of the real issue which is beating the Tories.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work
I think it does. I'd rather be a poor person in a Western democracy than in an African one party state.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ed Miliband's approach didn't win elections either.
The responsibility for the awful state in which the Labour Party finds itself can be laid firmly at the door of Ed Miliband. His change to the constitution which allowed thousands of £3 Trots to join the party is why it's in the crap up to its neck.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And plenty on both sides are behaving like Christians, ie, struggling with each other rather than alongside each other. They should look at the polls, which show Labour flatlining on 30% and the Tories pulling way ahead now that UKIP support is beginning to trickle back to them, and concentrate their minds of the real issue which is beating the Tories.
Your 30% is way optimistic for Labour's present woes. In some polls it's as low as 26%. With the Tories polling at around 40, an election now would prove a far worse disaster than 1983. If the real issue is beating the Tories, as it should be, we need to junk this appalling regime that's engulfing the party. Right now, Britain needs a strong opposition which will hold the government to account on a daily basis. And it needs an opposition who is a government in waiting. none of this is happening in Corbyn's freak show.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Right now, Britain needs a strong opposition which will hold the government to account on a daily basis.
As opposed to agreeing with it?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[OK. So are you saying that Mr Corbyn has offered a compromise, or that the MPs haven't?
Yes, and yes.

Take the closing remarks of the Gateshead hustings last night, where Corbyn offered Smith his old post back, and said he'd been doing an effective job. Smith's response was a blunt "no."
A reassertion of the status quo ante bellum is not a compromise. If I leave my job in a strop because I don't like my working conditions, and my boss offers me my job back under those same working conditions, then depending on the nature of my departure that might be a generous offer but in no way could it possibly be described as a compromise.

Conversely, Labour MPs have offered to back policies and/or an alternative leader significantly to the left of where they presumably stand.

[ 13. August 2016, 07:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Right now, Britain needs a strong opposition which will hold the government to account on a daily basis.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As opposed to agreeing with it?
I would have dearly loved to see an effective opposition to the plans for bombing Syria.

Could Corbyn have done enough backroom persuasion, dealing and negotiating to get enough of his party on board to use the whip?

Instead he had a free vote and there was no effective opposition. It's an example of where Corbyn has absolutely the right idea (in my opinion) but can't manipulate the politics to implement it.

Maybe it was never possible given the strength of feeling but it does seem that Corbyn didn't try. It seems like rational argument was his main weapon. It seems a misjudgement of how to get things done leading a party and it led to no opposition.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think the left have reacted to the spectacle of Miliband and Balls following Tory narratives. They seemed to be competing with them on austerity and benefit cuts, and immigration.

Is that what Labour is for?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work
I think it does. I'd rather be a poor person in a Western democracy than in an African one party state.

Really? Just how poor would you be prepared to be?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IIRC we were discussing the PLP's self-serving narrative. Which I summarized (somewhat sarcastically, but reasonably accurately).
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the Labour MPs have run the least well-organised coup since Eddard Stark decided to tip off Cersei Lannister in the expectation that she'd do the sensible thing and run for it.

Nevertheless they're supposed to be capable of concocting from next to factual basis a singular shared self-serving narrative.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work
I think it does. I'd rather be a poor person in a Western democracy than in an African one party state.
In theory, trickle-down economics should work just as well in African states as in Western economies.
Fun fact: Africa has only really stagnated since the eighties when trickle-down economics became the accepted international orthodoxy. Most African countries, barring a few dictatorships, were developing at a reasonable pace, if from a lower starting point, up to the seventies.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ed Miliband's approach didn't win elections either.
The responsibility for the awful state in which the Labour Party finds itself can be laid firmly at the door of Ed Miliband. His change to the constitution which allowed thousands of £3 Trots to join the party is why it's in the crap up to its neck.
Even Tom Watson was careful to rebut the accusation that there are thousands of Trotskyites trying to join the party. If you have evidence that Watson doesn't I'm sure he would be pleased to see it.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IIRC we were discussing the PLP's self-serving narrative. Which I summarized (somewhat sarcastically, but reasonably accurately).
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the Labour MPs have run the least well-organised coup since Eddard Stark decided to tip off Cersei Lannister in the expectation that she'd do the sensible thing and run for it.

Nevertheless they're supposed to be capable of concocting from next to factual basis a singular shared self-serving narrative.
But there's a significant difference in the level of difficulty of these two activities, isn't there? Lots of people propagate shared self-serving narratives about all kinds of subjects; far fewer have any experience in defenestrating their political leader. Is it so hard to believe that they could succeed at one and fail at the other?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work
I think it does. I'd rather be a poor person in a Western democracy than in an African one party state.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that to the extent the West is prosperous that it's down to trickle down economics.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"Thousands of £3 Trots." Good grief, is this the level that the argument has descended to? Well, I say 'argument' rather whimsically.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work
I think it does. I'd rather be a poor person in a Western democracy than in an African one party state.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that to the extent the West is prosperous that it's down to trickle down economics.
If you want an example of 'trickle down economics', you only have to go back to the 19th century. There are plenty of books about that period, and what a miserable shit-hole it was for the majority of working people.

Alternatively, everything good about this country has been wrested, one concession at a time, from the hands of the rich and powerful. What we're experiencing now is them taking it back, one at time.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Doc Tor:
quote:
everything good about this country has been wrested, one concession at a time, from the hands of the rich and powerful. What we're experiencing now is them taking it back, one at time.
How I wish I could disagree with this. Sadly I can't.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters. It's like describing Michael Gove as a Nazi.
Well Michael Gove has not called for the complete rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler. Jeremy Corbyn on Trotsky, on the other hand...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters. It's like describing Michael Gove as a Nazi.
Well Michael Gove has not called for the complete rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler. Jeremy Corbyn on Trotsky, on the other hand...
If you read the entire article you will see that it wasn't a simple attempt to rehabilitate Trotsky, but an attempt to persuade the Communist Party to add Trotsky to a rehabilitation they were already doing for Bukharin, Zinoviev and others who had been purged by Stalin.

Looks like the object of the Motion was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which fell to bits by the end of the next year. Who knows, maybe it played a part in that: 1989 was a strange year.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that 'Marxist' and 'Trot' are offensive. It's that they're inaccurate. They mean political positions much further to the left than Corbyn or his supporters. It's like describing Michael Gove as a Nazi.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well Michael Gove has not called for the complete rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler. Jeremy Corbyn on Trotsky, on the other hand...
In this context rehabilitation means a reversal of these trial findings. If you want to argue those were just convictions that should stand then fine. Personally I think it is daft to be involving the UK parliament in these deliberations but arguing that Trotsky's trial by Stalin was not entirely just isn't actually the same as being a Trotskyite. This is just a pathetic bit of Telegraph journalism that follows the narrative of its treatment of Corbyn.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Well Jeremy Corbyn's right hand man John McDonnell isn't afraid to sing Trotsky's praises. He's named him, along with Lenin as the biggest influences on his politics. He calls for a "revolutionary socialist movement." He's also been known to quote from Mao's "Little Red Book." We may have in this country, people who'd like to see a man like this in power. I'm not one of them. But anyone who claims that this isn't a sign of the direction the Labour party is moving in is burying their heads in the sand. It's legitimate politics to admit to wanting this sort of government, but it's disingenuous to deny what's happening in front of us. I will certainly vote for anyone of whatever colour who can help to keep this trash at bay.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
McDonnel spoke of " the importance of Trotskyism for the struggle against the bosses and the Tories, arguing that it should mean a combination of political radicalism and non-sectarian orientation to work in mass labour movement organisations.”

I agree with non-sectarianism in the sense that nebody should face discrimination, positive or negative, on religious grounds, but in all countries where this political ideology has taken hold, it has usually meant banning or persecuting all religion. Don't say that history hasn't warned us of this.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
AFAIK there has never been a Trotskyist state ever, and given that Trotskyism is defined in opposition to 'Socialism in One Country', it's hard to see how there ever could be.

(Hence the self-righteousness of Trots, who unlike most political movements never have to defend the compromises they have made with power, thanks to not having any.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Well Jeremy Corbyn's right hand man John McDonnell isn't afraid to sing Trotsky's praises. He's named him, along with Lenin as the biggest influences on his politics. He calls for a "revolutionary socialist movement." He's also been known to quote from Mao's "Little Red Book." We may have in this country, people who'd like to see a man like this in power. I'm not one of them. But anyone who claims that this isn't a sign of the direction the Labour party is moving in is burying their heads in the sand. It's legitimate politics to admit to wanting this sort of government, but it's disingenuous to deny what's happening in front of us. I will certainly vote for anyone of whatever colour who can help to keep this trash at bay.
"This trash" as you put it have been sound on the subject of responsibility for the banking crisis which has plunged most of the world into an economic depression for approaching a decade now. Moreover it's pretty rash to believe anything the Telegraph prints on this and almost any other topic, which you continue to do. Really PaulTH, it's only slightly better than the Daily Mail.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Even Michael Foot was nothing like as dangerous as this breed.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Even Michael Foot was nothing like as dangerous as this breed.
Trash? Breed? You're really intent on doubling down on this, aren't you?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Even Michael Foot was nothing like as dangerous as this breed.
Trash? Breed? You're really intent on doubling down on this, aren't you?
So I had a spare moment to read your link.

Really? The meat of it (it's barely 5 paragraphs long) is that Simon Fletcher is Corbyn's chief of staff. This is the same Fletcher who was hired by that arch-Trot Ed Milliband in 2013.

(Also the Social Affairs Unit is a right-wing libertarian 'think tank')

But otherwise, yes, smear away.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

(Also the Social Affairs Unit is a right-wing libertarian 'think tank')

But otherwise, yes, smear away.
When I see links like that, I'm reminded of Jim Hacker's description of newspaper readers, which includes:

"The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is"

If "Trots" were so ubiquitous as some of these articles make out, we would have had international socialism in Britain by now [Roll Eyes]

[ 16. August 2016, 22:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There was an interesting long interview with Margaret Hodge yesterday, on Radio 4's Reflections. She described the current state of affairs as a Trotskyite invasion of the Labour Party. It is towards the end of the interview.

She was more interesting on how she changed her politics when dealing with the pressures of her constituency, Barking and Dagenham, an area which has just been voted the most miserable borough to live in. (I work in 4 out of the top 5 of those boroughs.)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sadiq weighs in. He has to I realise. Doesn't he? But he's on to a loser backing Smith. Especially if he wins ...

How does Sadiq get to be PM?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sadiq weighs in. He has to I realise. Doesn't he? But he's on to a loser backing Smith. Especially if he wins ...

How does Sadiq get to be PM?
And Sadiq very convincingly makes the point that the problem with Corbyn is himself, not his policies but his demonstrated lack of ability as a leader of what should be the next governing party in the UK - rather than a rump destined to opposition for the next 2 elections at least. That of course condemns the UK to a Tory government for that period, hacking away at policies extending back to Attlee's government 70 years ago.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sadiq weighs in. He has to I realise. Doesn't he? But he's on to a loser backing Smith. Especially if he wins ...

How does Sadiq get to be PM?
You start by doing what you can to make your party electable.

That involves swimming against the party tide.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election. I suspect the former and that if they vote in sufficient numbers (with their heads in sand) it will end in floods of tears - for them and for the country.
Three cheers for Kezia Dugdale who joins Sadiq Khan in support of Smith.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election.
'Blindly'? As if everyone voting for Corbyn is some weak-willed, brainwashed acolyte? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election. I suspect the former and that if they vote in sufficient numbers (with their heads in sand) it will end in floods of tears - for them and for the country. ...
That is what happened in the eighties until Kinnock took over and started to pull his party back from the brink. Even then, it took 9 years before they managed a reasonable showing in an election, and 14 and two leaders later before they actually got back into office.

There seems to be a pattern here. Since 1950, no party has won an election. A party has lost one. When you're out of office, you don't get it back again unless and until both the public are fed up with your opponents, and is persuaded you can be trusted with government.

In 1979, the Labour Party stuck with Callaghan for a year or two, more of the same. In 1997, after losing the election, Major resigned. So the Conservatives had to chose a new leader. They chose Hague, sort of 'more of the same'. In 2010, after losing the election, Brown resigned. So Labour also had to choose a new leader and chose Ed Miliband, again, sort of 'more of the same'. In both cases that didn't deliver the next election (2001 and (2015) - and wasn't all that likely to. The time wasn't ripe yet. So the cry goes up, what the public wants is 'real socialism, or 'clear blue water' or 'more public spending' or 'flat rate taxation' or whatever else political enthusiasts are having orgasms about.

So in the 1980s the Labour Party chose Michael Foot and went down really heavily in 1983.

In 2001 and 2015, Hague and Miliband pulled out. So the Conservatives chose Ian Duncan Smith and Labour chose Jeremy Corbyn, swinging to 'true socialism' or 'clear blue water'. In both cases, at the time they were chosen, there was a shortage of inspirational candidates who had support in the party. And both cases demonstrate that there's a strong element in the party faithful who think it's only because they haven't shifted further into the infra-red or ultra-violet that explains why the public isn't flocking to vote for them.

In the 1980s the Labour Party eventually saw sense, chose Kinnock, and had to accept his determined disconnection of the party from the infra-red end of the spectrum. Even so, it took 12 years before they got back into power.

After only two years of IDS, the Conservatives dumped him, but it was still a long time and two leaders later before they got back into power. Even then, they had to share it with someone else, and look at the mess they've made of it since they've been running things on their own.

Labour seems to be determined to swing into the infra-red. If it stays there rather than returns to the boring centre ground, I regret to say that it's Conservative administrations until another party comes along to replace Labour - as it did the Liberals in the 1920s.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election.
'Blindly'? As if everyone voting for Corbyn is some weak-willed, brainwashed acolyte? [Disappointed]
What these voters will be blind to is the sure loss of any chance of winning an election with Corbyn.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
That's not what you said the first time, is it?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's not what you said the first time, is it?
Clumsily yes. Most people would get what I meant, I think.

The choice is clear - vote for him and you lose the chance to win an election. Vote for Smith and at least there is a chance of the PLP getting the party electable.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sadiq weighs in. He has to I realise. Doesn't he? But he's on to a loser backing Smith. Especially if he wins ...

How does Sadiq get to be PM?
You start by doing what you can to make your party electable.

That involves swimming against the party tide.
With it, surely Sarah? Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election.
Speaking as someone who thinks that Corbyn is unwilling or unable to lead the parliamentary party, and should therefore step down, I think that's unhelpfully pejorative.

People who don't think Corbyn's doing a good job should at least acknowledge that Harman's cunning plan to get elected by not opposing the Tories was a washout. (This is not the same as saying that Labour MPs who obeyed the whip were wrong to do so.)

[ 22. August 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's not what you said the first time, is it?
Clumsily yes. Most people would get what I meant, I think.

The choice is clear - vote for him and you lose the chance to win an election. Vote for Smith and at least there is a chance of the PLP getting the party electable.
Has anyone looked at Owen Smith's policies? Why, he's another of the "soft left" and not so very different to Jeremy Corbyn. OK, he doesn't carry some of the back history Corbyn does but most of that is mendacious claptrap drummed up by Murdoch and Tory Party HQ.

I suppose his very obscurity is an asset: that and the name "Smith" which reminds plenty of us of one of the best PMs we never had.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
No way do I want Corbyn out.

His presence guarantees that somebody else ( anybody else) will win.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I suppose his very obscurity is an asset: that and the name "Smith" which reminds plenty of us of one of the best PMs we never had.
Wolfie?
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
How about just ditching Corbyn now and doing our best to avoid another 5 years of Tory rule.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would be interested to know whether those who propose to vote for Corbyn as leader will do so because they blindly follow what they believe to be his ideology / politics or because they think he can win the next election.
Speaking as someone who thinks that Corbyn is unwilling or unable to lead the parliamentary party, and should therefore step down, I think that's unhelpfully pejorative.

People who don't think Corbyn's doing a good job should at least acknowledge that Harman's cunning plan to get elected by not opposing the Tories was a washout. (This is not the same as saying that Labour MPs who obeyed the whip were wrong to do so.)
I agree with you largely. However, I never thought of it as Harman's idea to get elected by not opposing the Tories. I thought she wanted to avoid the whole 'we always oppose and we are never willing to acknowledge that there are hard choices. If we oppose every cut then the Tories can just tot up the cost of every policy and it makes us seem incredibly profligate.'

I wasn't convinced by the strategy but I think all opposition parties have to wrestle with this issue. Would it have made a blind bit of difference - well not to the Bill getting through.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's not what you said the first time, is it?
Clumsily yes. Most people would get what I meant, I think.

The choice is clear - vote for him and you lose the chance to win an election. Vote for Smith and at least there is a chance of the PLP getting the party electable.
Has anyone looked at Owen Smith's policies? Why, he's another of the "soft left" and not so very different to Jeremy Corbyn. OK, he doesn't carry some of the back history Corbyn does but most of that is mendacious claptrap drummed up by Murdoch and Tory Party HQ.

I suppose his very obscurity is an asset: that and the name "Smith" which reminds plenty of us of one of the best PMs we never had.
On the policy issue I don't think the general public look at the full range of policies and work out which party they think will give them the most. I never have, and am a lot more interested in politics than most people I know.

I think when faced with such a complicated question most people replace it with two simple questions. Do I trust this party with the economy? And do I trust this party / leader to deal competently with a crisis - especially relevant in the light of the terrorism attacks in France.

That is where Corbyn is, in the view of many (75%?), unelectable.

And Enoch - spot on!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
How about just ditching Corbyn now and doing our best to avoid another 5 years of Tory rule.
Impossible. May can't LOSE in 2020. Smith's timing is out by four years.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
How about just ditching Corbyn now and doing our best to avoid another 5 years of Tory rule.
Impossible. May can't LOSE in 2020. Smith's timing is out by four years.
All that stands between the Tories being returned in 2020 is a five-star, ocean-going fiasco over leaving the EU. If the practical matters that Liam Fox and David Davis are supposed to implement regarding future trade agreements and the political aspects go pear-shaped, then some Tories might cause a split there and the rest of the House could force a vote on Article 50. If Article 50 fails to get through, all bets are off.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
A choice between two parties - which one am I least tired of? Which will be OK with the economy? Which will manage the terrorist threat reasonably well? And down go voting per centages, up goes the populist share, the vote for a troll share, and the angry, protest anti vote, leave the UK, leave the EU becomes a likelihood. Democracy is at risk.

More of the same is clearly what growing numbers do not want. None of the mainstream has an answer to raging inequality, to tackling terrorism at source (did you see that terrorist ideas are apparently so attractive that we are going to separate terrorists from other prisoners; an ideology so compelling no one must hear it).

May has better ideas than Corbyn, so far. No one, yet, is worth voting for.

I will vote for Corbyn as that seems the best way to try and break politics as we have it, to force something that offers some hope to appear. I don't think Corbyn has any answers, but his movement has some good questions. There's no reason I can see to vote for Smith; no usp, no vision and no chance of being elected.

We have to wait.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All that stands between the Tories being returned in 2020 is a five-star, ocean-going fiasco over leaving the EU.
Probably true. Elections are more often lost than won. If Labour look half-way competent then they will take advantage of a Conservative screwup. And from that point of view, it's fine to get the stupidity out of the way now. As long as the current election actually puts the issue to bed, and the party then unites behind whoever the victor is, then they're able to take advantage of a Tory ball-dropping.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I noticed that proposal to separate terrorists from the common herd and immediately thought back to the "political status" demands of the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. Hasn't it occurred to the Powers That Be that this might be just what terrorists want?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
How about just ditching Corbyn now and doing our best to avoid another 5 years of Tory rule.
Impossible. May can't LOSE in 2020. Smith's timing is out by four years.
All that stands between the Tories being returned in 2020 is a five-star, ocean-going fiasco over leaving the EU. If the practical matters that Liam Fox and David Davis are supposed to implement regarding future trade agreements and the political aspects go pear-shaped, then some Tories might cause a split there and the rest of the House could force a vote on Article 50. If Article 50 fails to get through, all bets are off.
That's four low probabilities multiplied.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
They're also going to foul up over the union. But Labour has no prospect of doing any better.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
A choice between two parties - which one am I least tired of? Which will be OK with the economy? Which will manage the terrorist threat reasonably well? And down go voting per centages, up goes the populist share, the vote for a troll share, and the angry, protest anti vote, leave the UK, leave the EU becomes a likelihood. Democracy is at risk.

More of the same is clearly what growing numbers do not want. None of the mainstream has an answer to raging inequality, to tackling terrorism at source (did you see that terrorist ideas are apparently so attractive that we are going to separate terrorists from other prisoners; an ideology so compelling no one must hear it).

May has better ideas than Corbyn, so far. No one, yet, is worth voting for.

I will vote for Corbyn as that seems the best way to try and break politics as we have it, to force something that offers some hope to appear. I don't think Corbyn has any answers, but his movement has some good questions. There's no reason I can see to vote for Smith; no usp, no vision and no chance of being elected.

We have to wait.
Hatless - thinking of this wider than UK. Is there a political party anywhere amongst the advanced democratic nations that are coming up with the answers. (This desire for some answer to the issues raised by growing inequality, but I'd add in climate change, dealing with the problems of sustainability and soft landing the turbo charged version of capitalism we currently have.)
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
That involves swimming against the party tide

With it, surely Sarah? Thinking as Machiavellianly as possible: Smith loses against Corbyn who loses against May, Khan takes over and wins against May in 2025 by NOT being branded a leftie by having supported Corbyn.
The party tide is pro-Corbyn. Whoever takes over from Corbyn won't have worked against him. The party membership is so far to the left at the moment that it'll be a Corbyn mark 2. I rather think the membership have given up on winning, in favour of 'proper' ideology. In time the penny will drop, and reality will sink in:

quote:
“just remember at all times, with all temptations, how you...each and every Labour worker watching this conference, each and every Labour voter, yes, and some others as well, remember how you felt on that dreadful morning of the tenth of June. Just remember how you felt then, and think to yourselves: 'June the ninth, 1983, never ever again will we experience that.”
(Neil Kinnock)

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If Labour look half-way competent then they will take advantage of a Conservative screwup... As long as the current election actually puts the issue to bed, and the party then unites behind whoever the victor is, then they're able to take advantage of a Tory ball-dropping.
That's the thing. Even if the Tories mess it up, the country still won't vote for Corbyn.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
That's the thing. Even if the Tories mess it up, the country still won't vote for Corbyn.
I keep hearing this with very little data beyond (as seen in the last two major elections wildly inaccurate) polling. All I can say is I know a LOT of my contemporaries (mid-late twenties) who didn't vote Labour in the last two elections, but would under Corbyn. I realise the plural of anecdotes isn't data, but surely there's a fairly large commited pool of voters for both parties, and its the undecideds that win the election. From everything I'm seeing in my social circles, the undecideds at the moment are almost universally fans of Corbyn, in part because he is so radically different from a Labour they didn't approve of. The fundamental question is are the New Labour-ites who don't like Corbyn but have voted Labour for the last however many elections really going to jump ship over him? I can't see that happening, for all they might say that in anger now. I think the numbers are a LOT closer than polling indicates.

[ 22. August 2016, 21:44: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The general election polling overestimated the level of support for Labour, and the referendum polling overestimated the level of support for what was supposed to be Labour's and Mr Corbyn's position.

How one concludes from that that polling companies are now underestimating support for Labour is beyond me.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The general election polling overestimated the level of support for Labour, and the referendum polling overestimated the level of support for what was supposed to be Labour's and Mr Corbyn's position.

How one concludes from that that polling companies are now underestimating support for Labour is beyond me.
If anything the pre-election polls in 2015 underestimated Tory support, which isn't quite the same.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
That's the thing. Even if the Tories mess it up, the country still won't vote for Corbyn.
I keep hearing this with very little data beyond (as seen in the last two major elections wildly inaccurate) polling. All I can say is I know a LOT of my contemporaries (mid-late twenties) who didn't vote Labour in the last two elections, but would under Corbyn. I realise the plural of anecdotes isn't data, but surely there's a fairly large commited pool of voters for both parties, and its the undecideds that win the election. From everything I'm seeing in my social circles, the undecideds at the moment are almost universally fans of Corbyn, in part because he is so radically different from a Labour they didn't approve of. The fundamental question is are the New Labour-ites who don't like Corbyn but have voted Labour for the last however many elections really going to jump ship over him? I can't see that happening, for all they might say that in anger now. I think the numbers are a LOT closer than polling indicates.
Wildly inaccurate? Yes they were out but not by that much - Labour turned out to be 3% lower, Tories 3% higher. All the other parties were incredibly accurate. For Labour to be doing well now the polls would have to be much more than 3% out for the individual parties.

Having said that the polls showed that in the areas of trust on the economy and leadership Labour scored very poorly. These are normally the most accurate indicators of the final result - and they were in 2015. Currently their ratings in these areas are very poor.

Almost all enthusiastic supporters of Corbyn I know were either ex-Green voters or not very enthusiastic Labour voters. Sadly for them a very positive Labour vote is worth the same when it is counted as an unenthusiastic vote.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Sadly for them a very positive Labour vote is worth the same when it is counted as an unenthusiastic vote.
True. Also well worth noting that if you can attract one of their guys to vote for you, it's worth the same as attracting two non-voters.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
All I can say is I know a LOT of my contemporaries (mid-late twenties) who didn't vote Labour in the last two elections, but would under Corbyn.
Certainly among my social circle, Corbyn would handily defeat May. If my social circle had decided the last election, Miliband would be PM and the Leader of the Opposition would be Natalie Bennett. Although I wouldn't swear to it being that way round.

I believe my social circle may not be representative of the wider electorate.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
A choice between two parties - which one am I least tired of? Which will be OK with the economy? Which will manage the terrorist threat reasonably well? And down go voting per centages, up goes the populist share, the vote for a troll share, and the angry, protest anti vote, leave the UK, leave the EU becomes a likelihood. Democracy is at risk.

More of the same is clearly what growing numbers do not want. None of the mainstream has an answer to raging inequality, to tackling terrorism at source (did you see that terrorist ideas are apparently so attractive that we are going to separate terrorists from other prisoners; an ideology so compelling no one must hear it).

May has better ideas than Corbyn, so far. No one, yet, is worth voting for.

I will vote for Corbyn as that seems the best way to try and break politics as we have it, to force something that offers some hope to appear. I don't think Corbyn has any answers, but his movement has some good questions. There's no reason I can see to vote for Smith; no usp, no vision and no chance of being elected.

We have to wait.
Hatless - thinking of this wider than UK. Is there a political party anywhere amongst the advanced democratic nations that are coming up with the answers. (This desire for some answer to the issues raised by growing inequality, but I'd add in climate change, dealing with the problems of sustainability and soft landing the turbo charged version of capitalism we currently have.)
No, it's an international plight. And centre left parties are collapsing all around. The Dutch Labour Party has been polling 5% I believe. Iceland is set to be run by pirates (as in anti copyright, and anti corruption).

Maybe the questions are firming up. I agree with the two you added. The BHS collapse has revealed a disgust with capitalism and a concern over our lack of laws to protect workers that seems to be shared even by many Tories. I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.

As I said, I think we have to wait. But the times, they are a-changing. Whither the ants are my friends remains to be seen.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I keep hearing this with very little data beyond (as seen in the last two major elections wildly inaccurate) polling.
The vagaries of polling are not improved by polling a tiny and biased group (i.e. relying on polling your own social circle).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.
I wonder how many of those people have smartphones? Or own a motor car?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The Tang dynasty in China oversaw some remarkable improvements in printing technology, clockwork and gunpowder but were a remarkably repressive and cruel regime.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.
I wonder how many of those people have smartphones? Or own a motor car?
I rarely see things the same way as you Anglican't but like you this comment about capitalism just strikes me as absurd.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.
You know some really weird people. I'm as left as you can imagine, and hang out with other lefties: I've never heard that, and even if I had, they'd have been laughed to scorn long before I'd chance to react.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.
You know some really weird people. I'm as left as you can imagine, and hang out with other lefties: I've never heard that, and even if I had, they'd have been laughed to scorn long before I'd chance to react.
Concerning your comments re hanging out with other lefties. I have been increasingly wondering whether the very different perspectives on Corbyn amongst us lefties arise not primarily in the area of policy but due to who we meet regularly. Over the past 5 years, through changes in work, I have spent significantly more time with floating voters and a few shy Tories. Many of them don't really know me and my views, so they are significantly less guarded in what they say amongst themselves.

I cannot see Corbyn winning any of them over. Only a very broad church Labour party would have a hope - and even then it would be tough.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Concerning your comments re hanging out with other lefties. I have been increasingly wondering whether the very different perspectives on Corbyn amongst us lefties arise not primarily in the area of policy but due to who we meet regularly. Over the past 5 years, through changes in work, I have spent significantly more time with floating voters and a few shy Tories. Many of them don't really know me and my views, so they are significantly less guarded in what they say amongst themselves.

I cannot see Corbyn winning any of them over. Only a very broad church Labour party would have a hope - and even then it would be tough.
I never leave the house if I can at all avoid it (not actually true - just when I do, I don't talk to anyone), so a lot of my interactions are online.

So I'm left wondering if you lot are statistical outliers amongst my leftist friends. [Biased]

My mum, bless her, is somewhere right of Genghis Khan - firmly on the Libertarian Right - and conversations with her can be quite exciting, as she has some peculiar blindspots (as I'm sure, I do). But she's one of the few people I actually know who votes Tory, and she's not (for all values of not) ever going to vote Labour, no matter how broad the church is. That probably skews my thoughts on Corbyn more than anything else.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I hear people remark that capitalism has almost never come up with worthwhile inventions.
I wonder how many of those people have smartphones? Or own a motor car?
The article I read listed the components of smartphones that were developed with public money; most of the important bits was the gist of it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
There is something in this that is worth reflecting on and deserves more than our scorn.

Drawing on my experience of biological research I think it is true to say that all the really fundamental insights have been funded by charitable or government funding.

However the final mile of turning the insights into products is done by companies.

Why the difference?

Fundamental research is often cheaper (by comparison - i.e. millions rather than hundred of millions of pounds) but requires a degree of altruism.

The development of a product is massively expensive, and mostly selfish. A lot of the knowledge generated is of no use except in either supporting a license for the product or discarding it and moving on to the next idea. Universities and research institutions tend not to have the regulatory expertise to actually bring the product through the process, even if they've had the original idea.

The processes that government and charitable funders use to look at research are peer and expert review. This tends to not be very transparent and is very prone to group think.

The processes drug companies use are completely non-transparent and made by a few people, but those people end up in shallow graves if their bets don't come off due to the purifying Darwinian process that the share-holders implement. This seems to work better as a means of regulating multi-million investments betting on a return.

Hence I think it could be argued that although the product development is completely capitalist, the fundamental insights and interesting biology is outside capitalism, and capitalism left to its own devices would keep feeding of the corpse but not make any new kills.

I have heard similar things about electronics and car engines but have less first-hand knowledge.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
How does that deal with the motor vehicle, the first manned flights, the steam locomotive - in fact the steam engine in the various uses to which it was put, the spinning jenny, the printing press? OK, maybe that is pre-capitalism, but none of the others is.

Of course, that does not deal with the question of what makes an invention worthwhile. Many inventions have led to an increase in wealth for some in society at the expense of the hard labour of many others. Are they worthwhile if they have led to an increase in general well-being? The motor vehicle has had great positive effects on many societies while still causing huge increases in air pollution and global warming. Has it been worthwhile?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There is something in this that is worth reflecting on and deserves more than our scorn.
I think we should probably start a new thread on this.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Which I have done.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I realise the plural of anecdotes isn't data
This is correct, but you don't seem to have applied it to your analysis.

quote:
The fundamental question is are the New Labour-ites who don't like Corbyn but have voted Labour for the last however many elections really going to jump ship over him? I can't see that happening, for all they might say that in anger now.
I disagree. I'm a New Labour voter gone ABC*, and I can assure you that's not going to change. However that's an even smaller sample size than you're using. So I'll just say that the voters who appear to have deserted Labour are probably also from the New Labour part of the spectrum.

For an analysis of recent Labour polling and results that is both neutral and hugely intelligent, try the 15 Aug article here.


*Anyone But Corbyn
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
Looks like Jeremy was stretching the truth a bit about having to sit on the floor of a crowded train...

BBC News
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Looks like Jeremy was stretching the truth a bit about having to sit on the floor of a crowded train...

BBC News
I've been made aware of this through other sources.

Corbyn wants to renationalise the railways. No one on the train in question can be found to gainsay his original comments. The journalist who did the original filming on the train has also commented.

I think we can probably guess why this story has popped up just when Labour members are receiving their ballot papers.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Corbyn wants to renationalise the railways. No one on the train in question can be found to gainsay his original comments. The journalist who did the original filming on the train has also commented.
Well something doesn't add up. The journalist whose comments you referred to, Charles Anthony, says that Mr Corbyn walked past reserved seats in the video and the footage of him taking a seat is after he filmed his video piece sitting in the corridor, after the train emptied.

But the video stills on the Telegraph website appear to show Mr Corbyn walking by unreserved seating before then going through a reserved carriage.

Mr Anthony has retweeted a claim that Mr Corbyn walked through all the standard carriages looking in vain for a seat, but the video doesn't appear to support that view.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Mr Anthony is also the co-author of the original Guardian article which is entitled "Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey" and says in the body of the piece:

quote:
Jeremy Corbyn, famed for standing up for his principles, sat down for them last week, along with 20 other seatless commuters on a three-hour train journey from London to Newcastle.
This rather suggests that Mr Corbyn sat for the whole journey, rather than 30-odd minutes (regardless of whether seats were available). Admittedly Mr Corbyn isn't responsible for the article.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Looks like Jeremy was stretching the truth a bit about having to sit on the floor of a crowded train...

BBC News
Indeed.
It is true that he may have sat for a short time on the floor - when he actually didn't need to: he could have taken a reserved seat that had been taken - but, the fact that he was subsequently shown to a seat should have removed any justification for him posting his party political broadcast later on. The broadcast which implied that he had spent the entire journey on the floor.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Not to me it didn't.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not to me it didn't.
When you saw the video and his little speech about it, you didn't think he was sat there for the whole journey?

In that case, knowing as you evidently do that he sat for the majority of the journey on a nice comfortable seat, can you tell us why he failed to mention it in a supplementary broadcast?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Of course not. Why? Other passengers substantiate his experience. The Virgin film does NOT show empty unreserved seats at the time he walked through. One of his travelling companions said that the seats which APPEAR empty because you can't see people's heads and shoulders above the backs of the seats and occluded fronts, had children in them.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed.
It is true that he may have sat for a short time on the floor - when he actually didn't need to: he could have taken a reserved seat that had been taken - but, the fact that he was subsequently shown to a seat should have removed any justification for him posting his party political broadcast later on. The broadcast which implied that he had spent the entire journey on the floor.
Quite. It's not earth-shaking that a politician would put a little gloss on the truth to make a political point, even a politician who seeks to portray himself as being above that sort of grubbiness. But it seems so typical that Jeremy Corbyn would do this (or, charitably, that he would neglect to correct a misleading statement given in his name) in circumstances where there was CCTV coverage and there were scores of people present, so that it was inevitable the gloss would rub off in no time at all.

Maybe there really weren't any empty seats when he first got on the train. Goodness knows I've stood in plenty of train corridors myself. But it certainly doesn't look like there weren't. And regardless, it doesn't matter now. Thirty minutes of photo opportunity is not three hours of cramped discomfort. His point is lost now in all the self-generated "noise".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Okay. Let's assume Corbyn's a lying liar from Lyington. There were plenty of unreserved seats, enough for everyone to sit down.

You might want to ask yourself about all the other passengers who were sitting in the corridors on the same train. But you'll probably come to the conclusion that that was also Corbyn's fault. Like Schrodinger's immigrant (simultaneously taking our job and claiming our benefits), we now have Corbyn's arse - simultaneously occupying all the seats and yet none of them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Just as well Corbyn wasn't sat in first class. All that comfort, space and complementary drinks and newspaper at public expense (cue: frothing at mouth).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just as well Corbyn wasn't sat in first class. All that comfort, space and complementary drinks and newspaper at public expense (cue: frothing at mouth).
You mean like Gideon did, on a second class ticket?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
we now have Corbyn's arse - simultaneously occupying all the seats and yet none of them.
I was hoping to get through the day without thinking about Jeremy Corbyn's nether regions.

Thanks, Doc.

(If you buy an advance purchase ticket on these trains, you automatically get a seat reservation. Your ticket is valid on any train, not just on the one you get the reservation for, so it's pretty common for reserved seats to go unfilled. If you're getting on at London (where the train starts) you'll find a large number of seats reserved from London to X, but not know which ones are actually going to be occupied until the train starts moving. So people hanging about standing/sitting in the lobbies isn't uncommon at the start of a journey.

In my youth, I made a lot of journeys on the floor of trains because I didn't find a seat immediately, and once I was settled on the floor it was too much hassle to hump my bags around looking for a seat.)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you're getting on at London (where the train starts) you'll find a large number of seats reserved from London to X, but not know which ones are actually going to be occupied until the train starts moving. So people hanging about standing/sitting in the lobbies isn't uncommon at the start of a journey.

In my youth, I made a lot of journeys on the floor of trains because I didn't find a seat immediately, and once I was settled on the floor it was too much hassle to hump my bags around looking for a seat.)
You and me both. This is almost exactly (according to Corbyn) what happened. He couldn't find a two-together with his missus, sat in the corridor with the others who couldn't find a seat, and after 40 mins or so into the journey, enough people had been shuffled around by the staff - unclaimed reserved seats and bumps into 1st class - that he was able to sit with his wife.

If you're going to call Corbyn a liar, you're calling a mum with two small kids a liar too. But they're just collateral damage in the rush to smear him.

Also, the Information Commissioner is reportedly interested in Virgin Train's 'use' of CCTV footage for blatantly political purposes.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(If you buy an advance purchase ticket on these trains, you automatically get a seat reservation. Your ticket is valid on any train, not just on the one you get the reservation.)
Not necessarily, it depends on the ticket. But even people on the right trains don't necessarily sit in their allocated seat.

P.S. I hate Pendolinos - so cramped. Give me a nice Mk.3 carriage any day.

[ 23. August 2016, 21:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay. Let's assume Corbyn's a lying liar from Lyington. There were plenty of unreserved seats, enough for everyone to sit down.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is almost exactly (according to Corbyn) what happened. He couldn't find a two-together with his missus
This rather mirrors how Mr Corbyn's narrative has developed. In the film he made on the train, he described the train as 'ram packed' whereas there were, it appears, seats available, but not the seats he wanted. Isn't that rather two different things?

[ 23. August 2016, 22:18: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Also, the Information Commissioner is reportedly interested in Virgin Train's 'use' of CCTV footage for blatantly political purposes.
That looked a bit dodgy to me, too - I was under the impression that the CCTV was there strictly for security purposes.

In partial defense of Virgin Trains on the "blatantly political" front, it was Mr. Corbyn who started this particular fight, so perhaps Virgin Trains using its own video of Mr. Corbyn on the train is a fair response to Mr. Corbyn's own video.

On the actual factual content part, the Virgin Trains images agree with the testimony of Mr. Corbyn and of the other passengers that the train was full. Virgin Trains are claiming "we were only 98% full, and we found Mr. Corbyn a seat half an hour into his journey". Some of the other passengers are claiming that the train was 102% full.

Anyone who travels on peak time services out of London knows that this is always true. The trains are always close to full, and if you don't have a reservation and don't arrive early, it is often difficult to find a seat.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In the film he made on the train, he described the train as 'ram packed' whereas there were, it appears, seats available, but not the seats he wanted. Isn't that rather two different things?
I'm not expecting you to explain that here, but I am expecting you to meditate on why all those other people who weren't Jeremy Corbyn were also preferring to sit in a corridor rather than take one of any number of apparently empty seats.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I've used to regularly get on the virgin train to Newcastle. It was usually completely packed all the way up to Birmingham, and North of York became fairly comfortable.

I'm no fan of Corbyn's but it seems crazy that we can't cope with the idea that train could be packed at one point and not at another.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
He certainly looked like he was enjoying himself there on the floor - having a bit of a smile and a chuckle.

I have often sat on a Virgin floor from London to Manchester (my dentist is in London [Roll Eyes] )

But, more often than not, I am then upgraded to first class when the staff walk through. Seems fair enough to me.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This public transport blog may be apposite ...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Anyone who travels on peak time services out of London knows that this is always true. The trains are always close to full, and if you don't have a reservation and don't arrive early, it is often difficult to find a seat.
Even when you have a booked seat, and also on off peak trains, the start of the journey is regularly spent finding your booked seat and persuading the person already sitting in it that it is reserved for you.

I've ended up standing on occasion even on the right train with an advance ticket because the person in my booked seat was not moving.

It's not helped by the reservation system on some trains that doesn't use those white tickets on the back of the seats but instead the indicator is in a little electronic screen on the side of the train above the seats. People sometimes board before that system is switched on.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

The hosts may have failed to stop the US Presidential Election thread descending into a discussion of the Gallipoli campaign, but are keen by way of penitence to stop this thread descending into a train discussion.

Thank you for your cooperation.

/hosting
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay. Let's assume Corbyn's a lying liar from Lyington. There were plenty of unreserved seats, enough for everyone to sit down.

You might want to ask yourself about all the other passengers who were sitting in the corridors on the same train. But you'll probably come to the conclusion that that was also Corbyn's fault. Like Schrodinger's immigrant (simultaneously taking our job and claiming our benefits), we now have Corbyn's arse - simultaneously occupying all the seats and yet none of them.
I don't know (nor do I much care) whether he really did walk past a lot of available seats before parking himself on the floor for the length of time it took to make a good photo op. The pictures Virgin released certainly looked like that, but they could be misleading for all I know.

The original story he released of spending a three hour journey squatting on the floor clearly was untrue though, and he knew it, but he didn't correct it until Virgin's tweeting forced his hand. In principle though "politician fibs" isn't exactly news.

But it IS newsworthy in two respects. First, Jeremy Corbyn has made a unique selling point of his integrity and principles, the fact that he doesn't do grubby traditional politics. Except, apparently, when he does.

Secondly it speaks to the whole competence issue. Trains are often genuinely packed solid so that there would be absolutely no question of people being shuffled around and freeing up some seats after 30 minutes or so. If he had wanted to make a point with that sort of photo op he could have caught any one of several thousand trains on any day of the week and been assured of having to stand photogenically squashed into a corner with no fear of contradiction.

And then there's the question of whether that sort of publicity actually does make his point anyway. I'm old enough (as is Jeremy Corbyn) to know that in the days of nationalised railways he would have been at least as likely then as now to have had to stand in a corridor of an overcrowded train. The train might well have been too old and too filthy to sit down on the floor though.

There IS a good case to be made for re-nationalising the railways. But even if he'd gone about securing his corridor photos with sufficient thought and basic competence to avoid losing his message in all this noise, this wasn't a plausible way to make it.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

But it IS newsworthy in two respects. First, Jeremy Corbyn has made a unique selling point of his integrity and principles, the fact that he doesn't do grubby traditional politics. Except, apparently, when he does.

I dare say if Jeremy Corbyn had accepted a seat in first class and any pictures had got out lots of people would have called him a hypocrite and made out that he paid for first class or felt entitled or heaven knows what else. And that would be have been unfair politicking. So I think that it's perfectly reasonable for him to put himself in the worst possible place on a train to avoid anyone having that stick to beat him with.

What's dodgy, as Pottage says, is that Jeremy Corbyn has made himself out to be better than politicking and then deliberately had his picture taken on the floor and used it for political ends. If someone had by chance taken a photo of him sitting on the floor he would have got credit for being a man of the people and his policy would have gained weight.

It's unfair that Corbyn is held to higher standards of conduct than the newspapers but equally he's made a big thing of having higher standards. And on this occasion, he blew it.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
One might have thought his press team would have asked themselves 'I wonder if Virgin will challenge this story?' Given that, aside from any Establishment concerns about nationalisation, he is basically calling their service crap.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've used to regularly get on the virgin train to Newcastle. It was usually completely packed all the way up to Birmingham, and North of York became fairly comfortable.

I'm no fan of Corbyn's but it seems crazy that we can't cope with the idea that train could be packed at one point and not at another.
The implication was that Jeremy had to sit on the floor for the whole journey - this was shown to be untrue.

Also, I don't see a reason why he couldn't upgrade to first class? If he paid for it out of his own pocket, then why not?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
The implication was that Jeremy had to sit on the floor for the whole journey - this was shown to be untrue.
This is, IIRC, what the press said. Corbyn didn't.

quote:
Also, I don't see a reason why he couldn't upgrade to first class? If he paid for it out of his own pocket, then why not?
Don't you see a reason? Really?

Corbyn abandons principles to sit in plush first class

Workers' champion upgrades himself, leaves ordinary travellers sitting on floor

First class Corbyn unfit to lead, says Smith

And now?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nationalizing the railways is one of the reasons I supported Jeremy a year ago. Well played that man. He's got to top that with a massive rent to buy scheme of course. That Sadiq can implement in 2025. Unless May has a Thatcher moment and realises that would guarantee her reputation and One Nation Tory government for a generation.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Corbyn has now done a press conference in which he has admitted

"Yes, I did walk through the train. Yes, I did look for two empty seats together so I could sit down with my wife, to talk to her. That wasn't possible so I went to the end of the train."

Not being able to sit next to someone isn't very surprising. It's even less surprising that a large proportion of his press conference got hijacked by it, and that he got pissed about it.

I like some of Corbyn's ideas, but this episode inevitably just gives material for people who are already thinking "what the hell was he thinking"...
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
The implication was that Jeremy had to sit on the floor for the whole journey - this was shown to be untrue.
This is, IIRC, what the press said. Corbyn didn't.
This was a press release though, wasn't it. There were no reporters on the train. The Guardian reported this because Jeremy Corbyn or his immediate team sent them the video and some nice quotes. The report was misleading. It gave the impression that he had spent the entire trip in the corridor, not that he had sat there for about as long as necessary to get some pictures and then retired to a comfy seat for two and a half hours. Having stood in train corridors for hours myself plenty of times, I wouldn't have known that the story was just so much spin if Virgin hadn't challenged him.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've used to regularly get on the virgin train to Newcastle. It was usually completely packed all the way up to Birmingham, and North of York became fairly comfortable.

I'm no fan of Corbyn's but it seems crazy that we can't cope with the idea that train could be packed at one point and not at another.
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
The implication was that Jeremy had to sit on the floor for the whole journey - this was shown to be untrue.
I don't see that implication is necessary to make the point he made, and I don't see anything attributed directly to Corbyn that carries that implication.

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Also, I don't see a reason why he couldn't upgrade to first class? If he paid for it out of his own pocket, then why not?
I bet even Corbyn's ham-fisted press team can spot the likely outcome of that one.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
This was a press release though, wasn't it. There were no reporters on the train. The Guardian reported this because Jeremy Corbyn or his immediate team sent them the video and some nice quotes.
The headline is misleading. Without seeing the press release that led to that title it's hard to say how much was unwarranted assumption. I hardly think it is fair to describe the story as "so much spin" given that he really didn't have a seat for a fair length of time and that is an extremely common experience.

(For the record you'll see upthread that I wouldn't vote Corbyn - and by the way I wouldn't renationalize the trains either. But one has to be fair to the opposition.)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm not sure who benefits from this drip drip drip of smears against Corbyn - presumably, the Smith camp thinks that it does. For me, it makes the whole Labour party look sleazy and unpalatable. If this is the way that their leader is treated by those against him, why would you want them in power, whoever the leader is?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Because in politics there is no pure-as-the-driven-snow option. It's all about the least bad.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Because in politics there is no pure-as-the-driven-snow option. It's all about the least bad.
Fair enough. It just makes Labour look like a kind of minor Mafia. Votes gerrymandered, branch meetings closed down, non-stop smears against Corbyn.

I understand that the Corbyn people would say that Labour can be cleansed of this muck. Really? I remember it 50 years ago like this, and it looks no better.

[ 24. August 2016, 12:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The alternative is the major mafia.

Also it's probably a leap to think that Smith and team is behind all of this. After all, the smear campaign was in full swing well before the leadership challenge.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
This was a press release though, wasn't it. There were no reporters on the train. The Guardian reported this because Jeremy Corbyn or his immediate team sent them the video and some nice quotes.
The headline is misleading. Without seeing the press release that led to that title it's hard to say how much was unwarranted assumption. I hardly think it is fair to describe the story as "so much spin" given that he really didn't have a seat for a fair length of time and that is an extremely common experience.

(For the record you'll see upthread that I wouldn't vote Corbyn - and by the way I wouldn't renationalize the trains either. But one has to be fair to the opposition.)
That's a fair point. Perhaps the Guardian headline made more of it than the release sent to them by Team Corbyn.

I wouldn't vote for him either if I were a Labour party member but this business about the train journey, as amusing as it is, wouldn't be one of the reasons for that. It is a modest example of Jeremy Corbyn's incompetence (which IS one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him), and it's a useful reminder that he isn't a saintly figure, he's not materially different from all the other politicians. But that's pretty much it.

I'm open minded about re-nationalising the railways, but what would make my mind up would be a factual analysis of how that might affect the service, the cost, the staff and the passengers over time. That the trains are often overcrowded is an everyday experience for most people, like me, who regularly use them. But it was before privatisation as well. By and large the trains then were also less frequent, less punctual and less well maintained than they are now, but arguably those are all things that could be addressed by a re-nationalisation that didn't attempt to recreate the status quo ante.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The alternative is the major mafia.

Also it's probably a leap to think that Smith and team is behind all of this. After all, the smear campaign was in full swing well before the leadership challenge.
I think Smith is the patsy. But I doubt if he is organizing the smears and other stuff. It's like lifting a big stone in the garden, and seeing unpalatable things beneath.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The PLP should remember Scotland. Kezia Dugdale's comments on electability were amusing, in the light of Scottish Labour's recent performance, but there is a cautionary tale here.

If the PLP keep on with their sleazy tactics, who's to say that there won't be a mass turning away from Labour in disgust, whoever the leader is?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The alternative is the major mafia.

Also it's probably a leap to think that Smith and team is behind all of this. After all, the smear campaign was in full swing well before the leadership challenge.
The academics at the LSE (report here - PDF) have written about this. Their conclusion?

quote:
The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.
I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement.

As to why, which is a more interesting topic, I have theories. I'm sure you do too.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
He's 67 I believe. Why hasn't he retired? When can we hope he will do so?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He's 67 I believe. Why hasn't he retired? When can we hope he will do so?
Hillary Clinton's 68. Why hasn't she retired? Why should she? What are you on about?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The alternative is the major mafia.

Also it's probably a leap to think that Smith and team is behind all of this. After all, the smear campaign was in full swing well before the leadership challenge.
The academics at the LSE (report here - PDF) have written about this. Their conclusion?

quote:
The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.
I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement.

As to why, which is a more interesting topic, I have theories. I'm sure you do too.
I think one thing that has shocked people on the left has been the role of the Guardian. Well, if you go back to the first leadership contest, the Guardian published almost daily negative stuff on Corbyn, partly from their roster of columnists, such as Jonathan Freedland, Polly Toynbee, and so on.

Now it is happening again, with the second contest. Well, I think this is naive really. Did anyone really think that the Guardian was on the left? I suppose they are gunning for the Return of the Blairites, along the lines of Nightmare on Elm St, II, Tony's Revenge.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm used to the Murdoch press and Daily Mail attempting (and succeeding) to destroy every Labour leader (except one) in the last 30 years and their political stances are obvious.

I'm less used to the BBC and the Guardian joining in. It's a disgrace, and to tell the truth I suspect it wasn't necessary. I'm slightly bereft of theories that make sense to tell the truth.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It just depresses me. I admire Corbyn, but when you think what is against him, bloody hell. The Tories, most of the media, his own PLP. There will be some interesting books written on this in the next decades, but not by me. Politics is in the sewer. I can't see any way back.

[ 24. August 2016, 15:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Could it be the belief amongst the centre of the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is bringing back a Trotskyite agenda and giving access for a Trotskyite invasion, as expressed by Margaret Hodge and Tom Watson and refuted in this Guardian article

That and the current involvement of Militant (Tendency).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could it be the belief amongst the centre of the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is bringing back a Trotskyite agenda and giving access for a Trotskyite invasion, as expressed by Margaret Hodge and Tom Watson and refuted in this Guardian article

That and the current involvement of Militant (Tendency).
Those who consider themselves as the 'centre' need to recalibrate themselves in a party which emphatically rejected the more Blairite candidates and elected Corbyn with a huge majority. I'd contend that the centre of a Labour party with 500,000+ members has shifted significantly over the last 12 months.

And 'belief' is probably the best way to describe the alleged Trotskyite invasion. Even if every Trot in the country joined the the LP, they'd now be but a drop in the ocean.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could it be the belief amongst the centre of the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is bringing back a Trotskyite agenda and giving access for a Trotskyite invasion, as expressed by Margaret Hodge and Tom Watson and refuted in this Guardian article

That and the current involvement of Militant (Tendency).
What on earth is a Trotskyite agenda? Presumably, this refers to fiscal stimulus, as carried out by Obama.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
That allegation of a Trotskyite Invasion seems to be what the centre left of the PLP believe and why they are acting to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn by fair means or foul. If that is the scuttlebutt in the Westminster bubble, it might explain the support of the Press. A very ideological pitch to dispose of the troublesome priest, and all that.

I think it's pretty scary that we're so far down the neoliberal agenda and the right of capitalism and market forces to reign supreme that a fairly moderate leftist manifesto is being seen as so radical.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quetzalcoatl - Trotskyite Invasion is a quotation from an interview with Margaret Hodge last week and Trotskyite Agenda was a quotation from the Guardian link. It is what is being said within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That allegation of a Trotskyite Invasion seems to be what the centre left of the PLP believe and why they are acting to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn by fair means or foul. If that is the scuttlebutt in the Westminster bubble, it might explain the support of the Press. A very ideological pitch to dispose of the troublesome priest, and all that.

I think it's pretty scary that we're so far down the neoliberal agenda and the right of capitalism and market forces to reign supreme that a fairly moderate leftist manifesto is being seen as so radical.
Well, yes, social democracy itself is being impugned, since that's how I see Corbyn. As to why this is now intolerable, when it was a kind of consensus after the war - is troubling to think about. How far to the right can we go? It depends partly on how you see Brexit.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm used to the Murdoch press and Daily Mail attempting (and succeeding) to destroy every Labour leader (except one) in the last 30 years and their political stances are obvious.

I'm less used to the BBC and the Guardian joining in. It's a disgrace, and to tell the truth I suspect it wasn't necessary. I'm slightly bereft of theories that make sense to tell the truth.
Chatting with a friend about this, who said that the right wing are determined to crush Corbyn, who represents social democracy, or the postwar consensus. So the so-called liberal media such as the BBC and the Guardian are being recruited for this, ditto the PLP (or sections of it).

I don't know if this is true - it sounds paranoid, on the other hand, it sounds plausible.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Young people are far less swayed by newspapers or the BBC.

We'll see what happens.

Why do the Right hate social democracy so much?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Young people are far less swayed by newspapers or the BBC.

We'll see what happens.

Why do the Right hate social democracy so much?
I think humans oscillate between individual greed and collective welfare. After the war, there was a strong mood for the latter, expressed via social democracy, but also One Nation Toryism, but 30 years later, this began to fray, and we got the celebration of the entrepreneur. Today there seems to be a contest! But of course, the right wing have the wealth, the media, and so on. I must admit that it scares me.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Chatting with a friend about this, who said that the right wing are determined to crush Corbyn, who represents social democracy, or the postwar consensus. So the so-called liberal media such as the BBC and the Guardian are being recruited for this, ditto the PLP (or sections of it).
What is "the right wing" and how does it (whatever it is) recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Same reason the British Left hates everybody to the right of Harold Macmillan?

xposted with quetlcoatl and Anglican't

[ 24. August 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He's 67 I believe. Why hasn't he retired? When can we hope he will do so?
Hillary Clinton's 68. Why hasn't she retired? Why should she? What are you on about?
US politics and the US retirement age aren't relevant to this thread. How about trying to answer my question? In 5 years time this man will be 72. Suppose by some extraordinary fluke he wins the next election. His period of office wouldn't end until he is 77. Do you seriously think he would cope with the rigours of the job by that age? Is there not a retirement age for MPs, as for everybody else?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Chatting with a friend about this, who said that the right wing are determined to crush Corbyn, who represents social democracy, or the postwar consensus. So the so-called liberal media such as the BBC and the Guardian are being recruited for this, ditto the PLP (or sections of it).
What is "the right wing" and how does it (whatever it is) recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper?
As far as the BBC is concerned we only have to look at Birtism, when the majority of production was outsourced (with no perceptible improvements in quality or cost savings). As far as newspapers are concerned one only has to look at the political allegiences of newspaper owners and editors.

Generally though, in response to "What is 'the right wing'?" the only valid response is that given when someone asks what jazz music is.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Is there not a retirement age for MPs, as for everybody else?
There isn't a retirement age for everybody else any more, although compulsory retirement at a certain age is less illegal in the UK than it is in the US.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Generally though, in response to "What is 'the right wing'?" the only valid response is that given when someone asks what jazz music is.
In his foreword to The Russia House, John Le Carré said of jazz players

"if such men would only run the world I would have no more conflicts to write about".

[ 24. August 2016, 17:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What is "the right wing" and how does it (whatever it is) recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper?
The right wing is clearly everyone to the right of me. Duh.

How they recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper is by (in the case of the BBC) threaten its income stream and then are appeased by key appointments in the news room, who then go on to give the Conservatives an easy ride and lots of exposure. Nick Robinson was chair of the Young Conservatives, Andrew Neil is chair of the Spectator magazine, Kamal Ahmed was a Sunday Telegraph reporter, Laura Kuenssberg...

The Guardian? I have absolutely no idea what they're up to. I think it makes a lie out of the 'trendy lefty Islington' set running things there, because surely Corbyn - being an Islington MP - is part of that. Perhaps he's determined to make the Graun pay tax, or something. A lot - judging on the BtL comments - are really very cross about the Guardian's treatment of Corbyn.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The Guardian? I have absolutely no idea what they're up to. I think it makes a lie out of the 'trendy lefty Islington' set running things there, because surely Corbyn - being an Islington MP - is part of that.
Ah, but he's the wrong kind of Islington MP, and the wrong kind of trendy.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What is "the right wing" and how does it (whatever it is) recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper?
The right wing is clearly everyone to the right of me. Duh.
But what are we talking about here? Are we talking about a cabal of people? Or is 'the right wing' just a euphemism for Tory politicians or the government or what? We're talking about a group of people who can, apparently, wield enormous power but I'm not really sure who we're talking about.

quote:
How they recruit a major broadcaster and a national newspaper is by (in the case of the BBC) threaten its income stream and then are appeased by key appointments in the news room, who then go on to give the Conservatives an easy ride and lots of exposure. Nick Robinson was chair of the Young Conservatives, Andrew Neil is chair of the Spectator magazine, Kamal Ahmed was a Sunday Telegraph reporter, Laura Kuenssberg...
You think Andrew Neil is soft on Tory politicians? Really? And Laura Kuennsberg is a professional journalist. Are you suggesting she is somehow incompetent or biased in that role?
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just depresses me. I admire Corbyn, but when you think what is against him, bloody hell. The Tories, most of the media, his own PLP. There will be some interesting books written on this in the next decades, but not by me. Politics is in the sewer. I can't see any way back.
This is how I feel. I despair. Politics is in the sewer indeed, and the hatred and deliberate undermining of a decent man never seems to end. The bile shown towards Corbyn by Labour MPs and some members/supporters is worse and more venom-filled than that shown towards Cameron, but why?

No amount of 'incompetence' warrants the treatment he receives. Boris gets a sort of 'oh, boys will be boys' attitude for his spectacular incompetence, and Corbyn is pretty much accused of being Beelzebub whatever he does or says.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just depresses me. I admire Corbyn, but when you think what is against him, bloody hell. The Tories, most of the media, his own PLP. There will be some interesting books written on this in the next decades, but not by me. Politics is in the sewer. I can't see any way back.
This is how I feel. I despair. Politics is in the sewer indeed, and the hatred and deliberate undermining of a decent man never seems to end. The bile shown towards Corbyn by Labour MPs and some members/supporters is worse and more venom-filled than that shown towards Cameron, but why?

No amount of 'incompetence' warrants the treatment he receives. Boris gets a sort of 'oh, boys will be boys' attitude for his spectacular incompetence, and Corbyn is pretty much accused of being Beelzebub whatever he does or says.
I thought that some in the PLP would prefer Cameron to Corbyn. Didn't Blair make a speech along those lines? Not just that Corbyn is not electable, but should not be elected at all.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:


As to why [the smears against Corbyn], which is a more interesting topic, I have theories. I'm sure you do too.
Maybe because the incompetence of Mr Corbyn's press team is without precedent?
quote:

Those who consider themselves as the 'centre' need to recalibrate themselves in a party which emphatically rejected the more Blairite candidates and elected Corbyn with a huge majority. I'd contend that the centre of a Labour party with 500,000+ members has shifted significantly over the last 12 months.
They have recalibrated, hence their support for a candidate who wants rail renationalisation and massive infrastructure spending.

But MPs are answerable to VOTERS, not just party members, and I see no evidence that their constituents have swung significantly to the left. The Corbynistas' belief that only their own vote counts as democratic is somewhat troubling. It is almost as though they regarded themselves as some kind of revolutionary vanguard ...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
How about trying to answer my question?
Only by ignoring your blatant ageism, yes, okay. [Disappointed]
quote:
In 5 years time this man will be 72. Suppose by some extraordinary fluke he wins the next election. His period of office wouldn't end until he is 77. Do you seriously think he would cope with the rigours of the job by that age?
Do I seriously think that? Unless you have a hotline to his GP and know otherwise, yes. Lots of people - a very great number of people - have busy, active lives deep into what we used to consider old age.

So, knock yourself out explaining how recently-elected Nigerian president Buhari is incapable at 73, or Aung San Suu Kyi at 71 (or Burma's president at 70), Portia Simpson-Millar (Jamaican leader of the opposition, 70), or indeed the aforementioned Hillary Clinton or her Democratic rival Bernie (74) are unfit for office.

Or are you simply now clutching at straws?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The Corbynistas' belief that only their own vote counts as democratic is somewhat troubling.
I think you'll find that's the PLP and the NEC...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
You think Andrew Neil is soft on Tory politicians? Really? And Laura Kuennsberg is a professional journalist. Are you suggesting she is somehow incompetent or biased in that role?
There is some evidence in aggregate that there is a bias: https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 and there is the general danger in groupthink when everyone at a particular level of a corporation is of a certain ideological stripe.

Furthermore, the bias extends further than political ideology. Take the ever present 'Adam Smith Institute' - regularly featured, without its biases ever being examined, explained or necessarily balanced out.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, knock yourself out explaining how recently-elected Nigerian president Buhari is incapable at 73, or Aung San Suu Kyi at 71 (or Burma's president at 70), Portia Simpson-Millar (Jamaican leader of the opposition, 70), or indeed the aforementioned Hillary Clinton or her Democratic rival Bernie (74) are unfit for office.
I didn't say they were incapable. I just said I had doubts about anyone of that age coping with the rigours of the job. You need to be robust to cope with all the short-notice long-distance travel, the social functions and dinners, the ceremonies, the emergencies and all the meetings and summits and appearances in the House of Commons. The British and US heads of state possibly have a more active role in those respects than than the Jamaican and Burmese. You need to be physically fit and energetic to sustain it day in, day out for five years.

And I could be wrong but I doubt that the social side of things is Corbyn's natural home.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I didn't say they were incapable. I just said I had doubts about anyone of that age coping with the rigours of the job.
Considering how many meetings, often open air, he's done in the Referendum and his two almost back-to-back elections, I opine that your doubts amount to little than yet more smears.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Considering how many meetings, often open air, he's done in the Referendum and his two almost back-to-back elections, I opine that your doubts amount to little than yet more smears.
Lots of international travel and ceremonies as well? Excellent.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Considering how many meetings, often open air, he's done in the Referendum and his two almost back-to-back elections, I opine that your doubts amount to little than yet more smears.
Lots of international travel and ceremonies as well? Excellent.
Well, remember how he needed Cameron's mum's advice on how to dress for state occasions? Or did you conveniently forget that he's Leader of HM Opposition? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, remember how he needed Cameron's mum's advice on how to dress for state occasions? Or did you conveniently forget that he's Leader of HM Opposition? [Roll Eyes]
These were held abroad, were they?

He can call himself what he wants. He may be nominally Leader of the Opposition, but the Opposition is in a very sorry state because of him.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He can call himself what he wants.
No, that's his official title. That's what he is. Perhaps it's parliamentary democracy you have a problem with? I mean, how dare someone be elected an MP and then the leader of the second largest party at Westminster without consulting you first...

( [Roll Eyes] )
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The Corbynistas' belief that only their own vote counts as democratic is somewhat troubling.
I think you'll find that's the PLP and the NEC...
I will admit that, in the light of stories such as this one (Labour still not managed to sort out security for its September conference), it is possible that Iain McNicol may have exceeded Mr Corbyn in the incompetence stakes.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm used to the Murdoch press and Daily Mail attempting (and succeeding) to destroy every Labour leader (except one) in the last 30 years and their political stances are obvious.

I'm less used to the BBC and the Guardian joining in. It's a disgrace, and to tell the truth I suspect it wasn't necessary. I'm slightly bereft of theories that make sense to tell the truth.
Accusations of massive media bias against a 'different kind' of politician who refuses to play the normal political game, refuses to compromise to get his party politicians on board, and has political views some way away from the mainstream?

Now where have I heard that before?

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
[QUOTE]Boris gets a sort of 'oh, boys will be boys' attitude for his spectacular incompetence, and Corbyn is pretty much accused of being Beelzebub whatever he does or says.
The reasons Boris gets a bye unlike JC are
(a) Boris plays the media and JC disdains such things.
(b) JC can't even discuss nationalising the railways without being monumentally incompetent*, and reporting incompetence is the right thing for the press to do. Whereas Boris was a too-competent Brexit campaigner after being a highly competent Mayor.


*And I'm particularly annoyed on this latest bit of incompetence, because I think nationalising the railways is a good idea. By saying a supposedly packed train is a good example of a failing system he wants to fix, he undermined the case for nationalisation because he got it wrong.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Accusations of massive media bias against a 'different kind' of politician who refuses to play the normal political game, refuses to compromise to get his party politicians on board, and has political views some way away from the mainstream?

Now where have I heard that before?
I don't know.

[ 24. August 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Whereas Boris was a too-competent Brexit campaigner after being a highly competent Mayor.
I would not have described Boris as highly competent myself. There was apparently some good stuff done, but also too many eyecatching follies (a cable car, the garden bridge, the new routemasters).
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I'm particularly annoyed on this latest bit of incompetence, because I think nationalising the railways is a good idea. By saying a supposedly packed train is a good example of a failing system he wants to fix, he undermined the case for nationalisation because he got it wrong.
I disagree that he has been at all incompetent on this issue. The train was packed; there may have been one or two separate unreserved seats available but I see nothing wrong with wanting two seats together and sitting on the floor in that instance. Clearly other passengers had done the same and have stated as such. Corbyn may be incompetent in some matters and not the best of leaders but this has been blown up out of all proportion and has yet again sullied his reputation - in my opinion completely unjustly.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Now where have I heard that before?
Probably said about Hitler too but I doubt that's an appropriate parallel either.

I think it is pretty clear that the media really does have it in for Corbyn. There was an independent study quoted up the thread which provided quantitative data in support of this.

The parallel with Trump is a bit like sneering at any defendant in the dock that "they all claim innocence don't they?".

Where there is a parallel with Trump is the pattern of having very strong support by constituency groups, but almost no support in the party and weak support in the mainstream of the Country as a whole. I'd also see a parallel in the appeal to rather simplistic solutions, but there the parallels end. Corbyn is an honourable man, whatever one thinks about his competence as leader, and his attempts to articulate a political vision, ham-fisted as they are, are genuine attempts and not simply hubristic narcissism.

It's a very unfair comparison in that sense.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Young people are far less swayed by newspapers or the BBC.
Unfortunately they are too small a demographic to make a difference, as shown by Brexit where they voted strongly for remain but were out-voted by those over 40. Although the heartening thing is that this implies that as they 15-35 year old cohort grow up the power of the Murdoch/Dacre press (or whatever takes their place) will dwindle.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He can call himself what he wants.
No, that's his official title. That's what he is. Perhaps it's parliamentary democracy you have a problem with? I mean, how dare someone be elected an MP and then the leader of the second largest party at Westminster without consulting you first...
I have no idea how you jumped to that and I think you’re getting disproportionately personal.

Very few hard left voters want to believe that Corbyn is anything other than a living saint and a model to us all, and if only we would open our eyes we would see the glory that is Jeremy and be converted. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. I can't take him seriously as "Leader of the Opposition" when the opposition is in such a mess, basically because of him, and also because of the way he's conducted himself since he got in. The man has been a backbench rebel for years. That's what he's best at – not in the front line, not as a potential head of state or a leader. I also consider him untrustworthy. We will have to disagree on that.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
According to this morning's Guardian (which might now be discredited as part of a shadowy right-wing nexus, it's hard to keep up) as the train story was building on Tuesday it became difficult to reach Mr Corbyn as he was busy making jam.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
As a LibDem supporter I have a great deal of time for what Corbyn is saying and stands for. However I don't think that he has shown himself to be a good enough leader of the Parliamentary Party, and his conduct in the Brexit campaign appears to have been woeful, even if that was simply because he doesn't seem to have the now-necessary gift of massaging the media.

On the wider level, I think Labour have the problem they have faced ever since Michael Foot's days: they can remain true to their left-wing roots and be unelectable, or they can move to the centre and get into power. To my mind Tony Blair - admittedly standing against a divided and incoherent Tory party - succeeded in the latter, but only by disguising fairly right-wing notions in language which seemed to say something rather different.

What Labour needs to do s reinvent itself as a Socialist party which understands and challenges on its own terms the twenty-first century environment of cyber-business, insecure and often unorganised labour, the power of the international markets and so on, rather than returning to a model suited to a long-gone past. I'm sure that there must be many politicians who recognise this; but in my opinion no-one seems to have come up with a coherent and attractive model.

(Labour also have the huge problem of the loss of their Scottish seats; somehow they have to demonstrate that they are not irremediably London-centric, as they wait for the SNP to implode or shoot itself in the foot).
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
According to this morning's Guardian (which might now be discredited as part of a shadowy right-wing nexus, it's hard to keep up) as the train story was building on Tuesday it became difficult to reach Mr Corbyn as he was busy making jam.
... to bring with him on his next train trip, so as to be able to say truthfully that the train was jam-packed?

[ 25. August 2016, 07:57: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
You think Andrew Neil is soft on Tory politicians? Really? And Laura Kuennsberg is a professional journalist. Are you suggesting she is somehow incompetent or biased in that role?
There is some evidence in aggregate that there is a bias: https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 and there is the general danger in groupthink when everyone at a particular level of a corporation is of a certain ideological stripe.

Furthermore, the bias extends further than political ideology. Take the ever present 'Adam Smith Institute' - regularly featured, without its biases ever being examined, explained or necessarily balanced out.
My experience is somewhat different. Just the other day I heard someone being introduced as being from the Adam Smith Institute, I instinctively knew that there would be another contributor to balance him out. There was, a trade union official. He disappointed me slightly as I felt a 'left of centre' academic could have made the debate more interesting and challenged the ideas better.

I think this claim of BBC bias is massively overdone. Yes there may be a little but the rigorous (non-partisan) studies I have come across have found the discrepancies not that great. Now factor in how problematic it has often been to get a Corbyn representative* and that seems to explain most of the problem. In the end Corbyn's team have got to learn how to use the BBC because one thing is sure they give him a much fairer hearing than Fox News would or a Daily Mail funded broadcaster.

*This has been acknowledged by some of his natural allies - Owen Jones.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Although the heartening thing is that this implies that as they 15-35 year old cohort grow up the power of the Murdoch/Dacre press (or whatever takes their place) will dwindle.
Don't hold your breath. Remember the hippies and all their peace and love stuff that surely presaged a new kind of politics once the older generation died out? They're now the conservative, right-wing, politically-dominant generation.

Youthful idealism seldom survives contact with the real world.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm 50, and I'm far more left wing now than I was in my twenties. (I was a paid-up member of the SDP, FFS).

I think my youthful idealism involved thinking that people were basically decent and wanted the best for everyone. Then, as Marvin says, I encountered the real world...
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
According to this morning's Guardian (which might now be discredited as part of a shadowy right-wing nexus, it's hard to keep up) as the train story was building on Tuesday it became difficult to reach Mr Corbyn as he was busy making jam.
... to bring with him on his next train trip, so as to be able to say truthfully that the train was jam-packed?
No doubt that Mr Corbyn will come to a sticky end, either at the hand of the party members, or more likely the electorate in 2020.

More seriously though, I have no problem with any of the aspirations Corbyn has expressed as desirable aims. the problem is that he shows no ability to work those into policies which will be appealing to the wider electorate, or enough of it in the right places to get Labour a majority at the next election. Upthread, someone described his pub;lic image as being a dissenter from the party line on votes which he thought of as matters of principle. Not a bad way for him to have ended his career, rather than the one which he will have.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The LSE survey starts by contrasting the number of stories run whose sources are in Mr Corbyn's camp versus those that aren't. It concludes that the media disproportionately use non-Corbyn sources. But surely that just reflects the fact, acknowledged even by his supporters, that Mr Corbyn's media team are crap at putting stories out?

ISTM that the attacks on Mr Corbyn are not significantly more vicious than those on Mr Cameron's Old Etonian background and porcine relations, but Mr Cameron was rather better at getting out positive stories to balance them.

(I also note that the survey claims to show that Mr Corbyn is more smeared than other leader, but does not in fact provide comparable figures for any other leader.)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Youthful idealism seldom survives contact with the real world.
Oh I doubt they'll all become Labour voters who think like me. But what is heartening is that they aren't in the pocket of the Daily Mail and the Sun. Many will reject socialism and/or Centre-Left politics but I doubt they will go off-line and drop their habit of getting news from multiple online sources.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The LSE survey starts by contrasting the number of stories run whose sources are in Mr Corbyn's camp versus those that aren't. It concludes that the media disproportionately use non-Corbyn sources. But surely that just reflects the fact, acknowledged even by his supporters, that Mr Corbyn's media team are crap at putting stories out?

ISTM that the attacks on Mr Corbyn are not significantly more vicious than those on Mr Cameron's Old Etonian background and porcine relations, but Mr Cameron was rather better at getting out positive stories to balance them.

(I also note that the survey claims to show that Mr Corbyn is more smeared than other leader, but does not in fact provide comparable figures for any other leader.)
Maybe people accept that those of certain classes that includes most Old Etoniand are supposed to have, umm, a colourful past while the same behaviour isn't tolerated amongst the lower orders?

It's rather like the way hooliganism is treated differently in the Officers' Mess as opposed to the NAAFI bar, Corporals' Club and Sergeants' Mess.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
If the sort of coverage we got during the pig-fucking thing had been sustained that might be a fair comparison but it wasn't. The wall-to-wall, day-in-day-out constant hammering of dangerous, terrorist-loving, incompetence that Corbyn gets doesn't seem remotely comparable.

Having said that I do think that there are signs Corbyn has problems running a party and communicating with his colleagues. Seeing it as a relentless smear-campaign doesn't mean there might not be some truth in some of it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the sort of coverage we got during the pig-fucking thing had been sustained that might be a fair comparison but it wasn't. The wall-to-wall, day-in-day-out constant hammering of dangerous, terrorist-loving, incompetence that Corbyn gets doesn't seem remotely comparable.

Having said that I do think that there are signs Corbyn has problems running a party and communicating with his colleagues. Seeing it as a relentless smear-campaign doesn't mean there might not be some truth in some of it.
There's certainly a communication problem, but communication is a two-way street. If the Blairites are bitter over none of their choices getting elected how much of that can be Jeremy Corbyn's fault?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I wouldn't have called electoral victory a communications problem. I'm talking about all the examples linked to up the thread of PLP members finding him impossible to work with - having policy made on the cuff, finding themselves unsure of whether they were in a shadow cabinet post or not, and working in committees that he didn't attend.

And I repeat my point that democracy is not just about winning an election - you also have to win the peace afterwards.

I think quetzelcoatl was right when he said Corbyn had a completely impossible task with everything against him. However it does seem to me he had a narrow window of opportunity to develop some consensus and win some elements of the PLP over. He doesn't seem to have taken it.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the sort of coverage we got during the pig-fucking thing had been sustained that might be a fair comparison but it wasn't. The wall-to-wall, day-in-day-out constant hammering of dangerous, terrorist-loving, incompetence that Corbyn gets doesn't seem remotely comparable.
But it presumably can't be compared because the story about the pig was I) a single-source story that was, I think, based on a rumour II) a one-off if it was true III) probably unlikely to be true anyway since it concerned an initiation ritual to a society that Mr Cameron never actually joined and IV) occurred as an undergraduate.

Mr Corbyn's flirtations with various terrorist groups, on the other hand, are well-documented, occurred over a period of years and happened while he was an elected Member of Parliament.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
So you agree that the onslaught on the respective party leaders is quantitatively different but the justification is that Corbyn deserves it for being in bed with terrorists?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Mr Corbyn's flirtations with various terrorist groups, on the other hand, are well-documented, occurred over a period of years and happened while he was an elected Member of Parliament.
[Snore]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So you agree that the onslaught on the respective party leaders is quantitatively different but the justification is that Corbyn deserves it for being in bed with terrorists?
I don't know that it is (and I haven't had chance to read all the relevant links posted here) but in the two examples given in this thread, it seems entirely reasonable that one might might receive greater attention than the other.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Maybe people accept that those of certain classes that includes most Old Etoniand are supposed to have, umm, a colourful past while the same behaviour isn't tolerated amongst the lower orders?
and after engaging in a spree of criminal damage, one can always call Daddy to get him to pay off the appropriate parties.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would not have described Boris as highly competent myself. There was apparently some good stuff done, but also too many eyecatching follies (a cable car, the garden bridge, the new routemasters).
He got re-elected as mayor in a naturally Labour city.

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I disagree that he has been at all incompetent on this issue. The train was packed; there may have been one or two separate unreserved seats available but I see nothing wrong with wanting two seats together and sitting on the floor in that instance. Clearly other passengers had done the same and have stated as such. Corbyn may be incompetent in some matters and not the best of leaders but this has been blown up out of all proportion and has yet again sullied his reputation - in my opinion completely unjustly.
I think it's a classic case of JC doing simple things badly.

If you're going on a long rail journey, you book seats. It's simple.

If you lack the skills to do that, or it's last minute, you sit wherever you can, even if you're not next to your wife. Who presumably either sat on a chair away from him anyway, or joined him quite unnecessarily on the floor. Neither exactly puts JC in a good light.

If you're going to make political points, you must check your case carefully before you speak. By saying this is a standard example of a failing system you're going to fix, he just shows his limitations.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the sort of coverage we got during the pig-fucking thing had been sustained that might be a fair comparison but it wasn't. The wall-to-wall, day-in-day-out constant hammering of dangerous, terrorist-loving, incompetence that Corbyn gets doesn't seem remotely comparable.

Having said that I do think that there are signs Corbyn has problems running a party and communicating with his colleagues. Seeing it as a relentless smear-campaign doesn't mean there might not be some truth in some of it.
1. Are you saying something like: 'Mr Corbyn is 50% more incompetent than Mr Cameron but the media are giving him 75% more stick'? This may be so but ISTM the basic elements of the stories of Mr Corbyn's unfitness for office are true. He did support the IRA, he has appeared with Hamas notables in a way that may not be 'supporting Hamas' but which achieves nothing concrete towards peace in Palestine, he did refuse to sing the national anthem, he did propose buoding Trident submarines without missiles, he did change his story somewhat about his train journey, he did go on holiday during the referendum campaign, his favourite economists have refused to work with him, he does undermine his own shadow ministers, and he did have an affair with Ms Abbott.

There is a principle in defamation law that if you say seven nasty things about me and only four of them are true, you have not libelled me if I look just as bad as if all seven of them are true. I think that is relevant here.


2. The negative coverage is wall-to-wall because Mr Corbyn refuses to put anything of his own on the wall. One of his first acts as leader was to walk past a whole bunch of Sky news reporters saying something like 'There are people bothering me'. And then he complains the media don't report him!

The nonsense about whether he would or would not join the Privy Council could have been resolved straight away if he'd made an announcement like 'Yes, I will join the Privy Council, I will do so in a later session because I have a prior engagement, I will follow the established protocol by which republicans become members*.' Instead Mr Corbyn seems to have judged that because it was a non-story, it was none of the media's business, and so we had an entire sitcom's worth of will-he-won't-he for months.


* This is I believe that the prospective member informs the usher that unfortunately a leg injury prevents him from kneeling and the usher of course does not question the word of a gentleman.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
He had an affair with Abbott? WTF? Are you channeling Mary Whitehouse?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

If you're going on a long rail journey, you book seats. It's simple.
This is more or less nonsense. When I lived in the UK, I was a relatively frequent user of intercity rail services. On the outward leg of my journey, assuming it was first thing in the morning, I usually knew which train I would get, and making a reservation wasn't an issue. On the return leg, I never had any idea which train I'd get. It would depend on how long the meeting took, whether we went to the pub or out for dinner afterwards and so on. (Plus, of course, the usual uncertain adherence to timetables so beloved of the rail system.)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It's also nonsense because whether you can book a seat depends on the train route and the type of ticket. Some trains and some tickets do not come with seat bookings. Other trains with seat bookings don't have the staff to go through and put the seat tags on so it becomes a scrum anyway.

Also, because those Virgin Pendolinos have electronic reservation notices on the side of the train, not on the seats, and those electronic notices are not always activated before passengers start sitting down, the reservation system falls to pieces again.

And if there are problems on the line the seat reservation system collapses again because several train loads are piling onto the first few trains that start running.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Also, because those Virgin Pendolinos have electronic reservation notices on the side of the train, not on the seats, and those electronic notices are not always activated before passengers start sitting down, the reservation system falls to pieces again.
When that happened to me (and my reserved seat and all its friends were occupied by a squad of drunken football supporters) I was told that the reservations are uploaded to the train by the guard plugging his computer in. So if the driver unlocks the doors before the guard has signed in, there are no reservations.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He had an affair with Abbott? WTF? Are you channeling Mary Whitehouse?
Apart from that the post makes sense to me. I wouldn't put a % on competence and I don't see the Scottish referendum or the Brexit gambles as signs of great competence, not the judgement shown in deciding to bomb Syria. How does one rate that in % terms against not being able to run a shadow cabinet meeting?

But nevertheless the idea that Corbyn's team is pretty hopeless at dealing with the press does seem likely to be true. The Daily Mail and Sun would still be doing what they've done to Kinnock, Smith, Brown and Miliband, the Guardian's reasons for hostility are obvious, but I doubt the BBC would be responding to government threats. They never have before and I see no convincing reason why they would join a conspiracy now.

The stuff about him supporting the IRA is, of course, as much twaddle as to say that Blair supported the IRA. McDonnell said daft things about the IRA, unfortunately he says daft and unstatesmanly things about lots of stuff. Corbyn was daft to appoint him.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He had an affair with Abbott? WTF? Are you channeling Mary Whitehouse?
If I remove that item from the list, does Mr Corbyn magically become fit for office?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He had an affair with Abbott? WTF? Are you channeling Mary Whitehouse?
If I remove that item from the list, does Mr Corbyn magically become fit for office?
I'm genuinely curious if you think that having an affair disqualifies someone from office.

Are you a member of the Labour Party?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Competence is a proxy for something else. All this talk about whether or not Corbyn and his team are competent, as if everyone was given an unchangeable competence level at birth, is really about other stuff.

All politicians make mistakes. The obsession with Corbyn's is so striking that we should look for deeper reasons, in particular, reasons to fear Corbyn that people might be reluctant to express. We might look for a clue: it happens repeatedly that we criticise others for the faults in ourselves that we want to remain blind to.

There's no shortage of incompetence. Calling the Brexit vote was, I suppose, the biggest political miscalculation in 50 years, and on a different scale from finding two seats on a train. The years of economic failure, trillions of QE without obvious effect, whilst maintaining the rhetoric of a fiscal tightness. There is a terrifying lack of competence in government, in polling, in commentary and in journalism. We are seeing this displaced onto Corbyn.

And people refuse to engage with policies, talking instead about very vague judgements that cannot be analysed or argued with. It reminds me of another area of life:

"I'm sure you'd make a very good airline pilot, but I just don't think our passengers would feel comfortable with a woman in the cockpit."

"You may well be the best candidate for the job, but I don't believe we are ready yet for a black Chief Constable."

"I think Corbyn has some good policies, and I'm pleased he is making so many young, disillusioned people care about politics, but I don't believe that he's electable."

We know and can name the real reasons why people object to female pilots and black authority figures. What is it with Corbyn? Is he seen as someone who might realistically challenge privilege? Change the shape of society? Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, I have been wittering on for months that the postwar consensus (including One Nation Toryism), was broken up by the right-wing shift in the 70s, actually inaugurated by Healey and Callaghan, not Thatcher. Loosely called neo-liberalism.

Corbyn represents a return to social democracy, but apparently this is intolerable to some people, esp. Tories, the media, parts of the PLP.

It is ironic after Brexit, and Cameron's complete cock-up.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm genuinely curious if you think that having an affair disqualifies someone from office.
Not in itself. It does, however, undermine his claim to be honest and principled. And this does matter, because his honesty and principles are the virtues on which he bases his claim to be fit for office.

In any case, what I was arguing was that most (I am prepared to concede not all) of the nasty things the media says about him are in fact true. You seem to be agreeing that this specific thing is true but irrelevant.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Competence is a proxy for something else. All this talk about whether or not Corbyn and his team are competent, as if everyone was given an unchangeable competence level at birth, is really about other stuff.

All politicians make mistakes. The obsession with Corbyn's is so striking that we should look for deeper reasons, in particular, reasons to fear Corbyn that people might be reluctant to express. We might look for a clue: it happens repeatedly that we criticise others for the faults in ourselves that we want to remain blind to.
...

We know and can name the real reasons why people object to female pilots and black authority figures. What is it with Corbyn?
Sadly, very sadly, I think it's his age and his lack of suave charm and good looks.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Owen Smith's refrain is that it is winning elections that matters, not 'preaching to the converted' in rallies. I take this claim seriously. So, being the fair-minded chap that (I like to think) I am, I have been looking at the Constituency-Labour-Parties ('CLPs') that have nominated either Corbyn or Smith, and identifying how many of those constituencies were a 'close second' for Labour in the last general election. I have defined 'close second' as - Labour came second; and within either 10,000 votes or 10% share of the winner. I genuinely did not know what the outcome would be, beforehand. Nine of all the CLPs which nominated Smith were close seconds (will list them as a comment if you like). Checking through the Corbyn nominations, I have got as far as Clwyd West (alphabetically), and there are already nine close seconds among them -- Which is to say, I haven't even finished the 'C's', and Corbyn has equalled Smith already -- Even in percentage terms so far, that represents 9 out of 47 for Corbyn, as against 9 out of 53 for Smith ....... Anyone want me to carry on ???
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Does Corbyn claim to be honest and principled? I know that others say it about him, but claiming it for yourself is dangerously near the territory of "Sometimes I amaze myself with my own humility."

It's a clear example, though, of an attempt to disqualify someone for a personal quality. Blair was characterised as a liar, and drawn with his pants on fire. We all tell lies. What makes someone a liar in a way that is different from the rest of us? Ken Clarke has often been criticised for his links with a tobacco company, Osborne and Cameron for their membership of the ruling class. I'm not sure this is serious politics. I think we should privately note these things, be aware of how we feel towards people, but that in the public arena we should mainly avoid personal matters.

When as in Corbyn's case, the debate is entirely personal, we need to ask what on earth is going on.

I think Quetzelcoatl is right that this is part of a much longer politico-historical arch. Bilious personal pettiness is a sure sign that this touches our persons and our insecurities, the myths that structure our understanding of the world and our selves within it. Neo-liberalism is too trendy and trite a concept to take too seriously, but it makes sense.

We have had decades when politics has seemed detached from reality. Economics has been smoke and mirrors; clearly no one understands it. We are involved in a war with risks to the UK that flip between serious and critical, occasionally imminent, yet the death toll comes nowhere near that from getting washed in the morning. The rich get richer and get away with more and more outrageous greed. Tony Blair, that most competent and electable politician, morphs into a 'money obsessed consultant to dodgy presidents and dictators,' then comes home to defend his reputation as a peace-maker. (Why do they all go orange? Sorry, inappropriately personal.)

I think Corbyn represents old Labour and the dignity of labour. I knew a man who worked all his life as a grocer's assistant, graduating after many years to doing deliveries of a bicycle. On the back of this job he and his wife raised a family, bought a house and had a week's holiday every year. I think people miss the sense that hard work should give you a place and a stake in society; how far away that has gone.

I don't think Corbyn says anything, though, about the fact that politics is now and forever deeply international. As I've said before, I think that we have to wait to see what this will be like. I will be looking in the directions of research science such as the climate census, Edward Snowden and similar campaigners, new Islamic thinking, and Internet activism such as the Icelandic Pirate Party. But it will probably surprise me.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Ken Clarke has often been criticised for his links with a tobacco company, Osborne and Cameron for their membership of the ruling class.
I'm not sure of got any answers, but an observation that I'm not sure that's a helpful trio to pull together. Cameron and Osborne have always been attacked in a bad way, for want of a better word. Clarke has been attacked for tobacco, but equally always been open about the links and regularly does well in those polls of MPs you'd like to go for a pint with.

Is about speaking human? Or about being human? Certain politicians (cross-party) get a free pass from the public. Some from the media too. Some from one or the other. Boris Johnson for example does actually get muck raked with regularity in the press but the public don't seem to care (I don't know why). Ken Clarke is fairly bullet proof with the public away from the anti-smoking lobby (and I think that's because most people think he's a decent chap).

On the Labour benches there's Alan Johnson, Austin Mitchell, Jack Straw (I'm serious, away from the Iraq stuff I've always had the impression the public like him and will forgive him things), etc. People like Menzies Campbell, and almost everyone had a lot of time for Charles Kennedy.

I get the impression that lots of people don't like what Corbyn stands for (for whatever reason, whether because it threatens them, they intellectually think it won't work, or whatever), and that the groundswell is also that *they don't like him.*

If I knew why I'd have a lucrative career as a psephologist.

Is this something the media have created? Is it just that the British public mind have rightly or wrongly fingered him as a wrong'un? God knows. Yes that may be wrong or unfair, but that's my reading of the runes.

I think they'd stand more chance with his policies and almost anyone else in charge, sadly for his supporters.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does Corbyn claim to be honest and principled? I know that others say it about him, but claiming it for yourself is dangerously near the territory of "Sometimes I amaze myself with my own humility."

I very clearly remember him claiming to not tell lies, never to have told lies, right at the beginning of his leadership. It persuaded me that he was a good chap because it rang true at the time.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

I get the impression that lots of people don't like what Corbyn stands for (for whatever reason, whether because it threatens them, they intellectually think it won't work, or whatever), and that the groundswell is also that *they don't like him.*

If I knew why I'd have a lucrative career as a psephologist.

Is this something the media have created? Is it just that the British public mind have rightly or wrongly fingered him as a wrong'un? God knows. Yes that may be wrong or unfair, but that's my reading of the runes.

I think they'd stand more chance with his policies and almost anyone else in charge, sadly for his supporters.
If there's a reason behind the PLPs reluctance to support Jeremy Corbyn it must be that he has too often not supported the PLP. He doesn't trail many when it comes to defying the party whip over the last three decades.

While he was a backbencher who voted the wrong way, or not at all, no one minded much. Now he's party leader, most of the PLP are getting twitchy.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... Which is another way of saying that JC doesn't seem to get it that loyalty is a two-way thing.

In the same vein as his constant railing about 'spin' and 'media manipulation' and then getting caught with his pants down earlier this week on a Virgin (oh, the irony!) train.

And the lying about that incident goes on and on: the family who JC claims were 'upgraded to First Class' to make room for him? Nothing of the sort. When first class is less than full on-board Virgin staff offer all passengers the chance to up-grade to first class at a knock-down price - nothing to do with over-crowding and everything to do with getting as much revenue as possible from the captive market aboard the train.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... Which is another way of saying that JC doesn't seem to get it that loyalty is a two-way thing.

In the same vein as his constant railing about 'spin' and 'media manipulation' and then getting caught with his pants down earlier this week on a Virgin (oh, the irony!) train.

And the lying about that incident goes on and on: the family who JC claims were 'upgraded to First Class' to make room for him? Nothing of the sort. When first class is less than full on-board Virgin staff offer all passengers the chance to up-grade to first class at a knock-down price - nothing to do with over-crowding and everything to do with getting as much revenue as possible from the captive market aboard the train.
... all of which is hearsay and rumour. The reality behind the PLP's reluctance to back him is something quite different and Corbyn is very aware of that.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does Corbyn claim to be honest and principled?
He puts STRAIGHT TALKING - HONEST POLITICS on his lecterns ffs!
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... Which is another way of saying that JC doesn't seem to get it that loyalty is a two-way thing.

In the same vein as his constant railing about 'spin' and 'media manipulation' and then getting caught with his pants down earlier this week on a Virgin (oh, the irony!) train.

And the lying about that incident goes on and on: the family who JC claims were 'upgraded to First Class' to make room for him? Nothing of the sort. When first class is less than full on-board Virgin staff offer all passengers the chance to up-grade to first class at a knock-down price - nothing to do with over-crowding and everything to do with getting as much revenue as possible from the captive market aboard the train.
I've missed this new lie. What exactly has Corbyn said now? Has he claimed that the upgraded family didn't have to pay for their upgrade even though he knew they had paid? That seems an improbably specific thing to say, but it would indeed be a lie. Are you saying that it's Virgin's policy to offer upgrades for a fee and that this is what happened in this case, or simply that this is their policy?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
by Sioni Sais
quote:
all of which is hearsay and rumour. The reality behind the PLP's reluctance to back him is something quite different and Corbyn is very aware of that.
Hearsay? Yes - but my source is the sister of my oldest Godchild who was on the train, near the 'upgraded' family, who saw JC and his entourage - lots of them - walking past empty seats (some reserved but unoccupied, others entirely free) on his way to find the inter-carriage place for the photo-op.

Like the family, Godchild's sister was given the chance to move to first class: she turned down at first offering but then moved because JC and his crew were making such a racket and (to quote Em) "talking such bullshit it was either move or thump someone". Em is a good and truthful girl (aged 25) who works for a charity supporting middle-eastern refugees and has been vocal about having some sympathy for JC's views.

[Edited to remove typos, etc]

[ 26. August 2016, 11:31: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Nine of all the CLPs which nominated Smith were close seconds (will list them as a comment if you like). Checking through the Corbyn nominations, I have got as far as Clwyd West (alphabetically), and there are already nine close seconds among them -- Which is to say, I haven't even finished the 'C's', and Corbyn has equalled Smith already -- Even in percentage terms so far, that represents 9 out of 47 for Corbyn, as against 9 out of 53 for Smith ....... Anyone want me to carry on ???
What are you trying to prove here?

Are you assuming that CLPs are representative of their constituencies as a whole?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Competence is a proxy for something else. All this talk about whether or not Corbyn and his team are competent, as if everyone was given an unchangeable competence level at birth, is really about other stuff.

All politicians make mistakes. The obsession with Corbyn's is so striking that we should look for deeper reasons, in particular, reasons to fear Corbyn that people might be reluctant to express. We might look for a clue: it happens repeatedly that we criticise others for the faults in ourselves that we want to remain blind to.
...

We know and can name the real reasons why people object to female pilots and black authority figures. What is it with Corbyn?
Sadly, very sadly, I think it's his age and his lack of suave charm and good looks.
[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

Ok, I admit it, I don't like Mr Corbyn because he doesn't look like Yanis Varoufakis.

How does that make any of the specific factual criticisms I've made of him on this thread go away?
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The stuff about him supporting the IRA is, of course, as much twaddle as to say that Blair supported the IRA. McDonnell said daft things about the IRA, unfortunately he says daft and unstatesmanly things about lots of stuff. Corbyn was daft to appoint him.
In fact, the stuff about Corbyn supporting the IRA is pretty well founded. The fact that he did so consistently for decades, and still holds those views is one of my particular reasons for being unwilling to support him. He voted against the peace process in Parliament because he was of the opinion that Nationalists should not have to compromise on their ideals. He was regularly a guest and speaker in the 1980s and 1990s at events to honour IRA terrorists. Only last year I listened on the radio to a telephone interview where he was asked outright whether he would he would condemn IRA violence and murders: five times in two minutes he declined to do that, eventually simply hanging up and refusing to continue the interview. Anyone who can access the BBC iPlayer can listen to that call here.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The stuff about him supporting the IRA is, of course, as much twaddle as to say that Blair supported the IRA. McDonnell said daft things about the IRA, unfortunately he says daft and unstatesmanly things about lots of stuff. Corbyn was daft to appoint him.
In fact, the stuff about Corbyn supporting the IRA is pretty well founded. The fact that he did so consistently for decades, and still holds those views is one of my particular reasons for being unwilling to support him. He voted against the peace process in Parliament because he was of the opinion that Nationalists should not have to compromise on their ideals. He was regularly a guest and speaker in the 1980s and 1990s at events to honour IRA terrorists. Only last year I listened on the radio to a telephone interview where he was asked outright whether he would he would condemn IRA violence and murders: five times in two minutes he declined to do that, eventually simply hanging up and refusing to continue the interview. Anyone who can access the BBC iPlayer can listen to that call here.
Oh bum, I'd hoped that was people maligning him.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Nine of all the CLPs which nominated Smith were close seconds (will list them as a comment if you like). Checking through the Corbyn nominations, I have got as far as Clwyd West (alphabetically), and there are already nine close seconds among them -- Which is to say, I haven't even finished the 'C's', and Corbyn has equalled Smith already -- Even in percentage terms so far, that represents 9 out of 47 for Corbyn, as against 9 out of 53 for Smith ....... Anyone want me to carry on ???
What are you trying to prove here?

Are you assuming that CLPs are representative of their constituencies as a whole?
I'm not assuming anything, and I'm not trying to prove anything. Just seems to me that, given Smith's clear implication that he would have greater appeal in the marginal constituency situation,, party members in those very constituencies (ie, the very people who have the most 'invested' in a better outcome next time) remain distinctly un-convinced.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Change the shape of society? Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
I think that is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. At present it looks like even the Labour Party conference might not go ahead because the party that Mr Corbyn leads is unable to organise security for it. If he's a supremely competent leader, he's hiding it very well.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I think we all sense that the 'can't get security' thing is an attempt on somebody's part to 'buy time' ...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Buy time for what?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The labour party is caught between the devil and deep blue sea.

I fear for this country, because we don't have an opposition that is both authentic and competent.

A leader that will not talk to his own MPs cannot be competent, because building a working relationship with the party's MPs is an essential part of the job of a leader. Of course, if there were evidence that he was being systematically sabotaged, that is different, but I haven't seen any.

A leader that is not actually intending to do anything fundamentally different from the conservatives is not intending to lead an authentic opposition. Presentational skills and not being Jeremy Corbyn do not a real leader of a real opposition make.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Just seems to me that, given Smith's clear implication that he would have greater appeal in the marginal constituency situation,, party members in those very constituencies (ie, the very people who have the most 'invested' in a better outcome next time) remain distinctly un-convinced.
Given that the general public prefers Mr Smith, and that Mr Corbyn's approval ratings are currently lower than those of Michael Foot, and that even Labour voters (as distinct from party members) think Ms May is doing a better job than Mr Corbyn, I think that says more about their sense of judgement than Mr Corbyn's electability.

[ 26. August 2016, 17:32: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Just seems to me that, given Smith's clear implication that he would have greater appeal in the marginal constituency situation,, party members in those very constituencies (ie, the very people who have the most 'invested' in a better outcome next time) remain distinctly un-convinced.
Given that the general public prefers Mr Smith, and that Mr Corbyn's approval ratings are currently lower than those of Michael Foot, and that even Labour voters (as distinct from party members) think Ms May is doing a better job than Mr Corbyn, I think that says more about their sense of judgement than Mr Corbyn's electability.
I think their judgement is that they can't imagine Smith doing any better than Corbyn, up against May. Indeed, the mass exodus of members that would follow a Smith victory could only make matters worse.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Buy time for what?
To prepare a conference that's going to come over well on the telly, once the dust has settled,, is my best guess ......
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think that is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. At present it looks like even the Labour Party conference might not go ahead because the party that Mr Corbyn leads is unable to organise security for it. If he's a supremely competent leader, he's hiding it very well.
Nice spin you're putting on the failures of the General Secretary and the NEC, neither of whom Corbyn has control over.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think that is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. At present it looks like even the Labour Party conference might not go ahead because the party that Mr Corbyn leads is unable to organise security for it. If he's a supremely competent leader, he's hiding it very well.
Nice spin you're putting on the failures of the General Secretary and the NEC, neither of whom Corbyn has control over.
In that case hats off to them in getting the security contract sorted this evening. I'm looking forward to Our Jezza's speech!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
In fact, the stuff about Corbyn supporting the IRA is pretty well founded... five times in two minutes he declined to do that, eventually simply hanging up and refusing to continue the interview. Anyone who can access the BBC iPlayer can listen to that call here.
When the line was clear he condemned all violence. He then didn't answer a question on a formulaic condemnation of the IRA alone which personally I think is reasonable having condemned all violence. Then there were problems with the line. I don't think he would have pretended not to hear the question if he really could hear it.

There may be other evidence of support for the IRA but this call isn't it and what he said about the peace process was reasonable enough to me.

(Having said that it is hopeless communication to the electorate for a potential prime minister, I get that. I just don't think it is reasonable to describe Corbyn as an IRA supporter.)
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
When the line was clear he condemned all violence. He then didn't answer a question on a formulaic condemnation of the IRA alone which personally I think is reasonable having condemned all violence.
But why not? It's the simplest thing to do. He could have said 'Yes', or 'Absolutely' or 'Of course' and that might've been the end of the matter. If he does indeed condemn all violence then he also presumably condemns IRA violence so why not just say so clearly?

And this is an area where he does need to speak clearly, given his past behaviour. If he does actually have any ambitions towards high office then this is something he needs to sort out. The people of Britain aren't going to elect as their Prime Minister a man who can't straight-forwardly condemn the violent actions of a terrorist group which plagued this country for decades, no matter how attractive his policy on renationalising the railways.

[ 27. August 2016, 07:29: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
For the same reason that if someone persistently asked me "Do you condemn black on white racism" I wouldn't want to simply say "absolutely" and move on. I would say "I condemn all racism". It is an unreasonable focus for the conversation.

Having said that there were a few better ways to handle the conversation that he didn't take. He's not going to be a good party leader or prime minister in my book and this shows poor ability with the media and the wider public. But it doesn't show a covert IRA supporter.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

What is it with Corbyn? Is he seen as someone who might realistically challenge privilege? Change the shape of society?
The key word is realistically. I'm sure it is realistic to see him leading the Labour Party as a protest movement against privilege and social injustice (rather like the suffragette movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.) But the Labour Party is HM Opposition in Parliament. And he cannot realistically lead them when they have lost confidence in him. Nor can those MPs be unseated until the next general election. So he has no realistic chance of leading Labour to victory at that election. And surely he will be too old to lead the Party into the one after that.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
No, I don't think it is fear of competence, at least so far as the PLP MPs are concerned. It is demonstrable incompetence. And this is not just a plot by those who never wanted him in the first place. He has lost the confidence of those who were prepared to give him a chance, by his own actions and inactions. And there are public statements to that effect.

He can lead a protest movement. He can't lead a parliamentary party. That's the verdict of the MPs. It will not be the verdict of the Party Members. Result? Political wilderness for a decade at least. Unless he goes.

[ 27. August 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For the same reason that if someone persistently asked me "Do you condemn black on white racism" I wouldn't want to simply say "absolutely" and move on. I would say "I condemn all racism". It is an unreasonable focus for the conversation.
I'm afraid I disagree. If a man wants to be Prime Minister of the UK, I don't think asking him whether he specifically condemns violence perpetrated by a terrorist group against British armed forces and civilians over 30 years to be an 'unreasonable focus'.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For the same reason that if someone persistently asked me "Do you condemn black on white racism" I wouldn't want to simply say "absolutely" and move on. I would say "I condemn all racism". It is an unreasonable focus for the conversation.
I think that would be a fair comparison if the question had been asked of a random Northern Irish Catholic. But Mr Corbyn's support for the IRA is well documented. He attended and spoke at commemorative events for IRA terrorists. He voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He was on the editorial board of London Labour Briefing, which initially condemned the Brighton bombing and then retracted the condemnation. (I don't believe Mr Corbyn personally wrote the retraction - but compare and contrast Boris Johnson's acts after a Spectator editorial decided to repeat slurs against Hillsborough victims.)

To a certain extent I agree with you that he was being made to jump through a hoop, but it was a hoop of his own making.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...but compare and contrast Boris Johnson's acts after a Spectator editorial decided to repeat slurs against Hillsborough victims.)

To a certain extent I agree with you that he was being made to jump through a hoop, but it was a hoop of his own making.
Interesting contrast to make. Here is Johnson refusing to jump through a hoop as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course - I wouldn't see either of these two as a successful PM.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For the same reason that if someone persistently asked me "Do you condemn black on white racism" I wouldn't want to simply say "absolutely" and move on. I would say "I condemn all racism". It is an unreasonable focus for the conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I disagree. If a man wants to be Prime Minister of the UK, I don't think asking him whether he specifically condemns violence perpetrated by a terrorist group against British armed forces and civilians over 30 years to be an 'unreasonable focus'.
But after the answer "I condemn all violence" to continue asking the same question as if nothing has been said is unreasonable.

In a way that's fine, it is a journalist's job to ask unreasonable questions and politicians should deal with them. He could have answered much better, and the journalist was doing his job. Corbyn didn't deal with it well, but it doesn't make him an IRA supporter.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

What is it with Corbyn? Is he seen as someone who might realistically challenge privilege? Change the shape of society?
The key word is realistically. I'm sure it is realistic to see him leading the Labour Party as a protest movement against privilege and social injustice (rather like the suffragette movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.) But the Labour Party is HM Opposition in Parliament. And he cannot realistically lead them when they have lost confidence in him. Nor can those MPs be unseated until the next general election. So he has no realistic chance of leading Labour to victory at that election. And surely he will be too old to lead the Party into the one after that.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
No, I don't think it is fear of competence, at least so far as the PLP MPs are concerned. It is demonstrable incompetence. And this is not just a plot by those who never wanted him in the first place. He has lost the confidence of those who were prepared to give him a chance, by his own actions and inactions. And there are public statements to that effect.

He can lead a protest movement. He can't lead a parliamentary party. That's the verdict of the MPs. It will not be the verdict of the Party Members. Result? Political wilderness for a decade at least. Unless he goes.
The party members have listened to the arguments of the PLP and remain un-persuaded by them. Now it's the PLP's turn to listen.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Indeed, the mass exodus of members that would follow a Smith victory could only make matters worse.
OK. Assume a mass exodus precipitates Labour membership figures down to 2008 levels, when it stood at 176,891. The latest Conservative figure, which admittedly is from 2013, is 149,800.

I would suggest, therefore, that though the loss of so many members would indeed be damaging, it would be far less damaging than losing the support of 80% of your MPs.

quote:
The party members have listened to the arguments of the PLP and remain un-persuaded by them. Now it's the PLP's turn to listen.
And where does the opinion of the electorate fit into this scheme?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:

The party members have listened to the arguments of the PLP and remain un-persuaded by them. Now it's the PLP's turn to listen.
The party members will decide who the leader will be. Let's say it's Jeremy. Then the PLP MPs are stuck with him, despite their lack of confidence in him, and will have to make the best of it somehow. And Jeremy himself will have to do something to regain the confidence lost. Minds won't change automatically as a result of the membership vote. Those MPs have good reasons for their lack of confidence.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I don't understand. What is this confidence that the PLP lack?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't understand. What is this confidence that the PLP lack?
They came into parliament (or the vast majority of them did) as members of a party that had a very fixed idea of what it was, what their leader was and how both party and leader functioned. They are now members of a parliamentary party which looks very little different (other than smaller), but of which the leader is very different, and which cannot function in anything like its former fashion because they don't trust what they don't recognise and the new leader doesn't trust what is not a product of his own mind.

This feels like a stalemate, and the longer it goes on the less I like the prospects of our having anything other than a tory government during my lifetime. As in my previous posting phase, I don't want a mauve tory government any more than I do a blue one, but on the other hand, neither side within the labour party can afford to wait for the other to die, because the country will die first.

The loyal opposition seems to have forgotten that it has a job to do opposing the government, rather than itself.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And where does the opinion of the electorate fit into this scheme?
There must be no compromise with the electorate!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't understand. What is this confidence that the PLP lack?
It is not a "what" that they lack confidence in, it is a "who". 172 of the MPs have no confidence in Jeremy as Labour Party leader, That's what the motion said. They might have been a variety of reasons why they voted the way they did and some of them have given voice to those. And the reasons have been explored at some length.

But the bottom line is that they don't trust him as leader. Some never did, some lost trust on the way. Trust is a personal thing. It isn't changed because other people say "well I trust him". Those who vote that way haven't had to live with him as as leader of HM Opposition in Parliament.

[ 27. August 2016, 18:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't understand. What is this confidence that the PLP lack?
It is not a "what" that they lack confidence in, it is a "who". 172 of the MPs have no confidence in Jeremy as Labour Party leader, That's what the motion said. They might have been a variety of reasons why they voted the way they did and some of them have given voice to those. And the reasons have been explored at some length.

But the bottom line is that they don't trust him as leader. Some never did, some lost trust on the way. Trust is a personal thing. It isn't changed because other people say "well I trust him". Those who vote that way haven't had to live with him as as leader of HM Opposition in Parliament.
On the subject of trust and the disorganisation at the heart of Corbyn's team, just watch the vice news documentary. Remember they were chosen as they were regarded as sympathetic.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't understand. What is this confidence that the PLP lack?
It is not a "what" that they lack confidence in, it is a "who". 172 of the MPs have no confidence in Jeremy as Labour Party leader, That's what the motion said. They might have been a variety of reasons why they voted the way they did and some of them have given voice to those. And the reasons have been explored at some length.

But the bottom line is that they don't trust him as leader. Some never did, some lost trust on the way. Trust is a personal thing. It isn't changed because other people say "well I trust him". Those who vote that way haven't had to live with him as as leader of HM Opposition in Parliament.
Sorry, I'm none the wiser. What is this confidence in Corbyn they don't have? And this 'trust' you've introduced?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Indeed, the mass exodus of members that would follow a Smith victory could only make matters worse.
OK. Assume a mass exodus precipitates Labour membership figures down to 2008 levels, when it stood at 176,891. The latest Conservative figure, which admittedly is from 2013, is 149,800.

I would suggest, therefore, that though the loss of so many members would indeed be damaging, it would be far less damaging than losing the support of 80% of your MPs.

quote:
The party members have listened to the arguments of the PLP and remain un-persuaded by them. Now it's the PLP's turn to listen.
And where does the opinion of the electorate fit into this scheme?
It is a 'scheme' known as elections.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
And do you think it's possible that the PLP, for all their faults and craven scheming and inability to listen, are thinking ahead to those elections and looking at the opinion polls and wondering about the likely outcome?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is this confidence in Corbyn they don't have? And this 'trust' you've introduced?
Read up the thread to where we took some trouble linking to some of the stories of individual PLP members who had struggled to work with Corbyn. Maybe all the stories are lies but it doesn't read that way to me.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Martin, to lack confidence in a person is always about competence or trust. Think sport. In a cricket team, the strike bowlers lose confidence in a wicket-keeper because he drops catches. That's not just about his technical competence. They learn from his actions that they can't trust him to have a safe pair of hands.

Analogous arguments apply to captains of teams. Hashim Amla is a great batsman but he wasn't a good captain, which he and the team eventually recognised. The responsibilities of captaincy damaged his form as a batsman and his performance as a captain damaged unity and morale in the team. Amla stood down both for his own sake and the team's. Nobody questioned Amla's worth as a human being or his talent as a cricketer, captaincy just wasn't his thing; he couldn't be trusted with that responsibility.

I haven't introduced the concept of trust; it is integral to the argument.

[ 28. August 2016, 07:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is this confidence in Corbyn they don't have? And this 'trust' you've introduced?
Read up the thread to where we took some trouble linking to some of the stories of individual PLP members who had struggled to work with Corbyn. Maybe all the stories are lies but it doesn't read that way to me.
Yeah, I remember some of those in the 1500 odd comments. Why would ANY of them be lies? It's ALL about, as in our dispositions here, what we bring to the ... party.

Nice analogy B62, but I don't see the comparison. Where has Jeremy failed to captain his team of shadow secretaries? Especially in the person of the excellent John McDonnell?

The truly egregious Owen Smith would
restore your 'confidence' and you'd place your sacred 'trust' in him?

I don't think so.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And do you think it's possible that the PLP, for all their faults and craven scheming and inability to listen, are thinking ahead to those elections and looking at the opinion polls and wondering about the likely outcome?
The LAST thing you do, when a Prime Minister is on the way through the exit door, is to create ANY impression of strife among your own ranks, in the opposition. I detect very little in the way of 'thinking'.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Maybe they are getting many things wrong, but the point is that one has to consider the possibility that Corbyn might not be going down spectacularly well with the greater portion of the electorate even if the portion of the electorate that is the constituency labour party thinks he is great. The PLP want to be returned to power. They are worried that Corbyn isn't going to get them there and those voting for him don't seem to be reassuring in that regard.

Now you may feel that the electorate can be won over, or that purity of expression is more important than electability, or the long-game is the better bet but not engaging with the concern isn't going to help.

[ 28. August 2016, 10:54: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nice analogy B62, but I don't see the comparison. Where has Jeremy failed to captain his team of shadow secretaries? Especially in the person of the excellent John McDonnell?

The truly egregious Owen Smith would
restore your 'confidence' and you'd place your sacred 'trust' in him?

I don't think so.
Jeremy's team in Parliament still has gaps and some folks doing double duty. In cricketing terms he cannot put a full side on the field of play and a number of previous players won't play with him as captain.

So far as confidence in Smith is concerned, based on the support his candidacy has, at least he could put out a full side in Parliament. It's not my confidence he has to win in order to head up HM Opposition.

[ 28. August 2016, 14:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It is a 'scheme' known as elections.
So unless an election is imminent, MPs should act without reference to their constituents?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The LAST thing you do, when a Prime Minister is on the way through the exit door, is to create ANY impression of strife among your own ranks, in the opposition. I detect very little in the way of 'thinking'.
Because it would have been much more effective to suspend a leadership challenge until such time as the Conservatives united around a new leader - at which point the Conservatives would be in a position to exploit Labour chaos?

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It is a 'scheme' known as elections.
So unless an election is imminent, MPs should act without reference to their constituents?
Voters come third to the party whips and constituency branches, which is why contentious legislation is dealt with early on in a term, not in the last year or so.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It is a 'scheme' known as elections.
So unless an election is imminent, MPs should act without reference to their constituents?
We have seen no evidence whatsoever as to the content of the conversations between MPs and their constituents.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The LAST thing you do, when a Prime Minister is on the way through the exit door, is to create ANY impression of strife among your own ranks, in the opposition. I detect very little in the way of 'thinking'.
Because it would have been much more effective to suspend a leadership challenge until such time as the Conservatives united around a new leader - at which point the Conservatives would be in a position to exploit Labour chaos?

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
Let me clear your confusion. Had a challenge started this week, it would still be too hasty. T.May is only just back from her walking holiday ......
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
We have seen no evidence whatsoever as to the content of the conversations between MPs and their constituents.
What would be normal practice for evidencing of constituents views? Polling perhaps?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
We have seen no evidence whatsoever as to the content of the conversations between MPs and their constituents.
I believe there are laws against making such things public. But the evidence is that MPs' opinion of Mr Corbyn broadly coincides with the electorate's.
quote:
Had a challenge started this week, it would still be too hasty. T.May is only just back from her walking holiday ......
Oh, I see. You think the leadership challenge should wait not just until the new Conservative leader is in place, but until she has had time to get settled, organise her policies and fire up the Tory propaganda machine to her new way of thinking.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
We have seen no evidence whatsoever as to the content of the conversations between MPs and their constituents.
I believe there are laws against making such things public. But the evidence is that MPs' opinion of Mr Corbyn broadly coincides with the electorate's.
quote:
Had a challenge started this week, it would still be too hasty. T.May is only just back from her walking holiday ......
Oh, I see. You think the leadership challenge should wait not just until the new Conservative leader is in place, but until she has had time to get settled, organise her policies and fire up the Tory propaganda machine to her new way of thinking.
There is no law against collating the general topics raised by one's constituents. Given that some of the most 'passionate' EU-remainer MPs are in some of the Leave-voting constituencies, I'd say they have very little interest in what the public have to say, in any case. And the electorates that matter most are those in the Marginals - no studies have been made in that respect (to my knowledge).

And yes, I do think time should have been given for this - not least because a united opposition could have been picking apart the Tory seams, even as they were being stitched together ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:

quote:
And the electorates that matter most are those in the Marginals - no studies have been made in that respect (to my knowledge).
Most of the winnable marginals are English seats currently held by Tory MPs. So it's not unreasonable to deduce that winning over former Tory voters is a fairly key part of any electoral strategy for Labour. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that voters who thought that Ed Miliband wasn't what they were looking for on economic competence and leadership aren't going to fall over themselves to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Callan, I think Jeremy's supporters see they cannot win that way and so argue in favour of mobilising apathetic and disillusioned former Labour supporters or potential sympathisers. It's seen as a hearts and minds struggle, a desire to win converts to the cause. The notion of a broad centre left coalition seems to have little appeal, leading to 'Tory-lite' government.

I respect that as a principled position but cannot see it producing a Labour government for at least two elections. But I think Corbynite supporters are going to have to have that proved to them via the ballot box. It does feel very much like a rerun of the 1980s.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Callan, I think Jeremy's supporters see they cannot win that way and so argue in favour of mobilising apathetic and disillusioned former Labour supporters or potential sympathisers. It's seen as a hearts and minds struggle, a desire to win converts to the cause. The notion of a broad centre left coalition seems to have little appeal, leading to 'Tory-lite' government.

I respect that as a principled position but cannot see it producing a Labour government for at least two elections. But I think Corbynite supporters are going to have to have that proved to them via the ballot box. It does feel very much like a rerun of the 1980s.
Some Corbyn supporters seem to think that if only everyone could hear him unmediated, they would realise they are really out and out socialists. They think their enthusiasm and fervour is contagious.

The problem is that a small proportion of the electorate (I'd guess not much more than 20%) want radical change and a leader who inspires them. The vast majority of the not very political at all, just want reassurance.They want politics to intrude as little as possible into everyday life. I think this article by Rafael Behr is pretty accurate.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
There is no law against collating the general topics raised by one's constituents.
It sounds like you'd be very interested to see the information available in polls of the public's opinions on Corbyn then?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Talking of ability in handling the press this story is an entirely self-inflicted injury. I agree with some of the general principles, but the focus on Branson makes them look petty and personalizes the issue.

Corbyn has complained about the press focusing on the train story at a time when he wanted to talk about the NHS. They can't have it both ways.

I agree with the general principles these guys stand for, but the "get off my team" aspect of seeming them operate keeps growing for me.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
To quote Martin60, mdijon, an illustration of 'the excellent John McDonnell' at work.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:

quote:
And the electorates that matter most are those in the Marginals - no studies have been made in that respect (to my knowledge).
Most of the winnable marginals are English seats currently held by Tory MPs. So it's not unreasonable to deduce that winning over former Tory voters is a fairly key part of any electoral strategy for Labour. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that voters who thought that Ed Miliband wasn't what they were looking for on economic competence and leadership aren't going to fall over themselves to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
That was my line of thinking too - So how come the CLPs - the ones who have most to gain by winning over those voters - don't like the look of Smith ???
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
There is no law against collating the general topics raised by one's constituents.
It sounds like you'd be very interested to see the information available in polls of the public's opinions on Corbyn then?
The information on opinions on Corbyn as compared to Smith in the Marginals, yes ... But don't think it's out there ???
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
There is no law against collating the general topics raised by one's constituents.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds like you'd be very interested to see the information available in polls of the public's opinions on Corbyn then?
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The information on opinions on Corbyn as compared to Smith in the Marginals, yes ... But don't think it's out there ???
Well before we had a leadership contest it wouldn't have been clear that that was the question to ask. From the polls it seems beyond doubt that there's widespread dissatisfaction with Corbyn among the general population. That's part of the mandate to consider action for the PLP.

What that action might be is open to question and is a matter of judgement, but it seems somewhat ostrich-like to take the view that the electorate don't matter until there's an election and they haven't been asked the right question yet for us to consider their views.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To quote Martin60, mdijon, an illustration of 'the excellent John McDonnell' at work.
So it is. Isn't it strange that it's ALL about what we bring to the party?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To quote Martin60, mdijon, an illustration of 'the excellent John McDonnell' at work.
So it is. Isn't it strange that it's ALL about what we bring to the party?
Whatever floats your boat, Martin. I thought it was a pretty thin-skinned and vindictive response myself. Perhaps not quite f**ing useless, in terms of its value to Jeremy, but heading that way.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To quote Martin60, mdijon, an illustration of 'the excellent John McDonnell' at work.
So it is. Isn't it strange that it's ALL about what we bring to the party?
Possibly not so strange as the persistent refusal to address what the "IT" is that you are proposing be taken to the party.

I mean - if it's the clown suit and a collection of Christmas-cracker mottoes, then we may be going to different parties.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Nothing worse than being the guy that turns up in a chicken suit to the masked ball.

Actually there is, that's having your date turn up in a chicken suit and then call you disloyal when you wish for someone else.

What makes the story even more hopeless is that McDonnell has zero power to take anyone's honours away at the moment anyway. I can't see what has possibly been achieved by making that statement except an opportunity to look pathetic and petty.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
There is no law against collating the general topics raised by one's constituents.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds like you'd be very interested to see the information available in polls of the public's opinions on Corbyn then?
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The information on opinions on Corbyn as compared to Smith in the Marginals, yes ... But don't think it's out there ???
Well before we had a leadership contest it wouldn't have been clear that that was the question to ask. From the polls it seems beyond doubt that there's widespread dissatisfaction with Corbyn among the general population. That's part of the mandate to consider action for the PLP.

What that action might be is open to question and is a matter of judgement, but it seems somewhat ostrich-like to take the view that the electorate don't matter until there's an election and they haven't been asked the right question yet for us to consider their views.
That would be an ostrich-like view, I agree. But I repeat - much of the PLP has shown little or no interest in the electorate's views, in any case. The questions they have already been asked have their own legitimacy - but this is in large part a natural response to the entirely unnecessary display of disunity on the PLP's part to begin with!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Your opinion is that they show little interest in the electorate's views.

My opinion is that you are showing little interest in the electorate's views by supporting Corbyn. They ain't gonna vote for him.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
My opinion is that Corbyn's chances are slim,, but that Smith's chances are even slimmer.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
My opinion is that Corbyn's chances are slim,, but that Smith's chances are even slimmer.
Maybe, but he might have a better chance of getting a full set of Shadow Cabinet ministers plus junior ministers. The duty of HM Opposition is to oppose. In Parliament.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Maybe, but I think the sense of disillusionment that would set in among those who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn would cancel that good effect out ... So it's devil or deep blue sea ...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
But earlier you were criticizing the PLP for starting the process towards a leadership competition.

If you accept that the chances of Corbyn winning are slim then there is justification to search for a better leader. That the challenger turns out to be Smith and that Smith is running a poor campaign wasn't predictable at the point that they took that decision.

To be honest I think the chief advantage in Smith is that he would be more likely to resign before the next election than Corbyn. I don't see either of them winning, it is desperately depressing that the Labour party has come to this. Where are the political titans waiting in the wings that could bring Labour back to political tractability?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Who are these people?
You want a list of names?
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where are the political titans waiting in the wings that could bring Labour back to political tractability?
I'm honestly not sure they exist, sadly. The pre-Corbyn front benches didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But earlier you were criticizing the PLP for starting the process towards a leadership competition.
That's right - I don't understand the 'But' ....
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That was in the next paragraph.

The point is that if you recognize that the electorate are very unlikely to vote Corbyn in, it is surely reasonable for the PLP to consider changing leader in order to get elected.

You countered that earlier by saying that Smith wasn't much better. My point is that at the time they were considering a leadership challenge and putting wheels in motion it wasn't clear he would be the only alternative, or that has campaign would be so lackluster.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Ok, I think I see ... On the assessment of how things are now, I think it's fair to say that the alternative has emerged as a bit of a second-rater - how much of this was predictable I leave to others to ponder ... On an assessment of how things were at the time of Cameron's resignation, then the whole Labour Party - Corbyn & the PLP & the membership together - had a golden opportunity to pull together and surge ahead.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think some of the stories referenced up thread regarding the way Corbyn was running the party indicate why the PLP felt that wasn't the right way forward.

Maybe the current mess was entirely predictable. Unfortunately I think an electoral wipe-out is also very predictable at the moment.

Still, one can only hope. A few years is a long time in politics.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
Great. But you voted Labour at the last election so that doesn't help Corbyn get closer to No 10.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think some of the stories referenced up thread regarding the way Corbyn was running the party indicate why the PLP felt that wasn't the right way forward.

Maybe the current mess was entirely predictable. Unfortunately I think an electoral wipe-out is also very predictable at the moment.

Still, one can only hope. A few years is a long time in politics.
They certainly felt it (ie, the staggered resignations) would be a quick job - and that was a massive mis-calculation (and I said so at the time, though not on any public forum).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You want a list of names?
Yes please.

I'm not a Labour voter and as I've said before on these boards, am very anti-Corbyn. He is not likely to turn me into a Labour voter. I can't see much difference between him and John Redwood.

But one of the depressing things about the Labour Party's leadership election last year was that all the candidates - Corbyn emphatically included in that condemnation - were so lack-lustre.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
There is something in what you say, Enoch.
The two men who might have given the party a shot in the arm? - Chukka Umunna = bottled it and Alan Johnson = Unwilling to play ball at all.
And I acknowledge this as someone who leans more to the Corbyn side of the party.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
Both my parents and both my siblings. None of them have a history of political activism; all have joined the Labour Party in support of Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
Both my parents and both my siblings. None of them have a history of political activism; all have joined the Labour Party in support of Jeremy Corbyn.
But i) did they vote Labour in 2015; and ii) will they become properly politically active (i.e. not attending demos but canvassing and knocking on doors)?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
They certainly felt it (ie, the staggered resignations) would be a quick job - and that was a massive mis-calculation (and I said so at the time, though not on any public forum).
They failed to foresee two things:

1. That Mr Corbyn would think it reasonable to remain in position and reject all compromise despite commanding the support of fewer MPs than Angus Robertson;

2. That, following the implosion of Messrs Gove and Johnson, Ms Leadsom would recognise that, despite her strong grassroots support, she was out of her depth and did not have the confidence of her MPs, and would therefore withdraw - meaning the contest was over within weeks instead of dragging on until September.

(1) does not, I think, reflect well on Mr Corbyn. Mr Corbyn himself might wish to reflect well on (2).
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
Me.

Anyone been politically DE-activated by Corbyn?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I was one of the ones cheering Corbyn on NOT to resign - I don't know about the 'reasonableness' of this; it just would have been a huge affront to the membership to allow such a thing to succeed.
The proper course of action was to put up a contender, from the off.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But i) did they vote Labour in 2015; and ii) will they become properly politically active (i.e. not attending demos but canvassing and knocking on doors)?
Who would possibly have access to any data like this? All we can say is that the labour party has grown in membership very dramatically. If that has a political impact or not can't be determined at this point, but it seems a bit much to dismiss it as a factor simply because no-one has the data on the intentions and previous history of the joiners.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Going back a few posts, Frankly My Dear asked what polling an MP would have done to ascertain the opinions of members of the constituency parties. Probably none, but most MPs would have regular meetings with their local members to discuss a range of issues. In addition, there would be less formal meetings with those who do much of the work - those who attend meetings, those who carry out letter-boxing, those who hand out leaflets at polling booths. Much the sort of work that is probably overlooked by the 3 pound members calling out for Corbyn's return.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Martin60: I am not quite de-activated. If there had been an opportunity to pay three quid this time I may well have done that - in order to vote for Smith. He is holding out a possibility of remaining in the EU - I would have thought that would be attractive to Labour party members?

And, yes Frankly My Dear, I wanted to see Alan Johnson stand for the leadership and suspect that we would be in a very different ship if he was leader.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Gee D - You may have a point, but I think the jury is still out on the level of involvement by newer members - not least because it takes a while in any CLP to get one's face known ....
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would have thought that would be attractive to Labour party members?

Although probably not to Labour party voters, especially in the North of England...
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Indeed!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
Great. But you voted Labour at the last election so that doesn't help Corbyn get closer to No 10.
but there are many like me
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
Great. But you voted Labour at the last election so that doesn't help Corbyn get closer to No 10.
but there are many like me
Even if we accept that the plural of anecdote is data, unless you are someone who a) voted Conservative last time and b) live in a Tory/ Labour marginal, that doesn't really get us very far. The object of the exercise is to win a General Election, which involves changing perceptions of the opposition among people who voted for the government, last time. If enthusing one's base were an adequate electoral strategy, IDS and the Tories would have romped home in 2005.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I would have thought that would be attractive to Labour party members?

Although probably not to Labour party voters, especially in the North of England...
I agree. First, there is the job of getting an elected Party leader who will lead an effective opposition and then a leader and Party who will be more attractive to voters (or at least less unattractive than Corbyn).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If enthusing one's base were an adequate electoral strategy, IDS and the Tories would have romped home in 2005.
And as if to help prove the point, let's not forget that the Tories recognised they were going nowhere under IDS and threw him under the bus *before* the 2005 GE.

In Tory circles, the wisdom is that Michael Howard did an excellent job of stopping the rot, binning the self-indulgent Tory wish-fulfilment navel gazing, and setting the stage for the modernisation of the party up to 2010.

Winning was never on the agenda for 2005, dragging the membership kicking and screaming back from their ideological comfort zone so that people in the real world would begin to take them seriously very much was.

[ 30. August 2016, 10:09: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
Great. But you voted Labour at the last election so that doesn't help Corbyn get closer to No 10.
but there are many like me
Even if we accept that the plural of anecdote is data, unless you are someone who a) voted Conservative last time and b) live in a Tory/ Labour marginal, that doesn't really get us very far. The object of the exercise is to win a General Election, which involves changing perceptions of the opposition among people who voted for the government, last time. If enthusing one's base were an adequate electoral strategy, IDS and the Tories would have romped home in 2005.
Fair enough in broad terms. But fails to account for the potential votes coming from those who supported other parties last time (or no party at all) -- This is the kind of research and voter-engagement that Labour needs to turn its attention to next ...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The two men who might have given the party a shot in the arm? - Chukka Umunna = bottled it and Alan Johnson = Unwilling to play ball at all.
And I acknowledge this as someone who leans more to the Corbyn side of the party.
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna. I guess he looked into the abyss of labour leadership, press intrusion and the end of personal life and, as you say, bottled it. A great loss. Perhaps he wrongly assumed others would pick the ball up but they haven't.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Gee D - You may have a point, but I think the jury is still out on the level of involvement by newer members - not least because it takes a while in any CLP to get one's face known ....
It takes no time to put your name down t letter-box an area next Saturday afternoon. I'd be surprised if many of the Corbyn romantics who paid their 3 pounds have even thought of that.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[T]hose who have been politically 'activated' by Corbyn
Who are these people?
me - reactivated
Great. But you voted Labour at the last election so that doesn't help Corbyn get closer to No 10.
but there are many like me
Even if we accept that the plural of anecdote is data, unless you are someone who a) voted Conservative last time and b) live in a Tory/ Labour marginal, that doesn't really get us very far. The object of the exercise is to win a General Election, which involves changing perceptions of the opposition among people who voted for the government, last time. If enthusing one's base were an adequate electoral strategy, IDS and the Tories would have romped home in 2005.
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was driving at (in a perhaps less than clear way). If you're one of these many people who've just joined, it seems to me that you're only going to make a difference if i) you didn't used to vote Labour but now you are (and even then, that might not be all that, for a number of reasons) and/or ii) you're going to put in the hard work of campaigning for a Labour victory (which means pounding pavements or picking up the phone, not feeling good about yourself by going on a demo on a Saturday morning).

This is admittedly based on little more than a hunch, but I don't see many of these new members falling into either category.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
That's interesting. Why do you think that? Since they're both on the right of the party I would've thought most people would've gone for the ex-postman over the smarmy lawyer?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes indeed. People used to talk about Umunna as a British Obama. That's precisely why I don't like him. Great shame that Johnson's private life got messy at a crucial time.
Jon Cruddas would be my choice, tho' I don't think he wants it or at any rate would go for it.

[ 30. August 2016, 22:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes indeed. People used to talk about Umunna as a British Obama. That's precisely why I don't like him.
Or in Andrew Neil's famous put-down: in Washington they talk of Barack Obama as an American Chuka Umunna.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Good for the brillo pad.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Gee D - You may have a point, but I think the jury is still out on the level of involvement by newer members - not least because it takes a while in any CLP to get one's face known ....
It takes no time to put your name down t letter-box an area next Saturday afternoon. I'd be surprised if many of the Corbyn romantics who paid their 3 pounds have even thought of that.
Who's going to do that before they've even been introduced to the old-timers? There has to be some settling-in.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That's interesting. Why do you think that? Since they're both on the right of the party I would've thought most people would've gone for the ex-postman over the smarmy lawyer?
Both very far ahead of a TV ad man.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes indeed. People used to talk about Umunna as a British Obama. That's precisely why I don't like him.
Because you don't like Obama? Either way it sounds odd not to like someone because of who other people liken them to.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Frankly My Dear, perhaps everything is done online now, but in former primitive times you went along and actually met people at the meeting at which you joined. It was pretty hard work not to volunteer for some letter-boxing, handing out leaflets in a local shopping centre or some such task.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Frankly My Dear, perhaps everything is done online now, but in former primitive times you went along and actually met people at the meeting at which you joined. It was pretty hard work not to volunteer for some letter-boxing, handing out leaflets in a local shopping centre or some such task.
Meeting people at meetings is what I was referring to. These 'hellos' and 'getting to know yous' have to happen first.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
That's interesting. Why do you think that? Since they're both on the right of the party I would've thought most people would've gone for the ex-postman over the smarmy lawyer?
IIRC though, Alan Johnson stood down as Shadow Chancellor because he knew he was out of his depth. Granted the bar for leader is currently very low ...
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
That's interesting. Why do you think that? Since they're both on the right of the party I would've thought most people would've gone for the ex-postman over the smarmy lawyer?
IIRC though, Alan Johnson stood down as Shadow Chancellor because he knew he was out of his depth. Granted the bar for leader is currently very low ...
Maybe, but that's not how the public had been perceiving him ... Whereas, with Balls, that's how he was perceived, and yet there was no budging him ... Oh well ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was driving at (in a perhaps less than clear way). If you're one of these many people who've just joined, it seems to me that you're only going to make a difference if i) you didn't used to vote Labour but now you are (and even then, that might not be all that, for a number of reasons) and/or ii) you're going to put in the hard work of campaigning for a Labour victory (which means pounding pavements or picking up the phone, not feeling good about yourself by going on a demo on a Saturday morning).

This is admittedly based on little more than a hunch, but I don't see many of these new members falling into either category.
Interestingly Owen Smith is winning by a country mile among people who were members of the Labour Party prior to May 2015 but is being tonked among those who either joined during the first leadership election or subsequently. I'm guessing that the new blood consists of a) people who were members of far left parties prior to 2015, b) ex-Greens c) former Lib Dems who supported the party on the somewhat implausible grounds that it was a party of the far left and d) people who buggered off at some point during the Kinnock/ Smith/ Blair era and now have their party back. Whether or not they are prepared to go out and pound pavements delivering leaflets is an open question But I am guessing that most of them don't really give a stuff about electability because 25% in the polls and 120 MPs (which is Labours natural floor, I am guessing) is so much better than anyone in a), b) or c) has been used to and category d) think that compromise with the electorate is the Sin Against The Holy Ghost.

I don't think that leafleting et. al. will be an issue. Labour now has something like 500,000 members so even if 2/3 of them are clicktivists this gives them nearly as many active members as the Conservatives have in total (c177,000) many of whom are frail and elderly. I think that the main problem will be piling up votes in constituencies where Labour cannot lose and losing them, in large numbers, in constituencies where they can and will.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I think that the main problem will be piling up votes in constituencies where Labour cannot lose and losing them, in large numbers, in constituencies where they can and will.
A few months ago I was thinking it was quite possible that Labour might win the popular vote at the next election but end up with fewer seats than the Tories, for this reason.

I have to say this scenario (winning the popular vote I mean) now seems unlikely.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
I would have voted Labour with either of these two fine men as leader. I never will with Corbyn and it would be unlikely with Smith as leader.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Interestingly Owen Smith is winning by a country mile among people who were members of the Labour Party prior to May 2015 but is being tonked among those who either joined during the first leadership election or subsequently.
This just goes to show that it was Ed Miliband's changes to the party constitution which have saddled it with the unelectable Corbyn. The £3 Trots really have changed everything.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Interestingly Owen Smith is winning by a country mile among people who were members of the Labour Party prior to May 2015 but is being tonked among those who either joined during the first leadership election or subsequently.
You're just quoting "Saving Labour" here. I can't find any actual polling data to back that up. What would be interesting is if you could.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The £3 Trots really have changed everything.
£25 Trots, please... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Interestingly Owen Smith is winning by a country mile among people who were members of the Labour Party prior to May 2015 but is being tonked among those who either joined during the first leadership election or subsequently.
You're just quoting "Saving Labour" here. I can't find any actual polling data to back that up. What would be interesting is if you could.
I live to serve...
 
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :
 
Am one of the Corbyn loyalists, used to be political atheist with rather hard right inclinations in Scandinavia.

Rather frankly, having moved to the UK and seeing it with outside eyes, this country is FUBAR not because of either extreme socialism (or the risk of it) or necessarily extreme capitalism, but because of nimbyism and cronyism making it culturally and corruption-wise the Western European equivalent of Russia. Everyone is looking out for themselves solely, and is first and foremost making sure not to get stepped on by others.

That's why I've joined Labour. For me, as for seemingly many others, Corbyn is a way to break the cronyist system on both sides of the political fence. Sure, he has his leftist leanings and he sometimes misjudges situation (although with a former PM who caused Brexit in order to stay in power which might ultimately break the U in "UK", I'm not sure he's the worst on the playing field). Still, he's the best because he's not the rest. In my eyes, he has never gotten a single chance to prove his leadership because the cronyist, nimbyist prevailing order wouldn't allow him.

And I say this as someone who supported Cameron against Brown, and with a former right-wing party membership in Sweden. People like me join Labour, not just £3 Trots, in order to support the challenge of the existing cronyist, nimbyist order. I didn't support Labour before because whatever they were opposing under Ed Miliband, it never was the real problem.

And no, I don't think nationalisation of the railroads or removing the monarchy are the main reforms that the UK should undertake. I think rebuilding and modernising the entire rail structure is way overdue and that the monarch should be asked to protest the gerrymandering on both sides of the political fence. But Corbyn is the only candidate who represents a threat to the order of nimbyism and cronyism, which is the biggest roadblock against the necessary reforms without which the UK will become increasingly East European.

[ 31. August 2016, 19:01: Message edited by: An die Freude ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Interestingly Owen Smith is winning by a country mile among people who were members of the Labour Party prior to May 2015 but is being tonked among those who either joined during the first leadership election or subsequently.
You're just quoting "Saving Labour" here. I can't find any actual polling data to back that up. What would be interesting is if you could.
I live to serve...
That's relatively conclusive. What a shame for Smith that most of the new full members (as opposed to PaulTH's '£3 Trots') went and backed Corbyn.

It's almost as if the right leader attracts people to join a political party... [Biased]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes indeed. People used to talk about Umunna as a British Obama. That's precisely why I don't like him.
Because you don't like Obama? Either way it sounds odd not to like someone because of who other people liken them to.
It's not because people liken him to Obama, it's because I think he is like Obama. Slick and plausible and superficial and rather right-wing in the wrong (i.e. liberal, in the European rather than US sense) kind of way.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have slightly mixed feelings about Alan Johnson but would have been delighted with Chukka Umuna.
That's interesting. Why do you think that? Since they're both on the right of the party I would've thought most people would've gone for the ex-postman over the smarmy lawyer?
IIRC though, Alan Johnson stood down as Shadow Chancellor because he knew he was out of his depth. Granted the bar for leader is currently very low ...
I thought it was because his personal life was going tits up because his wife was shagging someone else? Or was that another time?
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
In my eyes, he has never gotten a single chance to prove his leadership because the cronyist, nimbyist prevailing order wouldn't allow him.
That cronyist cabal presumably includes every Labour leader from Michael Foot onwards, none of whom has ever thought it would be wise to ask Jeremy Corbyn to take up any position of responsibility whether in government or opposition.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes indeed. People used to talk about Umunna as a British Obama. That's precisely why I don't like him.
Because you don't like Obama? Either way it sounds odd not to like someone because of who other people liken them to.
It's not because people liken him to Obama, it's because I think he is like Obama. Slick and plausible and superficial and rather right-wing in the wrong (i.e. liberal, in the European rather than US sense) kind of way.
My objection to Chuka is that he doesn't have what it takes to play in the big leagues. They guy was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet for the better part of an entire parliament. He ought to have spotted that the job of the Leader of the Opposition was to have a bucket of shit poured over his head on a daily basis before putting himself forward for the Labour Leadership. As it happens, I'm a fan of Obama, but even if I wasn't I'd have to acknowledge that, in a political sense, he's got ice water running through them veins. As a more general point, this does demonstrate one of the key weaknesses of the Blairites. They were, as a faction, forged in a political summer and when winter came lacked the durability to hold their line. If Ed Miliband had lost in 2010 he would doubtless have served as Shadow Home Secretary, or some such. David buggered off to the US in a fit of pique. Alan Johnson is a writer of charming memoirs but didn't cut it as a Shadow Minister, Chuka bottled the leadership election and Tristan couldn't even get the nominations. Things have come to a pretty pass when your factions top representative has held no office more senior than Shadow Minister of State for Health. Perhaps it was an appropriate coda. Blair and Kendall, for all their faults, have guts but many of their faction ought to be filed under Miles Gloriosus.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
In my eyes, he has never gotten a single chance to prove his leadership because the cronyist, nimbyist prevailing order wouldn't allow him.
That cronyist cabal presumably includes every Labour leader from Michael Foot onwards, none of whom has ever thought it would be wise to ask Jeremy Corbyn to take up any position of responsibility whether in government or opposition.
Be fair. Corbyn was elected in the 1983 election, after which Michael Foot resigned. So it's only every Labour leader from Neil Kinnock onwards. Of course, holding a front bench position in the Labour Party does generally oblige one to vote against the Tory Party in Parliamentary divisions so I can see why it might not have been Jeremy's thang, given his record.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Of course, holding a front bench position in the Labour Party does generally oblige one to vote against the Tory Party in Parliamentary divisions
A shame many of the recent front bench hadn't realised this...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Quite right Callan. But this is a post-fact debate. Jeremy has been and still is an individualist and a loner, an outsider in Parliament. And I think he does not really know how these patterns of thought and behaviour have damaged his ability to lead any diverse group. And, historically, the Labour Party has always been a diverse group, a rowdy coalition. Maybe it will change? But the more monolithic it becomes the less electable it will be.
 
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
In my eyes, he has never gotten a single chance to prove his leadership because the cronyist, nimbyist prevailing order wouldn't allow him.
That cronyist cabal presumably includes every Labour leader from Michael Foot onwards, none of whom has ever thought it would be wise to ask Jeremy Corbyn to take up any position of responsibility whether in government or opposition.
I refer to the time after his election. I don't believe it's a cabal, but I do believe it's a tendency that goes far back in the UK, albeit spun harder and harder over the last decades.

I do not see Corbyn as an individual as the leader for the party. I see him as a representative for many things, things I think were lost in the Thick of It era and its self-centred, power-hungry "leaders". A figurehead, if you like - something that strangely seems to have completely bypassed those accusing him of excessive republicanism.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But the more monolithic it becomes the less electable it will be.
I thought the argument against Corbyn was that he did not conform enough to the united opinions of the MP's.

.

I have yet to see a believable empirical case for that Corbyn and an alternative Labour politics (alternative to the one that lost in 2010 and 2015) is actually unelectable, and that the centrist/Torylite/electionwinning politics that lost in 2010 and 2015 is going to win more elections. What we have seen is a meltdown in the party leadership, long before we got the chance to see the actual outcome of Corbyn's leadership. I don't think that is fair and I do think that the MP's are shooting themselves in the neck in the aim of shooting the party in the foot to prove that the party is incapacitated by Corbyn's leadership.

I do think that an electoral win was possible if everyone actually gathered around Corbyn from the start. If we ever believed that Gordon "We are now beyond boom/bust economy" or Ed "Hell yes" could win elections with a sound party machine behind them, why not Corbyn?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to me to be an odd argument for certain Labour activists to use to say that Corbyn shouldn't win because under him Labour would never gain power.

This assumes that "winning an election" is the only possible positive outcome - even if it is on a platform that the majority of the party believe in put forward by a leader the majority support.

Indeed in the British system it is only Labour that could come out with this kind of rubbish and who could claim that a not-Corbyn candidate is the only thing which could stop Thatcherite Tory governments for the next 20 years.

How about standing for something you actually believe in rather than watering it down to meet the standards of the Tory centerists who might be persuadable to jump ship if the Blairist future agenda gives them enough sweeties? How about standing on a platform which the majority of the country may not agree with but which actually reflects the views of those who vote for you? How about the age-old belief in persuasion, debate etc?

I mean, really.

[ 01. September 2016, 08:35: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Sorry I messed up some negatives there. I should have said:

This assumes that "winning an election" is the only possible positive outcome - even if it is on a platform that only a minority of the party believe in having rejected the one put forward by a leader the majority support.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes. There is an assumption that Labour can only get into power if it takes a centrist policy; conversely, that a more rigorous left-wing approach will necessarily put people off. And that possibly goes back to the disastrous Foot (or perhaps Militant Tendency) years.

Where is the proven evidence? What if precisely the opposite is true? What if people are tired of the status quo and want a brand of "conviction" politics? Labour don't seem to want to risk that.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Where is the proven evidence? What if precisely the opposite is true? What if people are tired of the status quo and want a brand of "conviction" politics? Labour don't seem to want to risk that.
What if, shock horror, standing up for the interests of members and those who vote for you means that you don't get a parliamentary majority, but you do it anyway because that's kinda the point of politics.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. There is an assumption that Labour can only get into power if it takes a centrist policy; conversely, that a more rigorous left-wing approach will necessarily put people off.
But presumably not an assumption shared by the people who back Mr Smith's manifesto, unless you are arguing that it is Blairite and centrist.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. There is an assumption that Labour can only get into power if it takes a centrist policy; conversely, that a more rigorous left-wing approach will necessarily put people off. And that possibly goes back to the disastrous Foot (or perhaps Militant Tendency) years.

Where is the proven evidence? What if precisely the opposite is true? What if people are tired of the status quo and want a brand of "conviction" politics? Labour don't seem to want to risk that.
Labour moved a little to the left under Brown, and narrowly lost to the Tories. They then moved further left under Milliband and lost to the Tories by more. So I think you're on shakey logical ground if you claim that Labour needs to move much further left in order to win. Not saying it couldn't work for us (personally I think it could if we had a leader who could find his/her arse with both hands), but the recent evidence is somewhat against it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. There is an assumption that Labour can only get into power if it takes a centrist policy; conversely, that a more rigorous left-wing approach will necessarily put people off.
But presumably not an assumption shared by the people who back Mr Smith's manifesto
Smith's manifesto is a grab bag of various things. I'm not sure to what extent the people who are supporting Smith in the current round actually back his manifesto - as only 12% of those eligible to vote actually think he could win an election.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What if, shock horror, standing up for the interests of members and those who vote for you means that you don't get a parliamentary majority, but you do it anyway because that's kinda the point of politics.
Under the present winner-take-all political system, you can stand up for the interests of your members without a parliamentary majority, but having raised your bum all you can do is sit back down again.
If you want to actually do something for the interests of those who voted for you other than virtue signal you need to be able to get a parliamentary majority to back their interests.

(And politics should not be standing up for the interests solely of the people who voted for you. It should be working for the common interest. I happen to think the common interest coincides with the interests of the people Corbyn wants to support; but framing it as the interests of Corbyn supporters is playing into the kind of politics that the Left should be trying to reject.)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think you're on shakey logical ground if you claim that Labour needs to move much further left in order to win.
Yes, I realise that. But, of course, the corollary to what you have said is that Labour failed to win because it did not move far enough to the Left. Of course that again is ultimately unproveable.

Where I think there is a real problem is in devising and promoting a "contemporary" left-wing agenda which excises the memory of rampant Trade Unionism and of old-style heavy industries. Some time ago a leftist Labour MP spoke at our church (in the context of an EU Referendum debate) and the difficulty with his discourse was that it seemed to be taking us back to an idealised 1950s rather than forwards. You can't do that; both the world and individuals have changed vastly since then.

Blair's genius was to present a sparkling new vision of Labour to the nation (one that in my view was fundamentally hollow); what we need is a substantial, modern and truly Socialist view on things. Now this may in fact be impossible: Socialism per se may be inextricably thralled to a 19th/early 20th century pattern of industrialised society. Perhaps we need an entirely new vision. (IMO Miliband actually had something of this, but couldn't translate high-flown abstract political theory into real live policies "on the ground").
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(IMO Miliband actually had something of this, but couldn't translate high-flown abstract political theory into real live policies "on the ground").
I'd agree with that, problem was he failed utterly on the "personality" side of things, which shouldn't matter, but does.

Given how much of that was compatible with the Tory left, and the extent to which Mrs May has been going out of her way to pinch Miliband's clothes since Jeremy left the space vacant, there is always the fascinating possibility that the Tories are going to get there first.

I'm not saying it's likely, but the goal's open...
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I too thought that Milliband was onto something. It's worth remembering that he also had a rough ride from labour MPs in his first year (they made it very clear they wanted his brother not him) and the press never really gave him a chance: Red Ed seems to be about the only thing that most people remember about him, along with the ridiculous Edstone and the bacon sandwich incident.

[ 01. September 2016, 10:22: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Blair's genius was to present a sparkling new vision of Labour to the nation (one that in my view was fundamentally hollow); what we need is a substantial, modern and truly Socialist view on things.
Agreed. I have some friends who are fed up with Corbyn because he's "unelectable"; one has actually left the Labour Party and joined the Liberals. They may have a point, but they fail to address the issue that nuLabour lacked substance. No one, even at the time, knew what it stood for and it now looks increasingly vacuous. Corbyn has conviction, which is why so many people do support him, and party membership has rocketed. As many have said, this does not automatically lead to General Election victory but a candidate without conviction isn't going to get anywhere.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
As it happens I am a LibDem voter myself (though not a party member), however I have a great deal of time for a more Socialist position.

[ 01. September 2016, 11:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

(And politics should not be standing up for the interests solely of the people who voted for you. It should be working for the common interest. I happen to think the common interest coincides with the interests of the people Corbyn wants to support; but framing it as the interests of Corbyn supporters is playing into the kind of politics that the Left should be trying to reject.)
And herein is the reason why politics are in the mess that they're in.

The way it is supposed to work is that parties put out their agenda, people vote for it (or not) and then the elected representatives attempt to get it through parliament. There is absolutely no sense in saying that "oh hang on, we're not just for the people who voted for us, we're for the common interest of everyone" because (a) that's a meaningless phrase and (b) that undermines the whole idea of having manifestos, party policies, whips and the current Westminster system.

On most issues there is no obvious "common interest" consensus which everyone can sign up for. One might think that a well-funded NHS would have wide support, but it is fairly clear that there is a sizeable group of politicians - if not the voting public - who don't want to pay the current level of government spending on healthcare and I dare say a sizeable number who do not want an NHS at all.

In fact the only possible way do decide on almost any issue is to state what it is that you stand for and allow people to vote one way or another.

Second, I utterly reject the idea that an opposition backbench MP is a pointless position to be in. I was once in a local meeting where my MP said this, and I very nearly got up to thump him. My relatives did not struggle for more than 100 years to get the suffrage just for some prick with a duckhouse to tell me that there was nothing he could do at Westminster than drink subsidised beer. If you really think that, piss off and let someone else do the job who actually thinks it has a point beyond the status.

The reality is that there are a large number of debates in parliament where the government does not get its own way, there are a large number of occasions when individual MPs can vote on their conscience. Personally, I'd much prefer a system where politicians actually voted on their conscience (which, after all, is how the Westminster system is actually intended to work) even if I don't agree with them.

And for the record, I've never voted Labour although I increasingly associate myself with socialist principles. I wouldn't vote for the very reason outlined by others: the party is such a mess that even when they get into power they enact policies which are little different to the Tories anyway.

In the past I've voted Green, I'll now be PC all the way.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The reality is that there are a large number of debates in parliament where the government does not get its own way, there are a large number of occasions when individual MPs can vote on their conscience.
There are also things such as Select Committees which are, I believe, all-Party and constitute much of the 'real' business of Parliament.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The reality is that there are a large number of debates in parliament where the government does not get its own way, there are a large number of occasions when individual MPs can vote on their conscience.
There are also things such as Select Committees which are, I believe, all-Party and constitute much of the 'real' business of Parliament.
Don't forget the House of Lords. I'm not a fan of unelected bodies as a rule, but in practice this has given every government some bloody noses over the years, especially in the Committee stages.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Let me get this straight: the plan is now indefinite Tory rule, tempered by backbench interventions, stern words for ministers at parliamentary committees and the occasional defeat in the House of Lords, subsequently over-ruled by the Parliament Act?

I'll be all right but it's a bit fucking harsh on anyone whose life might, conceivably, be made better by a Labour government.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

(And politics should not be standing up for the interests solely of the people who voted for you. It should be working for the common interest. I happen to think the common interest coincides with the interests of the people Corbyn wants to support; but framing it as the interests of Corbyn supporters is playing into the kind of politics that the Left should be trying to reject.)
And herein is the reason why politics are in the mess that they're in.

The way it is supposed to work is that parties put out their agenda, people vote for it (or not) and then the elected representatives attempt to get it through parliament. There is absolutely no sense in saying that "oh hang on, we're not just for the people who voted for us, we're for the common interest of everyone" because (a) that's a meaningless phrase and (b) that undermines the whole idea of having manifestos, party policies, whips and the current Westminster system.
If rather than manifestos, party policies, and whips, you would prefer to have politicians voting on their consciences, I think the objections you line up against me also apply to the idea of politicians voting on their consciences. Assuming that the legislation doesn't involve human rights violations, if there's no such thing as the common interest then there's nothing for a politician to have a conscience about.

The point at which politicians aim for the common interest is the point at which they try to write their manifestos. At the crudest the politician whose manifesto represents the most people gets elected. The system is set up to benefit the politicians whose manifestos benefit the most people.

quote:
The reality is that there are a large number of debates in parliament where the government does not get its own way, there are a large number of occasions when individual MPs can vote on their conscience. Personally, I'd much prefer a system where politicians actually voted on their conscience (which, after all, is how the Westminster system is actually intended to work) even if I don't agree with them.
Just because you want to punch someone who says something, it doesn't follow that they don't have a point.

The government doesn't get its own way when it doesn't have a majority, and it's more likely to have a majority if it won by a landslide than if it didn't.

Really, if you think all there is to politics is to determine whose interests predominate, you ought to be a libertarian. The justification for government under liberal political theory is that there are activities which benefit the whole community or most of the community, which cannot be achieved unless the whole of the community cooperate and contribute. The best way of determining what those activities are, or the least worst way, is to get everyone to vote for them. The assumption is that even if everyone votes selfishly the outcome will benefit the most people and therefore be most likely to reflect the common interest.

If there's no such thing as the common interest, then there's no justification for any one section of the community coopting other sections' contributions to their own interest.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Change the shape of society? Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
On the theme of Jeremy Corbyn might actually be really good but he's cleverly hiding his genius, this piece by Kerry McCarthy is interesting. And I don't think she could be described as 'Blairite'. I especially like the bit where Corbyn seemingly doesn't know the difference between a hedge fund and a loan shark.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
On the theme of Jeremy Corbyn might actually be really good but he's cleverly hiding his genius, this piece by Kerry McCarthy is interesting. And I don't think she could be described as 'Blairite'. I especially like the bit where Corbyn seemingly doesn't know the difference between a hedge fund and a loan shark.
Thank you for that link. Kerry McCarthy may well not be well known nationally but she definitely isn't a Blairite. I'd go further than that, and say that it says an enormous amount about the man, all negative, that Corbyn has failed to hold her loyalty.

Swap VegFest for Corbyn's own pet causes over the last 40+ years and the first of the two paragraphs below does describe how a lot of non-Corbyn supporters, me among them, do see him - a man who thinks real politics is going on demos, proclaiming the cause at meetings, and soaking up applause, rather than getting somewhere where you can actually do something.
quote:
"But I didn’t come into politics to just say things. I want to do things. It would be easy for me to spend my time speaking at rallies and events like VegFest, addressing animal welfare campaigners and conservationists, telling people how much I agree with them, and soaking up the applause. I would feel good about myself, and they would feel good about me.

But what counts is who is sitting at that desk in Defra, giving the go ahead for badger culling to start next week. My fear is that unless Labour starts to get serious about getting back into government that will never be us."

 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Change the shape of society? Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
On the theme of Jeremy Corbyn might actually be really good but he's cleverly hiding his genius, this piece by Kerry McCarthy is interesting. And I don't think she could be described as 'Blairite'. I especially like the bit where Corbyn seemingly doesn't know the difference between a hedge fund and a loan shark.
Yes, that is an interesting and persuasive article. It rings true to me. It's making me think that the answer to my rhetorical question might best be expressed as 'No'.

There's lots going on here, and analysis is difficult when so many politicians are playing politics, but I take this article as evidence of multiple errors by Corbyn and his team. Clearly there are many Labour MPs who oppose Corbyn for political reasons, and many claims of incompetence have not convinced me (you can always make them about anybody), but these claims would embarrass me if I was Corbyn.

And incompetence is not so terrible. Others should be able to largely cover for it. It's not comparable with being thuggish or untrustworthy like Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. Osborne was economically incompetent and got away with it. Cameron made perhaps the greatest post-War political miscalculation the UK has seen.

But Corbyn is a disappointment. I wish he had more sparkle, that he was a listener, that he energised those around him. I'm afraid that he is simply so out of date that he looks different and that we've mistaken his oddness for originality and strength of purpose.

But what can we do? We need an alternative to a violent foreign policy, to exclusion and inequality, to wilfully feeble government, to xenophobia and that internalised xenophobia that views the sick and disabled as an intolerable threat. Until Corbyn we had heard nothing from Labour to set against the Tory programme for years.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry I messed up some negatives there. I should have said:

This assumes that "winning an election" is the only possible positive outcome - even if it is on a platform that only a minority of the party believe in having rejected the one put forward by a leader the majority support.
But being prepared to assume power is part of the job description of HM Loyal Opposition.

Labour isn't a special-interest party like Plaid Cymru or UKIP. It is, currently, supposed to be a potential government. You are right that parties that don't claim to be potential parties of government have had some spectacular successes on their own terms in the past few years, without winning elections. UKIP in particular, but also the SNP got the Scottish independence referendum, and Plaid Cymru got Welsh devolution.

However, ISTM these successes were possible because they had parties of government to frighten. That is, UKIP's success wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a Conservative party with members broadly sympathetic to their aims. Turning Labour into a pressure group for socialism won't work if the only viable party of government is the Conservatives.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
They may have a point, but they fail to address the issue that nuLabour lacked substance. No one, even at the time, knew what it stood for and it now looks increasingly vacuous.
I think it stood for running the country in a competent, fair way. Some of us quite like that.

quote:
Corbyn has conviction, which is why so many people do support him, and party membership has rocketed.
From people who voted Labour anyway. While

quote:
one has actually left the Labour Party and joined the Liberals
other Labour voters have stopped voting Labour.

quote:
As many have said, this does not automatically lead to General Election victory but a candidate without conviction isn't going to get anywhere.
??Blair's apparent lack of conviction won him three thumpingly big majorities.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Blair's apparent lack of conviction won him three thumpingly big majorities.
It can work both ways round.

As people have said (better than I can) on other threads, where there's a 2 party system - a leftish party and a rightish party and a whole lot of swing voters in the centre - whichever party better appeals to that centre will get elected.

That may seem unfair to the committed people on the two wings who will contribute money and time and effort to their party. Who get taken for granted.

But that seems to me a healthier dynamic than the one where the centre has been so hollowed-out that there are no undecideds, and the party which better motivates its own supporters to get out and vote will get elected. In that situation you want a leader who inspires the party faithful rather than one who appeals to the agnostic...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Change the shape of society? Is it actually fear of competence that lies behind the charge of incompetence?
On the theme of Jeremy Corbyn might actually be really good but he's cleverly hiding his genius, this piece by Kerry McCarthy is interesting. And I don't think she could be described as 'Blairite'. I especially like the bit where Corbyn seemingly doesn't know the difference between a hedge fund and a loan shark.
OK. He ain't sharp. He should be open to correction on these matters in the immediate context. Because his heart is still in the right place. His policies are. I can actually see the loan shark, hedge fund parapraxis: the dispossessed being driven to the margins, living under hedges. McCarthy is an environmentalist and right to pursue that, but it is NOT at the top of the socialist i.e. egalitarian agenda by a country mile.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Because his heart is still in the right place.
Caracas? Moscow? Tehran?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
[Smile] you forgot Raqqa.

[ 02. September 2016, 09:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He should be open to correction on these matters in the immediate context.
But he doesn't seem to be. There isn't any hint of an acknowledgement that he hasn't managed the PLP well, or has any difficulty grasping policy details.

McCarthy's account rings very true and fits very well with the other stories of incompetent managing of shadow ministers. Translate this into running a country would be a disaster and the end of Labour for a generation.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
What kind of development would prove you wrong?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
What kind of development would prove you wrong?
For those who are not already infatuated with their projected vision of the dream person they'd like Corbyn to be, rather than the real one that is, it's way, way too late for that. The chance he had, he's blown.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
What kind of development would prove you wrong?
For those who are not already infatuated with their projected vision of the dream person they'd like Corbyn to be, rather than the real one that is, it's way, way too late for that. The chance he had, he's blown.
Now I'm really confused. How is winning two leadership elections a blown chance ??
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Winning a leadership election gave him a chance. This is a blown chance.

What would prove me wrong would be non-Corbyn fans coming forward and saying "We gave him a chance, and these stories turned out not to be true. He chaired meetings effectively, consulted appropriately on policy, and steered us to a clear position which we used to hold the government to account."
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Frankly my Dear I was going to respond, because I wondered at first that you'd misunderstood what I was saying, but mdijon has said what I would have said.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Corbyn's made a few howlers in his managerial capacity, and the PLP have signally failed to put up a convincing alternative. I make that one blown chance each. Clean slate.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Blair's genius was to present a sparkling new vision of Labour to the nation (one that in my view was fundamentally hollow); what we need is a substantial, modern and truly Socialist view on things.
Agreed. I have some friends who are fed up with Corbyn because he's "unelectable"; one has actually left the Labour Party and joined the Liberals. They may have a point, but they fail to address the issue that nuLabour lacked substance. No one, even at the time, knew what it stood for and it now looks increasingly vacuous. Corbyn has conviction, which is why so many people do support him, and party membership has rocketed. As many have said, this does not automatically lead to General Election victory but a candidate without conviction isn't going to get anywhere.
Actually, I think that part of the problem was that large numbers of middle class lefties didn't really notice the achievements of New Labour and, therefore, assumed it wasn't important. For those who may remember my posts on the subject, back in the day, I include myself in that category. Mea Maxima Culpa.

New Labour, like Gaul, could be divided into three parts. It was one part reinvention of social democracy and one part response to globalisation, one part foreign policy. The social democratic bit was common or garden redistribution. Famously, New Labour was relaxed about people getting seriously rich but everyone forgets the caveat "as long as they pay their taxes". The proceeds of growth were spent on schools and hospitals and on the reduction of child and pensioner poverty.

The globalisation bit was based on the rejection of two responses to the phenomenon. Old Labour and UKIP, in their different ways, are averse to globalisation in the manner of King Canute. The free market right are very keen on the idea and are quite happy to see the weakest go to the wall. New Labour thought that globalisation was inevitable and that the best thing to do was to equip people to flourish in it hence the mantra: "education, education, education". How successful they were can be questioned, but the attempt was honourable.

The third plank of New Labour was the whole ethical foreign policy bit. This is the bit that crashed and died after 9/11, mainly because the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe. Earlier interventions such as the intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were successful and whilst the intervention in Afghanistan was an impasse it is hard to argue that the west should have done nothing after 9/11. But it was a fairly conspicuous failure and it's hard to say "well, on the one hand, sure start centres, on the other Iraq".

So most middle class leftists tended to focus on the Iraq War and, as things like child poverty and pensioner poverty were things they came across in the pages of the New Statesman and Guardian, they tended to neglect Blair and Brown's actual achievements and to bitch about the lack of middle class subsidies like cheap rail fairs and student grants.

Hence the conviction that - at last! - Jeremy is focusing on real isshoos, whilst maintaining that New Labour won three elections because glitz and stardust and spin. But it's bollocks. Blair and Brown, for all their faults, were substantial and modern. Corbyn is, frankly, neither.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Callan - spot on!
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Callan, you have something of a case as far as the first administration is concerned. A ghost of one re. the second. The third destroyed all of that - such as it ever was.

They did not tear up the tory spending plans when they came into office, because they wanted a "reputation for prudence", even so this meant further crippling public services. So no sooner was some level of investment started than the disaster that is the PFI was wished on the nation. So no credit for that I'm afraid.

Ethical foreign policy - excellent idea, utterly destroyed by their utterly ridiculous toadying to Dubya.

There were no halcyon days under new labour. A bright dawn, yes, but it fizzled too quickly into what had become wearily familiar BAU, i.e. tory policies with the edges better sanded.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:



There were no halcyon days under new labour. A bright dawn, yes, but it fizzled too quickly into what had become wearily familiar BAU, i.e. tory policies with the edges better sanded.
Sorry, but this is rewriting history. The first Blair government stuck to Tory spending plans for the first two years because this was a manifesto pledge. An unnecessary one, to be sure, even Ken Clarke said he wouldn't have kept to them. But the spending didn't really start until the second term.

As I recall, one issue in the 2001 election campaign was that the government wasn't spending enough - now conveniently forgotten by the "Labour caused the recession by spending too much" crowd. But after 2001 Brown really turned on the taps and schools, the NHS and low-paid workers all benefitted immensely. To say that this was all "Tory-lite" is just lazy. If Major had remained in power, public services would have continued to be run down as per the long-term plan.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Corbyn's made a few howlers in his managerial capacity, and the PLP have signally failed to put up a convincing alternative. I make that one blown chance each. Clean slate.
To conceive of this as PLP vs Corbyn and tot up one point for managerial incompetence on one side and one point for failing to identify a convincing challenger on the other and therefore concluding that one sticks with the incompetent manager seems not to be a helpful model.

Corbyn's managerial incompetence shows he can't run a country and he lost the confidence of his shadow cabinet and the PLP as a result. Corbyn is a single entity and should be excluded as a future prime minister as a result.

The PLP has indeed failed in response, but personally I wouldn't give up on it at this point because it isn't a single entity. It is possible that they will get their act together and we'll have a competent opposition.

But if we do accept that the PLP has blown it in a fundamental and irredeemable way then we are left looking for a new party as the alternative to Tory rule.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
But after 2001 Brown really turned on the taps and schools, the NHS and low-paid workers all benefitted immensely. To say that this was all "Tory-lite" is just lazy. If Major had remained in power, public services would have continued to be run down as per the long-term plan.
I agree. I was working in the NHS at the time and remember a real transformation in terms of the aspirations and the quality of the NHS. This was only possible with proper funding. That surely wouldn't have happened under the Tories.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I post on this thread as the electoral equivalent of a cross bencher. I'm not Labour and make my comments to try to get across how it appears from outside the self feeding Facebook fervour of the Corbyn-infatuated. That's one of the reasons why I bother to post at all.

However, I can say very categorically, from personal experience, that there was a marked change in ethos and improvement in the quality of public administration in May 1997. Objectively, the Blair administration did rather well until it made the big mistake of going into Iraq.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is very interesting, the record of the Blair governments, but is it meant to be an argument for voting for Smith?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
One argument against the PLP, Blair, and everyone to the Right of Corbyn is that they are Tory-lite and one might as well not bother. I think it's pretty clear that isn't true. Whether that's enough to send you careering into a warm embrace in Owen Smith's arms is another matter of course.

Personally I think it is very hard to ignore the accounts of Corbyn's managerial skills in the party and if one takes those seriously I do think "anyone but Corbyn" becomes a plausible position. Those who don't take these stories seriously either don't believe them or think that a PM can work by being a big ideas guy and an inspiring example but it doesn't matter if they can't run stuff.

It is a terrifying dilemma to consider from my point of view - the track record of being right on Iraq vs wrong on management. If we could go back 15 years would one exchange the funding of the NHS, minimum wage and revitalizing public services for 0.5M lives?

But that isn't the current dilemma. The current dilemma is much worse because it introduces the unknown. Would the current PLP be stupid enough to take us back into a war? The record on Syria is that many of them would. Hillary Benn was ever so statemanly as he eloquently advocated piling on another military solution to a political problem created by ill-thought and venal military solutions. Corbyn clearly wouldn't do that and can be relied on to stand against it, but he can't be relied on to get the PLP to back him in standing against it so perhaps voting for him isn't even a vote for near-pacifism.

And that encapsulates the problem with Corbyn for me. He can't deliver anything.

[ 03. September 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Yes, quetzecoatl, because it shows Blair and Brown to have been competent, whereas we know that Corbyn is incompetent. Owen Smith has been in the public eye for several weeks now and has not looked incompetent, and shows some signs of being competent. We may reasonably assume that he is competent and that therefore he would be good at government. Hopefully the electorate will make the same assumption. Incompetence, which Michael Foot also had, obviously makes you bad at government but more importantly leads to unelectability.

Incompetence, remember, is a quality of persons. If you are incompetent now, so you will always be. It's not a judgement on your decisions or performance over a period, it's an unchangeable property, an Aristotelian essence. If you suffer from it, there's no point surrounding yourself with the highly competent: everything you touch will still go wrong.

New Labour's extremely high competence quotient was not down to the civil service or the cabinet or those spin doctors or advisors, nor was it a mere appearance down to the general sympathy if the Murdoch press, it was real and it was entirely due to Blair, and after him, Brown. Well, not Brown so much, but he benefited from the ghostly continuation of Blair's competence for a while until it dried up.

If you can't just look at a politician and just know somehow whether or not they are competent or incompetent, I'm not sure you should really have a vote.

[ 03. September 2016, 09:15: Message edited by: hatless ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
But after 2001 Brown really turned on the taps and schools, the NHS and low-paid workers all benefitted immensely. To say that this was all "Tory-lite" is just lazy. If Major had remained in power, public services would have continued to be run down as per the long-term plan.
I agree. I was working in the NHS at the time and remember a real transformation in terms of the aspirations and the quality of the NHS. This was only possible with proper funding. That surely wouldn't have happened under the Tories.
I'm not denying that, I hope. It may be that my memory is eliding a gap between when the artificial brakes came off and the disaster that is PFI was wished on the NHS and the nation. But surely, you can't deny that PFI is a disaster, and a fundamentally wrong thing for a Labour government to have relied on, given the way in which it subjugates public services to private profit? I suppose that being in the catchment of he Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital makes me particularly sensitive to this issue.

There was, however, something fundamentally wrong with the way in which NuLabour went about constructing its policy, especially in the 2nd and 3rd terms of office. They had a habit of breaking off little lumps of established Labour policies and values into what they hoped were attractive soundbites, and then implementing them without reference to anything else. For example, in order to avoid being called a tax-and-spend government, they spent but didn't tax, and went through the entire resultant boom without addressing the need to pay for it. That boom was to a significant extent financed by perfectly prudent public investment: one of the effects of using private companies to deliver public policy is that funds flow from the one into the other. That is, of course, how Keynesian economics is supposed to work, but again, if you don't siphon back some of the gain to pay for that work and future work, the result is a Ponzi scheme that eventually collapses under its own weight.

PFI was relied on to a significant extent as an attempt to lighten that load, but to my mind it is both a betrayal of Labour values (because it rubbishes the whole idea of public provision of public services) and hugely excessively expensive to the public purse, creating a burden on the future vastly in excess of the easement to the burden on the (then) present. Ironically, it would have been far cheaper to absorb the cost into the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, but that would have required political courage, and an explanation as to how this was not going to cause the whole economy to overbalance. I'm pretty confident that this would have been possible, if anyone had tried it at the time.

It's very difficult to have that debate now, because the financial crash happened in 2008, changing the entire climate and priorities completely. This, of course, is what caused the already somewhat upward curve of borrowing to steepen significantly, and this is not a point that anyone in Labour has ever made with sufficient force. The vast bulk, in fact, of post-2008 borrowing was caused by the crash, and trying precisely to bail out those parts of the economy which were most hostile to Labour and its project: after all, whoever heard of a bank that was interested in redistribution of wealth or provision of public services that are truly adequate to public need?

My fundamental problem with the Blairite way of governing was precisely that it was not governing - and this is probably his most poisonous legacy. It took the freedom of opposition to focus on parts of issues of its own choosing, whilst ignoring the rest, and thus to shape the reality it is choosing to address rather than being responsible for addressing the whole situation, inconvenient elements and all. This was a huge feature of the Cameron government, of course, but I first became aware of it under Blair.

It is not possible just to do politics and power in separate tracks, and leave others to work out the implementation - or at least not without creating a truly appalling mess. The only way anyone has ever come up with of dealing with this fact is by pumping more and more helium into the political atmosphere, leaving debate (such as it is) floating higher and higher over reality. That, for me, is the process that Blair normalised.

As time goes on, I'm less convinced that Corbyn himself is the way out of this. He seems to have embraced the right to create his own bubble and live within it with equal fervour: the initial excitement came out of the fact that his bubble is different from Blair's and includes aspects of reality that have been ignored by political "debate" in this country for far too long. The problem with it is that it is still a bubble, and still fails to provide an adequate account of how he would deal with reality in its totality. But I remain convinced that more Blairism is not the answer to anything other that how to make the mess worse, and how to continue the underlying drift of this country inexorably to the right.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you can't just look at a politician and just know somehow whether or not they are competent or incompetent, I'm not sure you should really have a vote.
I'm not sure about that but I can spot an unfair and inaccurate characterization of an argument just by looking at one.

I really want to back Corbyn as well, but I can't when I look at his record and the first-hand accounts of his competence. Granted competence is situational and changeable, just like intelligence is. One could misjudge based on a few examples, and could generalize to other domains without justification. But those sound like weak defences given the first-hand accounts of Corbyn running the opposition that we have.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Corbyn's made a few howlers in his managerial capacity, and the PLP have signally failed to put up a convincing alternative. I make that one blown chance each. Clean slate.
To conceive of this as PLP vs Corbyn and tot up one point for managerial incompetence on one side and one point for failing to identify a convincing challenger on the other and therefore concluding that one sticks with the incompetent manager seems not to be a helpful model.

Corbyn's managerial incompetence shows he can't run a country and he lost the confidence of his shadow cabinet and the PLP as a result. Corbyn is a single entity and should be excluded as a future prime minister as a result.

The PLP has indeed failed in response, but personally I wouldn't give up on it at this point because it isn't a single entity. It is possible that they will get their act together and we'll have a competent opposition.

But if we do accept that the PLP has blown it in a fundamental and irredeemable way then we are left looking for a new party as the alternative to Tory rule.
I truly think you're over-complicating this. Corbyn had no leadership experience to speak of before, so was bound to make some blunders. But a substantial chunk of the PLP were passively-agressively resistant to him making any kind of success out of it, from the start. Lets knock some heads together, and move on ..
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... Owen Smith has been in the public eye for several weeks now and has not looked incompetent, and shows some signs of being competent...
Say whaahhtt ??!! Have you been looking at the same stuff as I have ?? A fixation with the special properties of his own penis; and a causal commitment to the re-running of not one, but two referendums, spring to mind ...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you suffer from it, there's no point surrounding yourself with the highly competent:
Yes, he could have done that. Or he could have appointed John McDonnell, Seamas Milne and Diane Abbott.

Actually he did make an attempt with his advisory committee of economists. Which met about once and was ignored, and many of whose members have already given up Mr Corbyn as a bad job - a point which the Corbynistas have so far failed even to acknoweldge, let alone address.

Why, if you are serious about ending the economics of austerity, would you support a guy whom even anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
quote:
If you can't just look at a politician and just know somehow whether or not they are competent or incompetent, I'm not sure you should really have a vote.
So this is what Corbynistas call 'discussing the issues', is it?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
That's a thoughtful post, Thunderbunk, and I agree with much of it. Yes, Blair & Brown should have had more political courage in the matter of raising takes in a fair way; they should have said to the electorate "if you want all this stuff, which the nation actually needs, you going to have to actually pay for it rather than putting it on the PFI credit card."

We view the 1997 victory through the filter of history; at the time, to those involved, it felt like a fragile thing that could easily be broken. They proceeded with extreme caution (Blair admits he was far too cautious in the first term), and bear in mind that Blair's government had very little ministerial experience. It took them a long time to learn how to spend money and make things happen. No sooner had they properly found their feet, than the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq pushed everything else into the background.

The meteoric rise of Jeremy Corbyn is largely due to the current dearth of talent in the Labour Party, and that is something which I think can legitimately be laid at Blair's & Brown's doors. They didn't do enough to bring on the next generation of Labour leaders; indeed Brown would try to squash anyone he regarded as a threat to him. The result is that the membership turn to someone who seems to be untainted by all the compromises and mistakes that inevitably go with a long period in government.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Corbyn had no leadership experience to speak of before, so was bound to make some blunders. But a substantial chunk of the PLP were passively-agressively resistant to him making any kind of success out of it, from the start. Lets knock some heads together, and move on ..
That's not how it works in selecting a PM. You don't make excuses and say they have no previous leadership experience and therefore give them a by on their demonstrated inability to run a party. This isn't about fair contests with an even playing field to start with, it's about winning an election then running a country.

It is results and outcomes that count. If he'd found a way of covering for his managerial inability like appointing someone to do it all for him that would be fine. If he'd found a way of getting his shadow cabinet to cover for him either by bribery, persuasion or just finding a way of giving them space and access to the right people in his office that would have been another way around it.

But he doesn't seem to have any insight into his inabilities to manage or negotiate in his party and just bowls on. It's equally true that the press are against him, he hasn't been given a fair crack of the whip in all sorts of ways but that isn't the point. If one reads the accounts linked to on this thread it is hard to see any other outcome apart from disorder in dysfunction unless Corbyn shows some signs of getting it together.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Corbyn had no leadership experience to speak of before, so was bound to make some blunders. But a substantial chunk of the PLP were passively-agressively resistant to him making any kind of success out of it, from the start. Lets knock some heads together, and move on ..
That's not how it works in selecting a PM ... he doesn't seem to have any insight into his inabilities to manage or negotiate in his party and just bowls on... it is hard to see any other outcome apart from disorder in dysfunction unless Corbyn shows some signs of getting it together.
So again I ask - what would 'getting it together' look like ??
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you suffer from it, there's no point surrounding yourself with the highly competent:
Yes, he could have done that. Or he could have appointed John McDonnell, Seamas Milne and Diane Abbott.

Actually he did make an attempt with his advisory committee of economists. Which met about once and was ignored, and many of whose members have already given up Mr Corbyn as a bad job - a point which the Corbynistas have so far failed even to acknoweldge, let alone address.

Why, if you are serious about ending the economics of austerity, would you support a guy whom even anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
quote:
If you can't just look at a politician and just know somehow whether or not they are competent or incompetent, I'm not sure you should really have a vote.
So this is what Corbynistas call 'discussing the issues', is it?
I'm not a Corbynista. I don't think he has done a good job, and only partly because of the appalling media reaction and the sabotaging by many in the PLP. I think that failing to work with those economists was probably a major error.

But I don't think the charge of incompetence is a smart one. There's no such thing as incompetence. The fruitfulness of a person's skill set and character depends on the situation. Politics, like all of life, is full of examples of people who perform brilliantly for a season, then suddenly look painfully out of touch, baffled and inept.

Fixating on personalities and leaders is stupid, like football's Girardian obsession with managers and sacking them.

We need new policies. We need a new style of politics. We need a new Left. We need it to have a new self-confidence. Remember, competence is traditionally what the Right is believed to have and the Left to lack. The Left generally has the more popular policies, people just fear they won't work. For 20 years the Left has tried to appear competent by concealing its intentions. This must now change.

Meanwhile the opposition to Capitalism's abuse of society and the environment will have to come from within the Conservative Party, and from all those in and out of politics who can keep May to the aspirations she expressed in her Downing Street speech.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Corbyn had no leadership experience to speak of before, so was bound to make some blunders. But a substantial chunk of the PLP were passively-agressively resistant to him making any kind of success out of it, from the start. Lets knock some heads together, and move on ..
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's not how it works in selecting a PM ... he doesn't seem to have any insight into his inabilities to manage or negotiate in his party and just bowls on... it is hard to see any other outcome apart from disorder in dysfunction unless Corbyn shows some signs of getting it together.
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
So again I ask - what would 'getting it together' look like ??
Here's what I said before.

Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think he has done a good job, and only partly because of the appalling media reaction and the sabotaging by many in the PLP. I think that failing to work with those economists was probably a major error.
I agree with what you say about competence in a sense, but there's only a small jump between what you say here and the label of incompetence.

Competence I suppose is a bit like intelligence. It is impossible to quantify and is completely situational. Someone can be brilliant musically but appalling at military strategy. Or a fabulous mathematician but not great at spelling. Which parameter contributes more to intelligence and how can it be measured in a non-culturally specific way.

Like competence, the concept of intelligence has been abused and ideas of innate properties of intelligence were included in the theories of racist pseudo-biologists and fascists.

However we need a short-hand simplification for what we mean. "He struggles learning new things and doesn't really seem to understand what one is trying to get across without a lot of help" is less prone to misunderstanding and probably kinder than "He is not very intelligent" but the latter is useful in speech.

Likewise one can say "I don't think he has done a good job... failing to work with those economists was probably a major error." or "I don't think he has been competent."
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
Ok, lets go with that, and see what happens ...
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
Ok, lets go with that, and see what happens ...
But that isn't entirely down to them, is it. We've seen endless links on this thread to people who have sincerely tried to work with Jeremy Corbyn, as economic advisers, as members of his Parliamentary team, or in whatever capacity. Time and again (and even though there is often little to connect them and no reason to suppose they are colluding) they tell materially the same story: they have been ignored, rebuffed, marginalised or undermined until - often after persevering for months on end - they have given up in despair.

I've no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn has many areas of great competence. He has been an indefatigable campaigner for several issues close to his heart for instance. But the requirements of Leader of the Opposition (or Prime Minister in Waiting, if you like) are not the same, and he has shown every indication here that he lacks the core skills to do that even passably well. Seemingly he does not even have a very clear perception of just how profoundly he falls short in these areas.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
Ok, lets go with that, and see what happens ...
But that isn't entirely down to them, is it. We've seen endless links on this thread to people who have sincerely tried to work with Jeremy Corbyn, as economic advisers, as members of his Parliamentary team, or in whatever capacity. Time and again (and even though there is often little to connect them and no reason to suppose they are colluding) they tell materially the same story: they have been ignored, rebuffed, marginalised or undermined until - often after persevering for months on end - they have given up in despair.

I've no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn has many areas of great competence. He has been an indefatigable campaigner for several issues close to his heart for instance. But the requirements of Leader of the Opposition (or Prime Minister in Waiting, if you like) are not the same, and he has shown every indication here that he lacks the core skills to do that even passably well. Seemingly he does not even have a very clear perception of just how profoundly he falls short in these areas.
To which the bulk of the party membership replies - 'Try again'. So lets try again ...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... Owen Smith has been in the public eye for several weeks now and has not looked incompetent, and shows some signs of being competent...
Say whaahhtt ??!! Have you been looking at the same stuff as I have ?? A fixation with the special properties of his own penis; and a causal commitment to the re-running of not one, but two referendums, spring to mind ...
I must have missed the fixation bit.
As regards referendums:
The Scottish referendum two years ago was explicitly fought by both sides on the assumption that Scotland wished to remain in the EU. England has pulled the carpet out from under that assumption. Smith recognises that fact. That's incompetent in the same way Corbyn is a hard-line Thatcherite.

As regards Brexit, due to Cameron's incompetence the UK has not been offered a referendum on the terms of any agreement. If you think Brexit is an almighty balls-up, please explain how you think it can be rectified without either a) a referendum; or b) the appearance of riding rough shod over the wishes of the people. If you think it's not an almighty balls-up, well, I'd personally rather be called Tory-lite than be UKIP-lite.

[ 03. September 2016, 19:46: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I am a Labour Party member who does not think that Brexit is an almighty balls-up. And there was no mention of 'unless the UK leaves the EU' in all that 'once in a generation' talk around the Scottish referendum.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
I am a Labour Party member who does not think that Brexit is an almighty balls-up. And there was no mention of 'unless the UK leaves the EU' in all that 'once in a generation' talk around the Scottish referendum.
I live on the Irish border. This is not just a balls up, it has the potential to be a lot more than that.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

As regards Brexit, due to Cameron's incompetence the UK has not been offered a referendum on the terms of any agreement.
I'm curious as to how you think that might have worked, given the EU's clear intentions to not negotiate exit terms before article 50 is invoked.

Yes, it would have been lovely to have negotiated an exit deal first, and then present the British public a choice between remaining in the EU in the current terms or the negotiated exit deal. I have no idea why you think the EU would be interested in accommodating that.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Unless you haven't noticed the SNP don't appear to have signed up to the 'once in a generation' bit. And if you don't think that Brexit is an almighty balls up, can I remind you that the vote was won on a claim that we could have access to the Single Market with reduced immigration - presumably the plan is to make the diplomatic corps familiar with the phrase "fuck off" in several European languages - and that the ministers responsible for implementing this will be David 'Prima Donna' Davis, once and future disgraced former Cabinet minister Liam Fox and Boris Johnson. Like Omar, the balls up will be coming, and we might want to resile from it when it arrives.

[x-post.]

[ 03. September 2016, 21:23: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
To which the bulk of the party membership replies - 'Try again'. So lets try again ...
Your question to me was what would competence look like. I gave the answer, what the party membership makes of the failed test is another issue.

So there's an Einstein quote that comes to mind about the definition of insanity here. To make it worth trying again there would need to be some sign from Corbyn that he recognized his mistakes and was going to get help/ be different/ do something different.

This isn't just a personalized disagreement where being polite might lead to a different outcome, he just can't organize stuff, is office is in chaos and people can't develop a policy with him unable to walk in a straight line as soon as a microphone is available.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Say whaahhtt ??!! Have you been looking at the same stuff as I have ??
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I must have missed the fixation bit.
Likewise. Of course if one was relying on media reports to form an impression of a candidate's competence then one could easily get that impression. That might be an unfair representation, but on the other hand candidates who can't handle the media aren't a good bet. Oh wait...
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
Ok, lets go with that, and see what happens ...
I think that one of the likely outcomes is that many MPs who have put their head above the parapet to criticise Corbyn, or who are suspected of being against him, will be looking at getting another job in 2020. A lot will have had enough.

This may be Corbyn supporters dream but I think it will merely reinforce the impression that he is extreme - the public will look at how his supporters behave more than his policies. The party will be perceived as a narrow party of zealous believers. It will also mean that even if Labour do well in the next election it will have many totally inexperienced MPs.

I find it interesting that many JC supporters think that a JC bigger mandate will be something to celebrate, they are not noticing... yet... just how much of a poisoned chalice they have won.

After all if his mandate is larger, Corbyn and his supporters then have greater power / responsibility. It is what they do next that matters. Will they make massive efforts to get the unconvinced on board. Will they make if clear how much they disapprove of the attack dog approach that so many Corbyn supporters have used? If they do then maybe, just maybe, there will be a positive way forward.

[ 04. September 2016, 07:37: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

But I don't think the charge of incompetence is a smart one. There's no such thing as incompetence. The fruitfulness of a person's skill set and character depends on the situation.
mdijon has pretty much said all I want to say here.

I agree that competence is situational. The particular situation in which Mr Corbyn finds himself is Leader of the Opposition, and his skillset and character really don't match the job description. On the other hand, the same skillset and character made him, to my mind, an excellent backbencher. The backbenches need independent-minded people to guard against the tyranny of the majority (or of the plurality as it is in reality). But that same independence is a liability when your job entails developing some kind of collective position.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


Some people outside his clique need to find that they can work with him and get timely responses from his office.
Ok, lets go with that, and see what happens ...
But that isn't entirely down to them, is it. We've seen endless links on this thread to people who have sincerely tried to work with Jeremy Corbyn, as economic advisers, as members of his Parliamentary team, or in whatever capacity. Time and again (and even though there is often little to connect them and no reason to suppose they are colluding) they tell materially the same story: they have been ignored, rebuffed, marginalised or undermined until - often after persevering for months on end - they have given up in despair.

I've no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn has many areas of great competence. He has been an indefatigable campaigner for several issues close to his heart for instance. But the requirements of Leader of the Opposition (or Prime Minister in Waiting, if you like) are not the same, and he has shown every indication here that he lacks the core skills to do that even passably well. Seemingly he does not even have a very clear perception of just how profoundly he falls short in these areas.
To which the bulk of the party membership replies - 'Try again'. So lets try again ...
Do you honestly think that mastery of detail, which appears to be the area where he is weakest, is something that can be mastered in at most a couple of years?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Look Frankly My Dear, this man is 67. He's fully formed. He's got his personality with all its strengths and weaknesses, and the suitabilities and unsuitabilities that follow from it. He isn't suddenly going to become someone else now.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Look Frankly My Dear, this man is 67. He's fully formed. He's got his personality with all its strengths and weaknesses, and the suitabilities and unsuitabilities that follow from it. He isn't suddenly going to become someone else now.
I disagree. You put someone in a new situation then they can develop new skills, whatever their age.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I can't remember if anyone has discussed the future inclinations of the PLP, assuming Corbyn wins. I suppose a section will remain opposed to Corbyn, and refuse to work with him, another section will reluctantly work with him, and some will remain neutral. I don't know if any will feel so strongly that they will quit, possibly some will say to themselves, another 4 years, and I'm out. And, Strictly will be looking for more dad-dancers.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
'Draw me a tree'

[Other person starts to draw tree - First person then knocks his elbow so pencil slides all over page]

'Ha - see - I knew you wouldn't be able to draw a tree!'
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I disagree. You put someone in a new situation then they can develop new skills, whatever their age.
Speaking as someone of the same sort of age, one can learn new skills. You can't become a different personality.

One of the things that becomes clearer as one gets older is that you really shouldn't try to.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I disagree. You put someone in a new situation then they can develop new skills, whatever their age.
Speaking as someone of the same sort of age, one can learn new skills. You can't become a different personality.

One of the things that becomes clearer as one gets older is that you really shouldn't try to.
The key area of criticism is managerial skill. Up until recently, when they got desperate, Corbyn's opponents were falling over themselves to say what a good guy he was and how polite and supportive he was. There's no doubt that there is a steep learning curve in going from the backbenches and running single-issue campaigns to party leader. What's at issue is whether Corbyn, given time and the support or at least neutrality of most of his parliamentary colleagues, could develop the necessary skills. I want to give him that chance, because the alternative is to hope that Owen Smith will turn into a man of conviction with solid, socialist principles. In that I agree with you - skills can be learned, but I don't see personality changing.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

As regards Brexit, due to Cameron's incompetence the UK has not been offered a referendum on the terms of any agreement.
I'm curious as to how you think that might have worked, given the EU's clear intentions to not negotiate exit terms before article 50 is invoked.
A referendum could at least have established a negotiating position and an order of priorities in bargaining.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
And there was no mention of 'unless the UK leaves the EU' in all that 'once in a generation' talk around the Scottish referendum.
It was kind of implicit in the Unionist's argument that leaving the UK meant that Scotland might not be able to stay in the EU.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
'Draw me a tree'

[Other person starts to draw tree - First person then knocks his elbow so pencil slides all over page]

'Ha - see - I knew you wouldn't be able to draw a tree!'
We're not talking about drawing a tree though, we've specifically discussed and linked to stories about the chaos of Corbyn's office failing to deal with correspondence for several months, shadow ministers unable to get a steer on policy or an appointment, Corbyn talking of the cuff and undermining policies that colleagues are working up, failing to attend the economics policy committee that he initiated, giving no steer to the shadow DEFRA minister and being fuzzy about hedge funds and loan sharks.

In my own area what he said about the MRC and pharmaceutical companies made no sense. The recent story of McDonnell talking about withdrawing honours from Branson comes across as poorly handled and petty and is hardly a forced error by the PLP.

It's hard to see how non-cooperation of the PLP can account for the full list of managerial difficulties, and while many were clearly itching to see him fail there are accounts that look like honest attempts to work with him failing to bear fruit.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I disagree. You put someone in a new situation then they can develop new skills, whatever their age.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Speaking as someone of the same sort of age, one can learn new skills. You can't become a different personality.
I wouldn't write off the possibility of adapting to a new situation at any age. Some old people do get set in their ways, some young people lack the experience to cope with different situations. Many senior politicians acquire new posts in later life and cope very well with the new challenges.

The specific issue here is that I'd want to see some signs of this starting to happen before putting my trust in it happening. At present there seems to be complete denial of any problem by the Corbyn team and so one can hardly expect any changes.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
'Draw me a tree'

[Other person starts to draw tree - First person then knocks his elbow so pencil slides all over page]

'Ha - see - I knew you wouldn't be able to draw a tree!'
We're not talking about drawing a tree though, we've specifically discussed and linked to stories about the chaos of Corbyn's office failing to deal with correspondence for several months, shadow ministers unable to get a steer on policy or an appointment, Corbyn talking of the cuff and undermining policies that colleagues are working up, failing to attend the economics policy committee that he initiated, giving no steer to the shadow DEFRA minister and being fuzzy about hedge funds and loan sharks.

In my own area what he said about the MRC and pharmaceutical companies made no sense. The recent story of McDonnell talking about withdrawing honours from Branson comes across as poorly handled and petty and is hardly a forced error by the PLP.

It's hard to see how non-cooperation of the PLP can account for the full list of managerial difficulties, and while many were clearly itching to see him fail there are accounts that look like honest attempts to work with him failing to bear fruit.
The problem is that we have no point of comparison - we've no idea how many times previous opposition leaders made errors in their first few months that were kept quiet by parliamentary colleagues or rectified by advisors. We're in a unique situation where any errors made are being blown up into major crises for the political ends of Corbyn's opponents in the PLP. There has been, since before he was elected leader, a coordinated effort to smear him, and like all the best smears they start with some small things that's true and then twist and expand it into something horrible and enormous.

You only have to look at Balls' recent attacks on Miliband to know that rarely is all rosy within the shadow cabinet, but Balls' kept quiet until Miliband was gone.

[ 04. September 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't think all the stories linked to here can be dismissed as smears. Many come across as people who really tried. The failings are also not simply a matter of falling out with certain individuals, or getting the mood music of a shadow cabinet meeting wrong, they are about organization and clarity of thought.

And some were deliberately aired by Corbyn and McDonnell. The comments about Branson and about the MRC were things they deliberately went to the press over.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Let's talk about Seumas Milne. Milne used to write a regular column for the Guardian.

Is anyone going to stand up and say that Milne is doing a good job as Director of Strategy and Communications? Given all of the alleged briefings against Corbyn by Blairite MPs, what is Milne doing about it?

The thing is Milne was a good and persuasive left-wing voice for the Guardian. You don't get to be an associate editor at a daily newspaper by being unable to file copy to a deadline. Yet apparently Milne has almost entirely lost the ability to send off stories by newspapers deadlines.

I used to think that despite a track record of competence at the Guardian Milne was at fault and Corbyn should sack him. I'm now reconsidering that. Milne's apparent incompetence fits entirely with the stories about Corbyn lack of management style that are circulating.

But perhaps Milne is a secret Blairite jogging Corbyn's elbow every time Corbyn tries to draw a tree.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
If you're privvy to detailed information about the conversations between Corbyn and Milne, then do let us know ....
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that we have no point of comparison - we've no idea how many times previous opposition leaders made errors in their first few months that were kept quiet by parliamentary colleagues or rectified by advisors.
The problem with this theory is that most of the examples of incompetence raised on this thread are caused by him acting on his own initiative, talking directly to the press, and/or bypassing his advisors.

Of the specific examples raised, how do you propose the PLP should have hushed them up? Should they have fitted a parental advisory control to his microphone that cuts out as soon as he tells the press something like 'I think the UK should trigger Article 50 immediately!' or bleeps out dangerous words like 'Islamic State' and 'Israel'?

Should they have provided cardboard cutouts of Mr Corbyn to appear on the EU referendum trail and disguise his decision to go on holiday at a crucial stage of the campaign?

Should they station a hit-squad outside Merton College, ready to bind and gag Professor Wren-Lewis as soon as he suggests he might have lost confidence in Mr Corbyn?

I suppose it's arguable that people like Ms Debbonaire shouldn't have gone public with their complaints - but if she hadn't, then certain other posters on this thread would be complaining they saw no evidence of Mr Corbyn's incompetence.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The thing is Milne was a good and persuasive left-wing voice for the Guardian.
Was he? I'm not a regular Guardian reader so I only know his journalism by reputation, and his reputation is as of a loony-lefty Stalinist. Which on the one hand is probably an unfair representation of his views, but, on the other hand, suggests he is not very good at communicating his views to a non-Guardian audience. Which doesn't mark him out as a good choice if you are intending to poach voters off the Tories.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The thing is Milne was a good and persuasive left-wing voice for the Guardian.
Was he? I'm not a regular Guardian reader so I only know his journalism by reputation, and his reputation is as of a loony-lefty Stalinist.
It is true that 'good and persuasive left-wing voice' does probably mean something different to Guardian readers than it does to almost everyone else.
Regardless, he appeared moderately competent at the time, and I'm not seeing anyone standing up to say he's doing the job Corbyn needs done now.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that we have no point of comparison - we've no idea how many times previous opposition leaders made errors in their first few months that were kept quiet by parliamentary colleagues or rectified by advisors.
The problem with this theory is that most of the examples of incompetence raised on this thread are caused by him acting on his own initiative, talking directly to the press, and/or bypassing his advisors.

Of the specific examples raised, how do you propose the PLP should have hushed them up? Should they have fitted a parental advisory control to his microphone that cuts out as soon as he tells the press something like 'I think the UK should trigger Article 50 immediately!' or bleeps out dangerous words like 'Islamic State' and 'Israel'?

Should they have provided cardboard cutouts of Mr Corbyn to appear on the EU referendum trail and disguise his decision to go on holiday at a crucial stage of the campaign?

Should they station a hit-squad outside Merton College, ready to bind and gag Professor Wren-Lewis as soon as he suggests he might have lost confidence in Mr Corbyn?

I suppose it's arguable that people like Ms Debbonaire shouldn't have gone public with their complaints - but if she hadn't, then certain other posters on this thread would be complaining they saw no evidence of Mr Corbyn's incompetence.
If the bulk of the 'problems' are caused by Corbyn's own actions, then let them stand on their own merits/ demerits. Why is nobody making a song & a dance over Mrs May's walking holiday, when there was so much to be done ???

Here's what an unhappy PLP member might have said on record: "I have some concerns over Jeremy's policy positions and strategy in opposition. There is of course much more that unites us than divides us. Our job is to find a way of putting together - and communicating clearly - a positive, persuasive alternative to Tory rule. I will listen carefully to the views of my CLP and wider electorate on how this can best be done. No further comment".

Here's an example of what was actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxlFXlYIefw
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Frankly My Dear wrote:
quote:
Why is nobody making a song & a dance over Mrs May's walking holiday, when there was so much to be done ???
She took her holiday a couple of weeks after sorting out her new ministerial team. There is indeed loads to do, but at this stage her ministers need to get fully briefed, sort out new departments and a load of similar stuff. If she pesters them at this stage it will delay things. It's probably the best time to go away TBH. But if she takes off once substantive Brexit negotiations kick in, I'll join you in criticising.

quote:
Here's what an unhappy PLP member might have said on record: "I have some concerns over Jeremy's policy positions and strategy in opposition. There is of course much more that unites us than divides us. Our job is to find a way of putting together - and communicating clearly - a positive, persuasive alternative to Tory rule. I will listen carefully to the views of my CLP and wider electorate on how this can best be done. No further comment".
For all I know, some of them may have said something like that. If you have ever had any meeja training, you'll know that that sort of thing is what you say to kill a topic. Make it anodyne and obvious. So if they did you won't have heard about it. It's sad but that's the way it works I'm afraid.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Maybe they thought things were so bad that they had passed that point. The sort of statement you suggest above is one that might come out of a quiet disagreement over some policy detail that has come to light in the press and one wants to kill speculation, not the statement one makes if one feels there is a fundamental breakdown in ability to manage a party and decisive action to change is required.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One problem I have is crying wolf. There have been smears against Corbyn, and stories about him, which may not be smears. How the hell do you tell the difference?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
By retaining a critical facility. Many of these accounts come from trustworthy people, the facts seem believable, and the facts haven't really been challenged by Corbyn's office.

The same argument about crying wolf has been made about climate change science, the health risks of smoking and many other babies mixed up with varying degrees of bathwater. But one can't give a guy a by on every accusation because they were falsely accused elsewhere.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
As Corbyn's leadership has gone on, I've started to think that for some people the word 'smear' means 'any news story I don't like'.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By retaining a critical facility. Many of these accounts come from trustworthy people, the facts seem believable, and the facts haven't really been challenged by Corbyn's office.

How many cases are there which pass those three tests ?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Here's what an unhappy PLP member might have said on record: "I have some concerns over Jeremy's policy positions and strategy in opposition. There is of course much more that unites us than divides us. Our job is to find a way of putting together - and communicating clearly - a positive, persuasive alternative to Tory rule. I will listen carefully to the views of my CLP and wider electorate on how this can best be done. No further comment".
Since you're alluding to Jo Cox, what did you think of the criticisms she made on record in the Guardian? And what if anything did Corbyn do about them?
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
Sadly, if Corbyn is re-elected/confirmed as Leader, I will return my Labour Membership Card and seriously consider joining the LibDems. I have already joined the Women's Equality Party - but that's another story. If Owen Smith is elected Leader, I will give him a year to make a decent and responsible mark on the role. Having never heard of Mr Smith prior to the Corbyn shenanigans, I pray that all would be well.

[ 05. September 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: leftfieldlover ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By retaining a critical facility. Many of these accounts come from trustworthy people, the facts seem believable, and the facts haven't really been challenged by Corbyn's office.

The same argument about crying wolf has been made about climate change science, the health risks of smoking and many other babies mixed up with varying degrees of bathwater. But one can't give a guy a by on every accusation because they were falsely accused elsewhere.
I don't find that very helpful. I only know two MPs personally, and they are both total wallies, although not dishonest. They are half-believable when they are drunk, I suppose. Do I generalize from that to people I have never met?

The facts seem believable? Well, sure, it's believable that somebody threw a brick through Eagle's office window, but it has been disputed, so who should I believe?

Your third criterion is barmy. Corbyn is supposed to deny every negative story about him? Please.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
Why is it hyper-skepticism? Just to say, 'the story is believable' seems a bit vague to me. Lots of things are believable.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
Attributing impure methods to the likes of Hillary Benn is simply a case of extrapolating from past behaviour.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Here's what an unhappy PLP member might have said on record: "I have some concerns over Jeremy's policy positions and strategy in opposition. There is of course much more that unites us than divides us. Our job is to find a way of putting together - and communicating clearly - a positive, persuasive alternative to Tory rule. I will listen carefully to the views of my CLP and wider electorate on how this can best be done. No further comment".
Since you're alluding to Jo Cox, what did you think of the criticisms she made on record in the Guardian? And what if anything did Corbyn do about them?
Jo Cox never crossed my mind as I was typing that. Perhaps you could point me to what you had in mind?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is it hyper-skepticism? Just to say, 'the story is believable' seems a bit vague to me. Lots of things are believable.
So presumably you don't believe things that scientists have said on climate change, that reporters have said about human rights abuses or that Labour politicians say about anything. Or if you do find some things that some of these groups have said believable how is it that you do that?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By retaining a critical facility. Many of these accounts come from trustworthy people, the facts seem believable, and the facts haven't really been challenged by Corbyn's office.
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
How many cases are there which pass those three tests ?
The shadow DEFRA minister passes this for me. The Thangam "miscommunication" about whether she was a minister or not looks clear cut. And the economics advisers who found it impossible to deliver any advice have serious points.

As to whether his office is supposed to issue denials or not - I would have thought that was the least one could do in terms of media management if shadow ministers are resigning and painting inaccurate pictures of the circumstances.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
"There is of course much more that unites us than divides us.".
Since you're alluding to Jo Cox, what did you think of the criticisms she made on record in the Guardian? And what if anything did Corbyn do about them?
Jo Cox never crossed my mind as I was typing that. Perhaps you could point me to what you had in mind?
I've left the bit from Jo Cox. Has it become a cliche this quickly?

The piece I was thinking of. And earlier.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Something clearly went wrong with lines of communication, re- the defra minister. Fair comment.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is it hyper-skepticism? Just to say, 'the story is believable' seems a bit vague to me. Lots of things are believable.
So presumably you don't believe things that scientists have said on climate change, that reporters have said about human rights abuses or that Labour politicians say about anything. Or if you do find some things that some of these groups have said believable how is it that you do that?
I'm not sure what you mean now by 'believable'. For example, it's believable that humans don't cause climate change, but empirical research over quite a number of years has made this seem unlikely. I would say that I came to this view quite slowly, and with a lot of reading, and conversations with other people.

The other examples seem very vague to me. If a reporter said that there were human rights abuses in the US, I would be a bit surprised, but I would read it, and think about it. Obviously then, one has to compare such a claim with other material, other writers, and so on.

I'm not sure how this is relevant in any case. I started talking about crying wolf. Maybe all the negative stories about Corbyn are true, maybe some of them, but it has become a morass of material, with bricks through windows, offices broken into, anti-Semitism, terrorist sympathies, traingate, and so on. If you feel clear about all this, my compliments.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
"There is of course much more that unites us than divides us.".
Since you're alluding to Jo Cox, what did you think of the criticisms she made on record in the Guardian? And what if anything did Corbyn do about them?
Jo Cox never crossed my mind as I was typing that. Perhaps you could point me to what you had in mind?
I've left the bit from Jo Cox. Has it become a cliche this quickly?

The piece I was thinking of. And earlier.
'The piece I was thinking of' article immediately seeks to lump all the blame for any of the party's problems on the new leader. I don't buy it. the 'And earlier' piece seems to be a rare outbreak of common sense/ long-view thinking ...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that I came to this view quite slowly, and with a lot of reading, and conversations with other people.
Well my compliments to you in turn if you have an ability to assess the primary data. Personally I don't have that faculty and I've therefore had to take judgements on who seems more likely to be representing an orthodox scientific approach which involves a fair degree of trust being place in some people and not in others.


quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If a reporter said that there were human rights abuses in the US, I would be a bit surprised, but I would read it, and think about it. Obviously then, one has to compare such a claim with other material, other writers, and so on.

I'm not sure how this is relevant in any case.
It sounds exactly like it to me. I spent a while coming to the view and read quite carefully various accounts, and compared them with other writers. But I wouldn't lump in the ex-ministers' accounts with the headlines in the Sun. I find it unlikely that an array of ex-labour ministers (or shadow ministers) are all part of the smear campaign. Especially the ex-DEFRA minister.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find it unlikely that an array of ex-labour ministers (or shadow ministers) are all part of the smear campaign. Especially the ex-DEFRA minister. [/QB]
Agreed. But there has been more going on than that. It is something like the collective panic of a dying breed.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet this hyper-scepticism seems only to work in one direction ... you are perfectly happy to attribute all sorts of impure motives to the PLP on flimsy evidence.
Why is it hyper-skepticism? Just to say, 'the story is believable' seems a bit vague to me. Lots of things are believable.
My point is that earlier in the thread you were perfectly happy to say things like 'Smith is obviously a patsy' without any supporting evidence at all. Why this sudden insistence on academic rigour?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
But to post a fuller answer to your question, I would say that negative stories about Mr Corbyn are believable if they fall into any of the following categories:

1. Mr Corbyn himself has explicitly acknowledged them, e.g. demanding that the UK trigger Article 50 immediately without consulting the Shadow Cabinet.

2. They otherwise come straight from the mouth of Mr Corbyn, e.g. suggesting you could build Trident subs without the missiles, the comments he made about medical research, the speech with the words Israel and Islamic State in them.

3. They generally don't appear to be in doubt by anyone, e.g. that Mr Corbyn went on holiday in the crucial part of the referendum campaign.

4. They
a.) come from natural allies of Mr Corbyn, either inside or outside the party, e.g. the Shadow Agriculture minister, Professor Wren-Lewis, David Blanchflower, regarding whom there is no reason to assume bad faith; and
b.) aren't in contradiction to other known facts.

5. They are confirmed by multiple sources across the political spectrum, e.g. the inability of Mr Milne to get the press office in order.

6. No plausible interpretation of the known facts puts Mr Corbyn in a good light, e.g. this episode (still unaddressed by the way). I think a lot of the IRA coverage falls into this category too.

The negative coverage that falls outside these categories may be true as well, but even if it isn't, enough does fall within those categories to make me pretty convinced of Mr Corbyn's incompetence.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
'The piece I was thinking of' article immediately seeks to lump all the blame for any of the party's problems on the new leader. I don't buy it.
'The piece I was thinking of' article immediately says:
quote:
Of course it would be wrong to view these results simply through the prism of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
It then goes on to make a number of specific points. Has Jeremy Corbyn done anything to address them, beyond saying 'I don't buy it'?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
[qb] 'The piece I was thinking of' article immediately seeks to lump all the blame for any of the party's problems on the new leader. I don't buy it.
'The piece I was thinking of' article immediately says:
quote:
Of course it would be wrong to view these results simply through the prism of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
Indeed - but it then went on to do exactly that !
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But to post a fuller answer to your question, I would say that negative stories about Mr Corbyn are believable if they fall into any of the following categories:

1. Mr Corbyn himself has explicitly acknowledged them, e.g. demanding that the UK trigger Article 50 immediately without consulting the Shadow Cabinet.

2. They otherwise come straight from the mouth of Mr Corbyn, e.g. suggesting you could build Trident subs without the missiles, the comments he made about medical research, the speech with the words Israel and Islamic State in them.

3. They generally don't appear to be in doubt by anyone, e.g. that Mr Corbyn went on holiday in the crucial part of the referendum campaign.

4. They
a.) come from natural allies of Mr Corbyn, either inside or outside the party, e.g. the Shadow Agriculture minister, Professor Wren-Lewis, David Blanchflower, regarding whom there is no reason to assume bad faith; and
b.) aren't in contradiction to other known facts.

5. They are confirmed by multiple sources across the political spectrum, e.g. the inability of Mr Milne to get the press office in order.

6. No plausible interpretation of the known facts puts Mr Corbyn in a good light, e.g. this episode (still unaddressed by the way). I think a lot of the IRA coverage falls into this category too.

The negative coverage that falls outside these categories may be true as well, but even if it isn't, enough does fall within those categories to make me pretty convinced of Mr Corbyn's incompetence.
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Some on the Left assert that 9/11 was an inside job. If I conclude that the Bush administration was not behind 9/11 does it logically follow that all criticism of the Bush administration is false? Would it have been fair to lump Republican senator Chuck Hagel in with the Truthers simply because he was also critical of George W. Bush?

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. As a conservative American, I'm as impartial and disinterested observer of internecine Labour Party conflict as one can possibly be. Since reading Ship of Fools, I've noticed two narratives accepted as gospel by those on the British Left. By left I mean the real left damn it.

One holds that the Tories are evil and their policies are killing people. Furthermore, the conservatives given free reign will turn the UK into a Randian dystopia that makes Pinochet's Chile look like Tito's Yugoslavia. Now, as it stands, the Tories will have power at least until 2010. Running Corbyn in 2020 will likely give them another five years. This means at least 15 years of destructive Tory rule. But wait, there is more. Why assume that the Labour leader of 2025 won't be to the right of Tony Blair?

The second narrative holds that Blairites are all Red Tories and really no better than David Cameron who actually flirted with the term Red Tory. Keep in mind that there is a middle ground between Labour and Conservative and that being the Liberal-Democrats. All three parties are essentially the same. Who cares if a Tory or Blairite PM actually runs the government? The more important thing is to purify the Labour Party and make it a true social democratic (or dare we even hope...socialist) alternative to the various shades of neoliberalist currently on offer.

The question becomes which narrative you believe more. If you believe the first, then Corbyn is an absolute disaster who must be removed before he can do irreparable harm to the cause. A Blairite in power will save more lives than Corbyn as leader of the opposition.

On the other hand, if you believe the second, then you accept that May won't be Thatcher and that the right has already done as much damage as they can do. Corbyn will bring Labour to the left. He will play Moses to a future Social Democratic (or dare we hope Socialist) Joshua. Let those Blairite MP's get with the program or bugger off (did I use that term correctly) to the Lib Dems.

This is soul searching time for Labour. I mean the real Left wing members of Labour damn it. Which of your narratives do you truly believe and which is hyperbole?

I feel your pain. My faction of American Conservatism has the same problem with Trump. I know it hurts you to admit that Corbyn is your Trump. He isn't your Sanders. Your Sanders would be a Thatcherite.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Some on the Left assert that 9/11 was an inside job.
So do some on the Right.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think that there are just two narratives - if you like, there are many sub-narratives. For example, I don't see Blair (or Blairites) as the same as Cameron. Hence, the question 'who cares if a Tory or a Blairite runs the government?' is not germane to my stance, (I would vote for a Blairite). Of course, some people may argue that. I don't see Corbyn as Moses, anyway, you get my drift. He's not the messiah, he's just ...

I think many people's political position is more complex and delicate than that. Of course, there are some pretty black and white positions around.

[ 06. September 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
I don't think everyone who opposes Corbyn is part of that. But even with these underhand measures it seems very unlikely that Corbyn will be removed.

There is a sufficiently large and fixed bedrock of support for him that won't be moved no matter what evidence of managerial disarray emerges.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
I don't think everyone who opposes Corbyn is part of that. But even with these underhand measures it seems very unlikely that Corbyn will be removed.

There is a sufficiently large and fixed bedrock of support for him that won't be moved no matter what evidence of managerial disarray emerges.
Doesn't the knowledge of that make all the plotting even more needlessly destructive ??
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
I don't think everyone who opposes Corbyn is part of that. But even with these underhand measures it seems very unlikely that Corbyn will be removed.

There is a sufficiently large and fixed bedrock of support for him that won't be moved no matter what evidence of managerial disarray emerges.
Doesn't the knowledge of that make all the plotting even more needlessly destructive ??
Not everyone who is critical of Corbyn is "plotting". Some - many, it seems to me - are just critical of some of his political positions and/or of his profoundly obvious unsuitability for leadership. In principle, anyone who did not have the best interests of the Labour party at heart ought to be endorsing him with as much enthusiasm as the most devoted Corbynista.

On the face of it a lot of the people who oppose Jeremy Corbyn do so because they believe he is damaging the prospects of there being a Labour government and entrenching the likelihood of a Conservative one, and in the meantime leaving that Conservative government effectively unchecked by a meaningful parliamentary opposition.

Do you believe that they should say nothing just because such a lot of Labour members support Corbyn so unconditionally that he seems highly likely to win the leadership election?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that there are just two narratives - if you like, there are many sub-narratives. For example, I don't see Blair (or Blairites) as the same as Cameron. Hence, the question 'who cares if a Tory or a Blairite runs the government?' is not germane to my stance, (I would vote for a Blairite). Of course, some people may argue that. I don't see Corbyn as Moses, anyway, you get my drift. He's not the messiah, he's just ...

I think many people's political position is more complex and delicate than that. Of course, there are some pretty black and white positions around.
Then why not just admit that Corbyn as leader was a mistake, replace him, and unite the party in opposition against the oppressive and murderous Tory regime?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
It's quite possible to disagree with the government and prefer a government which is more in keeping with one's ethical principles without holding that they are homicidal maniacs.

I presume that you don't think that President Obama or the next President Clinton are in the business of imposing a Communist Dictatorship which will force free born Americans to wake at dawn in order to work for the government as abortionists or fluoride dispensers?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
Why the need for supporters of Corbyn to smear Labour MPs (individually and as a group)?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that there are just two narratives - if you like, there are many sub-narratives. For example, I don't see Blair (or Blairites) as the same as Cameron. Hence, the question 'who cares if a Tory or a Blairite runs the government?' is not germane to my stance, (I would vote for a Blairite). Of course, some people may argue that. I don't see Corbyn as Moses, anyway, you get my drift. He's not the messiah, he's just ...

I think many people's political position is more complex and delicate than that. Of course, there are some pretty black and white positions around.
Then why not just admit that Corbyn as leader was a mistake, replace him, and unite the party in opposition against the oppressive and murderous Tory regime?
Yes - there was an honest, upfront way of doing this - by one of the disgruntled MPs putting themselves up as an alternative candidate from day one.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
I don't think everyone who opposes Corbyn is part of that. But even with these underhand measures it seems very unlikely that Corbyn will be removed.

There is a sufficiently large and fixed bedrock of support for him that won't be moved no matter what evidence of managerial disarray emerges.
Doesn't the knowledge of that make all the plotting even more needlessly destructive ??
Not everyone who is critical of Corbyn is "plotting". ...

Do you believe that they should say nothing just because such a lot of Labour members support Corbyn so unconditionally that he seems highly likely to win the leadership election?
There is much they could have said. As it has turned out, nothing would have been better than what they actually said - for themselves as well as for Corbyn and Co.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's quite possible to disagree with the government and prefer a government which is more in keeping with one's ethical principles without holding that they are homicidal maniacs.

I presume that you don't think that President Obama or the next President Clinton are in the business of imposing a Communist Dictatorship which will force free born Americans to wake at dawn in order to work for the government as abortionists or fluoride dispensers?
Sure, it is. However, I've seen numerous people on Ship of Fools claim that Conservative cuts to benefits were killing people. Then you have support for Trident equals support for mass murder. My point is one's continued support for Corbyn should rest on which narrative you believe to be closer to the truth.

For the record, I have no clue which narrative is true. On one hand, Theresa May doesn't seem particularly extreme even by UK standards much less by US standards. On the other hand, after reading the policy positions of Liz Kendall, I can't see how her views are dramatically different from Mays. I admit to having only a cursory knowledge of either person.

As to US politics, conservatives were very much in the same boat as Corbyn supporters. Did they believe a vote for a moderate establishment Republican who would supposedly have the best chance of beating the Democrats be better than losing with a candidate who agreed with them? Up until this election cycle, the answer was yes. This year the answer became no. Trump versus Cruz proved just how unpopular the Republican establishment truly was.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
Why the need for supporters of Corbyn to smear Labour MPs (individually and as a group)?
Which instances of this did you have in mind?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Yes - there was an honest, upfront way of doing this - by one of the disgruntled MPs putting themselves up as an alternative candidate from day one.
Owen Smith did put himself up, didn't he? You are that upset about the order of things? The plan is to stick with Corbyn to punish the vast majority of your MPs who don't support him? To what end exactly? Pacify the new members of Labour who like Corbyn? Why that makes no sense has already been explained. Unless the new labour party members represent new labour voters in constituencies not currently represented by Labour and are numerous enough to offset the number of people lost to other parties because of disgust with Corbyn, then it doesn't really matter how adept Corbyn is at whipping up the new Labour members.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Yes - there was an honest, upfront way of doing this - by one of the disgruntled MPs putting themselves up as an alternative candidate from day one.
Owen Smith did put himself up, didn't he? You are that upset about the order of things?
Yes. That is what many of those on Corbyn's side are upset about. As I said much earlier on, I didn't even vote for him as a lesser-preference last time. I have voted for him this time.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
Well if you grant me my conclusion - namely that Mr Corbyn is unfit to lead a party of government - then however you answer that question, your options are Mr Smith or the Tories.

If you think the smears are coming from a minority of Labour MPs, then punishing the majority by consigning them to electoral oblivion under Mr Corbyn is cutting off your nose to spite your face, as well as being a 'whole school in detention' kind of reaction.

If you think the smears are coming from all or nearly all the Labour MPs, then why even vote Labour? All you're saying is that nobody in the party - neither its leader nor its MPs - is fit to lead a party of government.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
Well if you grant me my conclusion - namely that Mr Corbyn is unfit to lead a party of government - then however you answer that question, your options are Mr Smith or the Tories.

As indicated in post above, in a different set of circumstances, I might have supported Smith. This is a message vote from the membership to the PLP : 'That was not the way we want you to do things'.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Ah, I understand now. When Ms May sweeps to power in 2020 with the largest post-war Conservative majority, you'll be able to say: 'Never mind - think how much worse things would have been if Owen Smith had been able to violate my interpretation of the Labour Party constitution.'
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I don't believe that Smith could do any better than Corbyn.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Which comes back to: If you think Mr Corbyn isn't up to the job, and Mr Smith isn't up to the job, and the Labour party haven't found anyone better, then why even vote Labour?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What separates the Blairites from the Lib-Dems?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
With the Lib Dems gone and Labour suffering, diversity will grow within the Conservative Party. That's where the tousle between left and right will happen for now, there and as usual in the general social discourse.

And that's not too bad. Things will still move in the leftwards direction they've tended to for the past few centuries, just a bit more slowly.

But what we need is some new thinking about restructuring the economy and society in a way that can meet the challenges of computers, globalisation and climate change. We need a movement to articulate the needs of the majority, of the young and the poor. That's not going to come from Etonians and millionaires.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Which comes back to: If you think Mr Corbyn isn't up to the job, and Mr Smith isn't up to the job, and the Labour party haven't found anyone better, then why even vote Labour?
I cannot vote Tory, after all the hateful things they have done. If another party had a better chance of toppling the Tory in my constituency, then I would vote for that other party. My constituency is a Tory-Labour marginal.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.

As it happens I think Mr Smith would do better than Mr Corbyn. At least he can work with his colleagues.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It doesn't matter who's running the Labour party. May CANNOT lose in 2020, she should retire before 2025. Her successor will then lose to Sadiq Khan. Jeremy is a FINE opposition leader with John McDonnell as a FINE shadow chancellor. They should retire after losing in 2020 when Sadiq MUST be elected leader.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Are those opinions more factual in block capitals?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.
If one comes to the conclusion that a parliamentary party is useless and craven but the best thing about it is a leader who is failing to demonstrate any managerial ability and cannot lead the party... well then aside from pausing to give the party a good kicking by inflicting him on them until the next general election it would seem the best thing to do would be to move on. Either in despair or in hope, depending on disposition.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.
If one comes to the conclusion that a parliamentary party is useless and craven but the best thing about it is a leader who is failing to demonstrate any managerial ability and cannot lead the party... well then aside from pausing to give the party a good kicking by inflicting him on them until the next general election it would seem the best thing to do would be to move on. Either in despair or in hope, depending on disposition.
That's what happened in Scotland, isn't it? For various reasons, feeling taken for granted, seeing Labour in bed with Cameron, seeing Labour as right-wing, there was a shift to the SNP.

But this isn't possible in England. I suppose some shift to UKIP, but this seems hopeless.

I see Corbyn as the last best hope for Labour. If it's Smith as leader, fair enough.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.
If one comes to the conclusion that a parliamentary party is useless and craven but the best thing about it is a leader who is failing to demonstrate any managerial ability and cannot lead the party... well then aside from pausing to give the party a good kicking by inflicting him on them until the next general election it would seem the best thing to do would be to move on. Either in despair or in hope, depending on disposition.
The bulk of the PLP may yet see sense, or at least switch on to how the wind has changed; and Corbyn and those close to him may yet sharpen up their act, managerially speaking. I'm hopeful on both counts.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.
If one comes to the conclusion that a parliamentary party is useless and craven but the best thing about it is a leader who is failing to demonstrate any managerial ability and cannot lead the party... well then aside from pausing to give the party a good kicking by inflicting him on them until the next general election it would seem the best thing to do would be to move on. Either in despair or in hope, depending on disposition.
The bulk of the PLP may yet see sense, or at least switch on to how the wind has changed; and Corbyn and those close to him may yet sharpen up their act, managerially speaking. I'm hopeful on both counts.
On that score though, how long a tenure as Labour leader would you expect Corbyn to have? Just on average and ignoring any special circumstances? Blair held office for a very long time, as did Wilson, but an average tenure might be, say, four or five years? Next week Jeremy Corbyn will already have been in post for a whole year, and if there has been any improvement in his ability to be an effective leader (as distinct from a spokesman for his own faction), I'm afraid it has been too slight for me to discern it.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Suppose I grant you the truth of all the above. Why then the need for smears and non-constitutional shenanigans on top ????
Why the need for supporters of Corbyn to smear Labour MPs (individually and as a group)?
Which instances of this did you have in mind?
The ongoing claims that the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs have been lying about Corbyn's inability or unwillingness to work with them, or else that it is the fault of the Labour MPs rather than Corbyn.

Here's an example:

quote:
'Draw me a tree'

[Other person starts to draw tree - First person then knocks his elbow so pencil slides all over page]

'Ha - see - I knew you wouldn't be able to draw a tree!'
By the way, I would like to know what precisely is either dishonest or not upfront about either resigning from the Cabinet or about holding a vote of no confidence in your leader? You can call it unwise, but it was out in the open.

Whether it was unwise or not is up for debate.
There are four possible courses of events:
a) Damaging leadership election; Corbyn wins.
b) Damaging leadership election; Smith wins.
c) No challenge to Corbyn.
d) Corbyn endorses successor who can unify the party.
Clearly for those people who think Corbyn is doing a poor job for whatever reason(*) it's more desirable that Corbyn nominate a successor who can unify the party than that they have a damaging leadership contest regardless of who wins.
(In game theory terms the correct course of action depends on how desirable each result is by how likely your course of action is to bring it about.)

(*) You might think Brexit is a good idea; many of us think it's an almighty cock-up, and that someone other than Tim Farron ought to be helping put a stop to it. Even if you do think it's a good idea, it's clear that calling in Article 50 now, when we have no negotiating strategy, and not even any negotiators, would make it a cock-up in short order.
Not that this is the only reason for thinking Corbyn is doing a bad job, but it's the reason that precipitated this.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The bulk of the PLP may yet see sense, or at least switch on to how the wind has changed; and Corbyn and those close to him may yet sharpen up their act, managerially speaking. I'm hopeful on both counts.
The PLP had a go with Corbyn and have now been driven to sufficient desperation to engage in extreme measures which are likely to fail.

I see no sign that Corbyn is sharpening up.

Where does this hope come from?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Ok. What I'm getting at is that trashing the PLP isn't an argument in favour of Mr Corbyn, it's just an argument against Labour.
If one comes to the conclusion that a parliamentary party is useless and craven but the best thing about it is a leader who is failing to demonstrate any managerial ability and cannot lead the party... well then aside from pausing to give the party a good kicking by inflicting him on them until the next general election it would seem the best thing to do would be to move on. Either in despair or in hope, depending on disposition.
Plucky Johnny Major knew his Bismark: Politics is the art of the possible. If you are despairing, resign. Get a sodding grip man, as my old man would say.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Then why not just admit that Corbyn as leader was a mistake, replace him, and unite the party in opposition against the oppressive and murderous Tory regime?
If only it were that simple! There are simply no suitable candidates who have been MPs for long enough. The left cannot settle for one of the rebels/plotters/resigners, and all the good alternatives (effectively those who have rallied around Corbyn such as Clive Lewis and Angela Rayner) are as yet too inexperienced. I like Corbyn and think he's been badly treated and often misrepresented but I don't think he's the messiah.

I've been loyal to Labour through Blair and Brown even when I was not happy with the party's direction, but now their successors will not allow the left its chance and seem determined to crush it. If it was just about Corbyn's 'incompetence' why the hostility from day one? This incompetence issue has proved very convenient for the Corbyn-haters such as Mcternan. A handy stick to beat him with when all the others failed.

It's going to be very difficult to unite the party now, whoever is leader.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
The bulk of the PLP may yet see sense, or at least switch on to how the wind has changed; and Corbyn and those close to him may yet sharpen up their act, managerially speaking. I'm hopeful on both counts.
Those are my hopes, too.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
This incompetence issue has proved very convenient for the Corbyn-haters such as Mcternan.
It has proved extremely inconvenient for some who tried to work with him, apparently in good faith, and resigned in despair. The reports are linked to in this thread. I really wanted Corbyn to succeed but it seems impossible to ignore the combined reports of the chaos around his office.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Attitude is ALL.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Not if you are below the poverty line and want out. Those people need some actual implementation as well. Implementation is SOMETHING AS WELL.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It all depends on what's being implemented.

As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
This incompetence issue has proved very convenient for the Corbyn-haters such as Mcternan.
That's rather like saying 'John Major's incompetence has proved very convenient for Tony Blair.'
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
How was John Major incompetent? Surrounded by bastards epitomized by Portillo (who was humbled nicely) whose attitude (is that better MDIJON?) was incompetent.

And look! The first nail in the Tories' coffin! Grammar Schools.

[ 08. September 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How was John Major incompetent? Surrounded by bastards epitomized by Portillo (who was humbled nicely) whose attitude (is that better MDIJON?) was incompetent.

And look! The first nail in the Tories' coffin! Grammar Schools.
An entirely avoidable recession, standing idly-by whilst Serbian nationalists slaughtered innocents in the former Yugoslavia and the beef war are the immediate examples which spring to mind.

He did, however, win a General Election and maintain the support of a majority of his MPs until the bitter end so not, perhaps, an exact analogy.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It all depends on what's being implemented.

As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
Really, I thought it was because members of the Parliamentary Party were stupid enough to nominate Corbyn and enough entrusts joined subsequently, to keep him in position.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It all depends on what's being implemented.

As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
Well, Scotland again stands as a big flashing warning light for Labour. I don't think the collapse there was down to Corbyn!

I wonder if there is any analysis going on about what went wrong north of the border. For example, it struck me that Smith's idea of a second referendum could be catastrophic, and could lead to a Labour collapse in some English areas.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quetzalcoatl wrote:
quote:
I wonder if there is any analysis going on about what went wrong north of the border. For example, it struck me that Smith's idea of a second referendum could be catastrophic, and could lead to a Labour collapse in some English areas.
A second referendum may play into the hands of the burgeoning sense of English nationalism. I suspect that would then play out more according to how the other parties are disposed to handle that phenomenon - or in other words it will be something that relies on attitudes within as well as external to the party's voting base. Tricky to foresee.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It all depends on what's being implemented.

As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
Really, I thought it was because members of the Parliamentary Party were stupid enough to nominate Corbyn and enough entrusts joined subsequently, to keep him in position.
Yes. Brown and Milliband losing two elections on the trot must be Corbyn's fault. What else could the answer be? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quetzalcoatl wrote:
quote:
I wonder if there is any analysis going on about what went wrong north of the border. For example, it struck me that Smith's idea of a second referendum could be catastrophic, and could lead to a Labour collapse in some English areas.
A second referendum may play into the hands of the burgeoning sense of English nationalism. I suspect that would then play out more according to how the other parties are disposed to handle that phenomenon - or in other words it will be something that relies on attitudes within as well as external to the party's voting base. Tricky to foresee.
Yes, impossible to predict. But I could imagine, that if a second referendum were called, some Labour voters, who voted Leave, might feel so incensed at the apparent slight on their democratic vote (to Leave), that they would abandon Labour.

In Scotland, there was a ready-made alternative, not so clear in England, except of course, for UKIP. I bet Farage would be drooling over the prospect of a second referendum. He would unretire again.

[ 08. September 2016, 11:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
This incompetence issue has proved very convenient for the Corbyn-haters such as Mcternan.
That's rather like saying 'John Major's incompetence has proved very convenient for Tony Blair.'
I don't believe that John Major was incompetent at all - however for many in his party he was very much NOT a logical successor to Thatcher , and they did their best to trip him up. He wasn't expected to win the 'put up or shut up' election but did (he might have emerged with a better reputation if he HAD lost - he was forever associated with the ERM disaster and 'sleaze' both of which occurred in his second term).

Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand seems to be becoming quite proficient in finding open goals to miss. Didn't mention Brexit in PMQs yesterday, for example, when David Davis seemed to have opened a nice fault line in the Tories on the subject the day before.

I always back Jeremy Corbyn , for bringing back true Labour , which has been pretty much MIA for 20 years, but realistically, and taking account of his age , he is a stopgap and may well retire before the 2020 election. Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner may be ready to give a go by then.

None of this explains the PLP launching a damaging Coup just when the Tories were at the most vulnerable position they had been at since 2010 (I still think the Liberals would have been better served holding the balance of power to a Tory Minority government but that's another discussion entirely).
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
This incompetence issue has proved very convenient for the Corbyn-haters such as Mcternan.
It has proved extremely inconvenient for some who tried to work with him, apparently in good faith, and resigned in despair. The reports are linked to in this thread. I really wanted Corbyn to succeed but it seems impossible to ignore the combined reports of the chaos around his office.
I, too, find this troubling. I don't think they are liars and it's clear that Corbyn is not the perfect leader. However, it can also be said that while they may have gone into their posts in good faith, it was always with a rumbling resentment. In other words, they were waiting for him to stumble - in some cases, hoping for it. I doubt that any leader is 'perfect' to their colleagues, but here all the dirty laundry has been put on display; the (sometimes ridiculous) resentments thrown out as bones to the media. It smells a bit rotten.

He has said and done things I don't like or agree with (the 'article 50' moment, and his refusal to consider a progressive alliance, for two) but I feel he is the best hope for the left and Labour at present. I do believe he cares and is sincere, but yes he stumbles and bumbles a bit. He isn't the polished politician, but for many of us that's in his favour.

I'm not among those who feel we can wait 20 years for a Labour government. I'm desperate to see the Tories out as I fear for what this country will become, and worry about those who are suffering under Tory rule. Prior to the resignations I had hope that Labour was starting to gain traction under Corbyn, that the Tories were in such disarray after the Leave vote that if there were a snap election under a new leader Labour would win. The resigners destroyed all that.

If Corbyn is 'ousted' I see no hope for Labour at all as the 'brand' is utterly sullied. If he stays I see a slim hope. If the resignations hadn't happened we would all be in a far better place right now.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Prior to the resignations I had hope that Labour was starting to gain traction under Corbyn, that the Tories were in such disarray after the Leave vote that if there were a snap election under a new leader Labour would win. The resigners destroyed all that.

If Corbyn is 'ousted' I see no hope for Labour at all as the 'brand' is utterly sullied. If he stays I see a slim hope. If the resignations hadn't happened we would all be in a far better place right now.
This is just wishful thinking. The Tories have enjoyed significant poll leads ever since Corbyn became labour leader, including around the time of the referendum and afterwards. They are now getting on with the business of retaining power come what may (sorry) as is their ruthless wont.

The actions of the PLP speak to me more of desperation and despair than any Machiavellian plotting; they know that the referendum was bad news for the Tories but terrible for Labour.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It all depends on what's being implemented.

As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
Really, I thought it was because members of the Parliamentary Party were stupid enough to nominate Corbyn and enough entrusts joined subsequently, to keep him in position.
Yes. Brown and Milliband losing two elections on the trot must be Corbyn's fault. What else could the answer be? [Roll Eyes]
And would you say that the situation has improved markedly, since then?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And would you say that the situation has improved markedly, since then?
In the alternative timeline where the PLP hadn't thrown its toys out of the pram, yes.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
None of this explains the PLP launching a damaging Coup just when the Tories were at the most vulnerable position they had been at since 2010.
Let's see. The Remain camp had just lost the referendum, and were somewhere between denial and anger. And a good many of us are do not intend acceptance any earlier than we have to.

In which atmosphere some wally calls for Article 50 to be implemented right then. Really, how did he think pro-Remain Labour MPs were going to react?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As many have said (over and over again), there's little difference to the working masses if it's a Tory government implementing Tory policies, or a Labour government implementing Tory policies.

That's how Labour have ended up in the mess they're in - not being an alternative to the Conservative party.
I think that is why it is Owen Smith who is challenging Corbyn, rather than Benn or Umunna.

In the mean time, while many people would indeed like an alternative to the Conservative Party's (absence of) policy on Brexit, get out of the EU without stopping to think isn't the alternative we're looking for.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And would you say that the situation has improved markedly, since then?
In the alternative timeline where the PLP hadn't thrown its toys out of the pram, yes.
So you are saying that Corbyn's unpopularity is the result of the actions of the PLP, rather than the cause of the PLP's actions? I'm not sure why, if Corbyn actually was improving the situation, why the PLP would wantonly destroy a viable Leader.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So you are saying that Corbyn's unpopularity is the result of the actions of the PLP, rather than the cause of the PLP's actions? I'm not sure why, if Corbyn actually was improving the situation, why the PLP would wantonly destroy a viable Leader.
In response to the question, who would I vote for at a General Election, I'd say 'Green'. In response to the question, who would make the best prime minister, I'd say 'Caroline Lucas'.

This is despite supporting Corbyn: I strongly suspect that the PLP would go on trying to undermine the direction Corbyn wants to take the party at every turn. If, however, when Corbyn is re-elected as leader with an increased mandate, and the PLP sorts itself out (or is sorted out), I - and I'm guessing a lot of other people - will re-evaluate their position.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure why, if Corbyn actually was improving the situation, why the PLP would wantonly destroy a viable Leader.
Sorry, I missed this bit out of my previous answer.

I'm not sure why either. But several Labour politicians are, if not on the record, certainly have strongly suggested that, they'd rather lose the General Election than win it with a more socialist manifesto. Make of that what you will.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But several Labour politicians are, if not on the record, certainly have strongly suggested that, they'd rather lose the General Election than win it with a more socialist manifesto.
But I suspect these politicians would the final part of that sentence laughably implausible.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Sounds like the Blairites should be Lib-Dems. Arguably, the Liberals are the inheritors of the Whig tradition that stood in opposition to the Tories. So, Labour is really a third party that's enjoyed several decades of relative success. Few of the Labour prime ministers enjoyed the whole hearted support of the Left that Labour originally represented. I question rather Labour should have ever been in power after Atlee. Give everybody what they want. Let social democrats and democratic socialists vote Labour. Let neoliberal nationalists given to order and hierarchy vote conservative. Let cosmopolitan neoliberals enamored with change and progress vote Lib-Dem.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure why, if Corbyn actually was improving the situation, why the PLP would wantonly destroy a viable Leader.
Sorry, I missed this bit out of my previous answer.

I'm not sure why either. But several Labour politicians are, if not on the record, certainly have strongly suggested that, they'd rather lose the General Election than win it with a more socialist manifesto. Make of that what you will.
His personal ratings have been consistently awful - worse than any other opposition leader. This was before the referendum.

The local council election results which were according to his supporters on social media a great success (one meme showed that the results illustrated how he was doing better than Blair before the 97 landslide.) This was just absurd cherrypicking. The results were in fact very poor. Yes he did very slightly better than predicted (about 2% better) by a couple of social scientists, but if their predictions had been spot on the results really would have been appalling.

At these elections he won the projected national share of the vote by 1% - much was made of this. However, oppositions consistently get around 14% leads on this, at least if they go on to win the next election. (Council elections are regarded as a pain free way of having a go at the government.)

Historically the only other local election results that were (very slightly) worse for an opposition were in 1998 and 2011. It doesn't take a genius to work out that what these two dates have in common. Both are within a year of a change of government and the new governments were still benefiting from a prolonged honeymoon after a very long period in opposition. This factor was not available as an excuse in 2016.

Any MP who actually understands opinion polls will have known how appallingly they were doing before 'the coup'. This alongside Dafyd's comments re Article 50 - which I also see as the final straw - easily explains the desperation. Most Labour MPs would like to win an election - it means their seats are less vulnerable and they get to do things rather than complain.

[ 08. September 2016, 16:32: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So you are saying that Corbyn's unpopularity is the result of the actions of the PLP, rather than the cause of the PLP's actions? I'm not sure why, if Corbyn actually was improving the situation, why the PLP would wantonly destroy a viable Leader.
In response to the question, who would I vote for at a General Election, I'd say 'Green'. In response to the question, who would make the best prime minister, I'd say 'Caroline Lucas'.

This is despite supporting Corbyn: I strongly suspect that the PLP would go on trying to undermine the direction Corbyn wants to take the party at every turn. If, however, when Corbyn is re-elected as leader with an increased mandate, and the PLP sorts itself out (or is sorted out), I - and I'm guessing a lot of other people - will re-evaluate their position.
So, having claimed for the last few weeks that Jeremy Corbyn is eminently electable you will not, yourself, vote for him. I think that there is a performative inconsistency here.

More generally, the Labour Party are currently on 28% of the vote in the polls, which is what they got in 1983. The Tories are currently on 42%. The Liberals are on 8%, the Kippers on 12% with the rest, presumably being divvied up between the Greens, Plaid, the SNP and the various minor parties. The idea that there is some left wing surge waiting to rally if only Jeremy wins again and sorts out the PLP (how?) is, frankly, for the birds. The people who currently vote Lib Dem would probably vote for them come hell or high water, the sort of people who vote UKIP are not, let us say, Corbyn's natural constituency and the sort of people who have swung to the Tories between 2005 and now are not, obviously, looking for a government of the far left. There might be one or two marginals which go Tory to Labour if the Green vote collapses, but that's about it. The only major swing of any kind I can see at the moment is one where pro-Europe Labour voters notice that Corbyn isn't terribly concerned about staying in the single market and switch to the Lib Dems. I can't see that being an earth shattering development overall, but it might well take Labour below their 1983 nadir of 28%.

As to the PLP, they might be concerned to forestall a left wing government but politicians generally gravitate from the setting to the rising sun. There were a number of New Labour types who went from the left in the 1980s to the right in the 1990s and there has been a perceptible shift in the opposite direction, though not the same extent, subsequently. The body of opinion in the PLP is somewhat to the left of what it was in 2005. If they thought that Corbyn was a viable PM in waiting they would make their peace with him. It is the improbability of that scenario that has provoked the current difficulties. The exception to this is Mr Blair who said that he would not want to win an election on a Corbynite platform - I think that he meant that it would be undeliverable in practice, but, at any rate not being a member of the PLP has nothing to hope or fear from a hypothetical Corbynite victory.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Saying that Labour would be doing better if only the PLP rallied around Mr Corbyn ignores the question: What actions on the part of the PLP could have avoided the examples of incompetence dissected on this thread?

In any case, Mr Corbyn's incompetence isn't just a question of electability. There are three reasons why a Labour leader may fail to inaugurate a social-democratic utopia:

1. They wuss out of social-democratic policies;
2. They don't get elected;
3. They get elected and cock it up.

Even if one accepts that Mr Corbyn's negative ratings are entirely down to lies and smears and the reports of his incompetence that are true would be forgiven by the electorate - that still leaves the issue that he is actually incompetent.

His comments on article 50 and Trident submarines without missiles do not give the impression of someone who thinks through all the implications of what he is advocating. How likely is it that he would be able to handle the complexity of rail renationalisation?

When the euro collapses, or Russia invades Latvia, or there's a coup d'état in Saudi Arabia, I can see Mr Smith bustling around with great energy and achieving very little. But I can see Mr Corbyn saying something totally off-the-wall and silly, like 'Well perhaps Britain can get by without oil', or 'Supposing we give Russia a land corridor to Kaliningrad.'
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sounds like the Blairites should be Lib-Dems. Arguably, the Liberals are the inheritors of the Whig tradition that stood in opposition to the Tories. So, Labour is really a third party that's enjoyed several decades of relative success. Few of the Labour prime ministers enjoyed the whole hearted support of the Left that Labour originally represented. I question rather Labour should have ever been in power after Atlee. Give everybody what they want. Let social democrats and democratic socialists vote Labour. Let neoliberal nationalists given to order and hierarchy vote conservative. Let cosmopolitan neoliberals enamored with change and progress vote Lib-Dem.
You can question all you want but in 1964, 1966, 1974, 1974 (again), 1997, 2001 and 2005 the British electorate disagreed with you. British politics isn't made up of three teams based on pure ideological strata. They are made up of social coalitions which rise and fall depending on events and personalities.

Frankly, this is like saying that Democrats should support Trump because back in the day some Democrats were Southerners who supported segregation and that Republicans should support Hilary because, let's face it, Lincoln and Eisenhower would never have voted for Trump. I think an American would say that this was a somewhat glib reading of his, or her, country's politics so allow me to repay the compliment.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm not saying that Wilson, Callaghan, and Blair shouldn't have been Prime Minister necessarily. I'm saying that Wilson, Callaghan, and Blair should have been Liberals but ended up in the Labour party because the Liberals had been in decline for 40 years. Has nothing to do with who I think should have won the those elections. I'm really a completely impartial observer. I know the opinion on Blair. The opposition from the Left to first Wilson and then Callaghan largely handed the country to Thatcher. So, it now seems hard to suggest that they were solidly left wing. After Thatcher and Blair, it could be a case of don't know what you got till it's gone but the fact remains that with the exception of Atlee the left has complained about the purity of every single Labour PM. Whether or not they were isn't even relevant to the issue at hand.

There is no equivalent example in US politics because there is no Third Party. The Republicans and Democrats have been the two major parties since 1860. The Republicans clearly adopted most of the positions of the Whig Party which had been the opposition party for the 40 years prior. Plus, the names Democratic and Republican mean nothing.

And Lincoln would have voted for Trump.

[ 08. September 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

And Lincoln would have voted for Trump.
I'd love to hear the explanation for this statement.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, having claimed for the last few weeks that Jeremy Corbyn is eminently electable you will not, yourself, vote for him. I think that there is a performative inconsistency here.
If you can't get your mind around someone supporting a politician, and simultaneously thinking that the party around them will scupper their endeavour, then I can't help you.

But I'm guessing you knew that answer anyway. A performative something or other from you, I suppose.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Trump is a throwback to the Republican Party of the 19th Century. Lincoln believed in protectionism. Lincoln favored anti-immigrant policies like allowing the immigrant Irish to be drafted but allowing the wealthy to buy there way out of it. Lincoln opposed slavery but after emancipation wanted to deport the freed slaves to Central or South America. If Trump is a white supremacist, Lincoln most certainly qualifies as a white supremacist.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, having claimed for the last few weeks that Jeremy Corbyn is eminently electable you will not, yourself, vote for him. I think that there is a performative inconsistency here.
If you can't get your mind around someone supporting a politician, and simultaneously thinking that the party around them will scupper their endeavour, then I can't help you.

But I'm guessing you knew that answer anyway. A performative something or other from you, I suppose.
If you support a politician you vote for them. If you don't vote for them, you don't support them. It's a a fairly binary thing.

I have a lot of time, for example, for Ken Clarke. I wouldn't vote for him, not being a Tory, and all that. So the most I can say is that I like Ken Clarke. Given that the wrong lot win elections from time to time, I would rather they supported a politician I like and, as it happens, I think the Tories would have done better in 2001, 2005 and, possibly, even 2010 if they had voted for him.

But I would probably refrain from saying to people who had given a great deal of time and energy to the Conservative Party that they were betraying the Conservative Party, and it's principles by not supporting a politician I liked but was not, myself, prepared to support. Indeed, I would probably refrain from lecturing people about the principles of their party if I did not, myself, support it. YMMV.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But several Labour politicians are, if not on the record, certainly have strongly suggested that, they'd rather lose the General Election than win it with a more socialist manifesto.
Can you give examples?

Do you have evidence that this is true of more than a small minority of the Labour MPs?

Would it be unfair to say that some Corbyn supporters think that Labour to the right of Corbyn is just Tory-lite, and that therefore Labour might as well lose under Corbyn as win under a less left-wing manifesto?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump is a throwback to the Republican Party of the 19th Century. Lincoln believed in protectionism. Lincoln favored anti-immigrant policies like allowing the immigrant Irish to be drafted but allowing the wealthy to buy there way out of it.
The Enrollment Act did not specify immigration status, merely a fee for opting out.
Strike one.
quote:

Lincoln opposed slavery but after emancipation wanted to deport the freed slaves to Central or South America.
Not exactly correct. Lincoln's attitude was an evolving one, changing from practicality and his meetings with people like Fredrick Douglas.

And he makes glancing contact sending a foul ball into the right field stands. Strike two.


quote:

If Trump is a white supremacist, Lincoln most certainly qualifies as a white supremacist.
This is a little more nuanced. Lincoln was in the 19th C. and the Trumpaloompa is here, in the 21C. Whilst I think Lincoln's position far from ideal, he was a relatively progressive man of his times. Which means, were he in the present day, he would not likely be in anywhere near the same arena as the orange one.
Strike three, yooour OUT!
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
The Enrollment Act did not specify immigration status, merely a fee for opting out.
Strike one.
No, but that policy had a disparate impact on Irish immigrants. Hence, Irish rioted and Lincoln suppressed them. Such a violent man that Lincoln.

quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
Not exactly correct. Lincoln's attitude was an evolving one, changing from practicality and his meetings with people like Fredrick Douglas.

And he makes glancing contact sending a foul ball into the right field stands. Strike two.

Even your post says that Lincoln believed separation was best solution. He never completely gave up on the idea even if he didn't mention it publicly. See below for evidence.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport slaves to other colonies

Why would he stop talking about it publicly? One, he wanted a slave revolt. Two, forcibly relocating all of the freed slaves wouldn't have been easy.

quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
This is a little more nuanced. Lincoln was in the 19th C. and the Trumpaloompa is here, in the 21C. Whilst I think Lincoln's position far from ideal, he was a relatively progressive man of his times. Which means, were he in the present day, he would not likely be in anywhere near the same arena as the orange one.
Assuming Trump is truly a racist. This is simply a non sequitur. Trump's actual views on race aren't extreme. Now, what he is claimed to believe is a different story. I'll allow that by the definition of racist used by SJW's that Trump is a racist. However, by that definition, every Republican president except possibly Eisenhower was a racist.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you support a politician you vote for them. If you don't vote for them, you don't support them. It's a a fairly binary thing.
It's clearly a binary thing for you. I'm glad the world is so clear and straightforward in your eyes.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fine. Then don't vote Republican.

Simple.

What am I missing?

Besides I thought this thread was about Corbyn not The Donald, still less an 1860s US politician with an even weirder line in beards.

WTF has Lincoln got to do with the UK's Labour Party, other than pieces of rhetoric like the Gettysburg Address that most people admire from time to time?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I didn't bring him up. I am trying my best to serve as an impartial outside voice here and people keep thinking I have ulterior motives. I have no desire to discuss Lincoln, Trump, or any other U.S. politician past or present except as it relates to Jeremy Cornyn. The way I'm comparing Trump to Corbyn says nothing about what I think of either Trump or Cornyn.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I did not bring Lincoln into this discussion either and will cease to post further on him in this thread, not even to illustrate your inaccuracies.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you support a politician you vote for them. If you don't vote for them, you don't support them. It's a a fairly binary thing.
It's clearly a binary thing for you. I'm glad the world is so clear and straightforward in your eyes.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath support, and have not votes? Can support save him?

Even so support, if it hath not votes, is dead, being alone.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you support a politician you vote for them. If you don't vote for them, you don't support them. It's a a fairly binary thing.
It's clearly a binary thing for you. I'm glad the world is so clear and straightforward in your eyes.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath support, and have not votes? Can support save him?

Even so support, if it hath not votes, is dead, being alone.
I can't vote for him. I'm not a member of the Labour party, and neither am I resident of his constituency.

Where I live, the local Labour MP is a decent bloke, but I'm very good friends with the PPC for the Greens. Council elections - I used to vote LibDem, but now don't. And the councillors are entirely Labour, save for a few LibDems. Up until recently, the Greens didn't put up a ward candidate, and I considered standing for them myself, but then someone else stepped up, and I voted for them instead.

If Corbyn - and the membership of the party - can plot a proper leftist course for the whole party, then I'll most likely switch my vote.

I don't see anything inconsistent about this approach whatsoever. I'm a swing voter, but on the left.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I'm also a swing voter on the left.

It's been pretty disappointing.

I voted Labour in 1997 - what a disappointment as they lurched to the right. Now they are in such disarray I can't vote for them.

After 1997 I swung between Green and Lib Dems. Then the Lib Dems joined the right in coalition.

So that leaves me with Green - who have no real leaders.

I'd like to be able to vote SNP!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

If Corbyn - and the membership of the party - can plot a proper leftist course for the whole party, then I'll most likely switch my vote.

I don't see anything inconsistent about this approach whatsoever. I'm a swing voter, but on the left.
Ok. So you are saying (if I may paraphrase) that Mr Corbyn is indeed a vote-attractor for you, but less powerful (at the moment) than the vote-repellant forces of the rest of the PLP?

Obviously I disagree with your apportionment of blame, but I can see where you are coming from.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

If Corbyn - and the membership of the party - can plot a proper leftist course for the whole party, then I'll most likely switch my vote.

I don't see anything inconsistent about this approach whatsoever. I'm a swing voter, but on the left.
Ok. So you are saying (if I may paraphrase) that Mr Corbyn is indeed a vote-attractor for you, but less powerful (at the moment) than the vote-repellant forces of the rest of the PLP?

Obviously I disagree with your apportionment of blame, but I can see where you are coming from.
Pretty much this.

Politics (as has oft been noted) is the art of the possible. While I'm probably more idealistic than pragmatic - I vote Green, ffs - however much I support Corbyn's policies, I have to have some confidence that he'll be able to have them adopted into the party's manifesto, and then use that as a platform for governance.

With the state of the PLP at the moment, that's very much a fond hope. And yes, I apportion the majority of the blame for that on the behaviour of the PLP.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
that leaves me with Green - who have no real leaders.

Jonathan Bartley is good
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
There has been some indication on recent TV interviews from all 'sides' of the general tone of the conversations becoming more sober .. A good sign ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
that leaves me with Green - who have no real leaders.

Jonathan Bartley is good
Mr Bartley served with Nicky Morgan as a Tory Councillor in Battersea, once upon a time. Clearly the Bizarro Steve Hilton.

Caroline Lucas is good, though, unlike Corbyn she commands 100% of the support of her MPs.

Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
As long as Corbyn is leader I shall vote Labour. If Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner or one of their ilk is leader I shall vote Labour. If one of the 171 current 'rebels' becomes leader it is highly unlikely that I shall vote Labour.

I'm not a member of the party but I've always voted Labour until now, Blair et al. notwithstanding. Now though, it's time for a change and the resigners have resorted to every nefarious means available to prevent it and to crush Corbyn and the Left.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
As long as Corbyn is leader I shall vote Labour. If Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner or one of their ilk is leader I shall vote Labour. If one of the 171 current 'rebels' becomes leader it is highly unlikely that I shall vote Labour.

I'm not a member of the party but I've always voted Labour until now, Blair et al. notwithstanding. Now though, it's time for a change and the resigners have resorted to every nefarious means available to prevent it and to crush Corbyn and the Left.
So would you prefer the Tories to win a seat than you vote for one of the large number of Labour MPs - pretty damning of the Labour Party? (I'll admit I tend to vote for a party not a personality!)

ETA a number of the MPs who resigned cannot be regarded as on the right of the party. Their problem was Corbyn's competence - as it is for quite a few of us on this thread.

[ 13. September 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
What's needed now more than anything is a 'Day One' approach, ie, the day that Corbyn is returned ..
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
I think that's right (or at least I agree). Which is probably all for the best.

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's all been about Jeremy Corby - he's probably the lightning conductor. Though that would need a lot more unpacking, and it certainly is not just about "Blairism".

[ 14. September 2016, 18:21: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
I think that's right (or at least I agree). Which is probably all for the best.

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's all been about Jeremy Corby - he's probably the lightning conductor. Though that would need a lot more unpacking, and it certainly is not just about "Blairism".
Yes, good point. I think it never is, about one person or event, I mean. An awful lot of pent-up frustration and angst has built up in British politics recently, and this is one manifestation. You could almost say panic.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
He kind of looked OK at PMQs. May looked very shaky as he laid into the grammar school initiative and that has to be a good thing from my perspective.

Some evidence of ability to develop consensus, listen to people with expertise and work in a government-in-waiting sort of way to develop policy rather than free-wheeling disorganization and I'd be sold. I have kind of been wanted to see that all year though.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
If I were a Corbynite clutching at straws I would note a number of things. Firstly, the narrative of the Labour leadership campaign is established - Corbyn will win, Owen Smith ran on a Corbyn policies plus support of the PLP ticket, which the membership appear to find unconvincing, and made a number of gaffes, there are limits to how interesting you can make that over three months. Secondly, we have a shiny new Prime Minister and it may be that the glister is coming off her reign. There is a general consensus that he handed her her arse at PMQs today, for the first time ever, over Grammar Schools, which he never looked close to doing to David Cameron. More generally some of the centre-right commentators who backed her as "the grown up" candidate, are now wondering if they haven't go the more grown up "back to the fifties" candidate. Then there is Brexit.

Those are straws, however. The polls are solid, 28% Labour, 40% Tory. There will be a spike in anti-Corbyn coverage, when the election result comes in and lots of stuff about how the moderates ought to form a new party, maybe one or two will join the Lib Dems. The question is: will Theresa May go for an early election? Let us say the Lords defy the Salisbury Convention on Grammar Schools on the grounds that it wasn't in the Conservative manifesto - does she go the country on the grounds of the Peers versus the People - in which case she looks like romping home comfortably, or does she hang on until she has a Brexit deal she can put before the country. If she takes her time there will be battles over re-selection and de-selection, which will do nothing for Labour's standing in the polls.

But, barring an unforeseen bolt from the blue, as things stand she looks like getting a Thatcher or Blair type majority at the next election, whenever that is. The question AFAICS is, will there be an electable Labour Party in 2035 or will the opposition be another party to take it's place.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He kind of looked OK at PMQs. May looked very shaky as he laid into the grammar school initiative and that has to be a good thing from my perspective.

Some evidence of ability to develop consensus, listen to people with expertise and work in a government-in-waiting sort of way to develop policy rather than free-wheeling disorganization and I'd be sold. I have kind of been wanted to see that all year though.
May is shaky. She is doing it on the hoof, and the bloody Brexit thing is lying there, like a dead relative in the parlour.

They used to say that when Thatcher looked shaky, which she did sometimes, Kinnock would inevitably fluff his lines. We shall see if Corbyn fluffs his.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
Or just the fact that he hasn't done anything particularly daft for a few weeks. Although Ms Thornberry seems to be doing her best to fly the flag for Team Incompetent ...
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Just to run with the "dead relative" image for a moment-

In 2017 it will awake, zombie-like, and start crashing around. It's not immediately obvious to me who it is most likely to damage, May or Corbyn.

If the three musketeers scenario was a cunning plan by TM to give the Brexit tendency enough rope, she may survive, though it will need careful managing. Goodness only knows where it will leave us as a country though.

I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say. The risk is that the discourse will go right past him without a contribution. If so, that won't help him at all.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say.
He's still taking the 'let's do it and get it over with' line.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say.
He's still taking the 'let's do it and get it over with' line.
I'd say his comments mean that he is, intentionally or unintentionally, pushing towards a 'hard brexit', exactly what we don't need at this point. He seems to have no idea how important the type of Brexit we get, will be.

[ 14. September 2016, 22:18: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So would you prefer the Tories to win a seat than you vote for one of the large number of Labour MPs - pretty damning of the Labour Party? (I'll admit I tend to vote for a party not a personality!)

ETA a number of the MPs who resigned cannot be regarded as on the right of the party. Their problem was Corbyn's competence - as it is for quite a few of us on this thread.
I vote for policies, not personalities. If one of the 171 was leader, had a conversion and became genuinely left wing, followed by the majority of the party falling into line with Corbyn-style policies then I would vote for them. Unfortunately I do not believe Owen Smith is genuine in his claims to support Corbyn-style policies. His backers certainly don't.

I have always been soft left, but the vast majority, if not all, of the resigners are to my right. I find that odd, as my politics have not altered since Kinnock's time. He was my hero then, but no more.

I would vote Green if there was no other alternative on the Left. Labour took its grassroots for granted for too long. If I were to vote for watered-down Labour yet again I could not live with myself. More Tory-lite; more of the same. Things have to change, and a vote for the Labour right is a vote for the neoliberal status quo.

I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.

Yes, he has made a lot of mistakes, but no, that's not all this is about by any stretch.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
I think this is why the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not just a discourtesy. If Mr Corbyn genuinely is incompetent, to an extent that makes him unfit to lead, then what does it matter if his opponents have additional reasons for wanting him gone? Those additional reasons don't magically make him competent.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
I think this is why the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not just a discourtesy. If Mr Corbyn genuinely is incompetent, to an extent that makes him unfit to lead, then what does it matter if his opponents have additional reasons for wanting him gone? Those additional reasons don't magically make him competent.
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I agree. It is very likely that there were a fair number of MPs who started thinking about ditching Corbyn from the word go. Politics is like that and it would be true in most parties and leaders at most points in their history.

The fact that the plotters can't immediately effect plan ditch new leader gives the new leader a window of opportunity to make something of the situation. To establish a record of doing things well, developing policy, getting consensus and support - the way politics is done.

That isn't how one leads a protest movement which is more to do with taking stands, pubic meetings and speaking one's mind as a personality rather than a leader of a party.

Corbyn didn't do that and so here we are again. However it seems likely he's going to get another window of opportunity. I really hope he takes it but this really doesn't help.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
I was agreeing with Ricardus in the post above. You might have a different argument (i.e. that Corbyn isn't really incompetent but just made to look that way by the PLP) but that isn't the argument Amika was making. She was implying that the motives of the PLP in responding to the incompetence were more important than the incompetence itself.

As to whether it was just the PLP making him look bad, we went through this earlier. There are many examples of failures that just cannot be ascribed to that.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
Just for now his #1 advantage is that no one, on either side of the House, can bowl a straight ball at the stumps. Meanwhile the Press bowl bouncers and beamers, so it he ducks and weaves, he'll be OK.

(Cricketing analogy ends)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It's like calling offside for your own team's touchdown instead of hitting it out of the park.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I vote for policies, not personalities. If one of the 171 was leader, had a conversion and became genuinely left wing, followed by the majority of the party falling into line with Corbyn-style policies then I would vote for them. Unfortunately I do not believe Owen Smith is genuine in his claims to support Corbyn-style policies. His backers certainly don't.

I have always been soft left, but the vast majority, if not all, of the resigners are to my right. I find that odd, as my politics have not altered since Kinnock's time. He was my hero then, but no more.

I would vote Green if there was no other alternative on the Left. Labour took its grassroots for granted for too long. If I were to vote for watered-down Labour yet again I could not live with myself. More Tory-lite; more of the same. Things have to change, and a vote for the Labour right is a vote for the neoliberal status quo.

I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.

Yes, he has made a lot of mistakes, but no, that's not all this is about by any stretch.
A full answer to this would make it too long. So will focus on your last paragraph. Yes a fair number didn’t want him in the first place – many may well have been in my position which is that the British electorate probably won’t vote for an out and out pacifist or they might have reservations about electing a maverick to bring the party together. However, all political leaders have a minority of backbenchers who brief against them – see John Major’s bastards.

I think the PLP can be divided into:

The question is always why did the second and third groups, knowing what they did, throw in their lot with the plotters – the answer is mostly Brexit I believe. Yes - competence was a major issue for many – if you are going to depict yourself as really radical then you will need to be incredibly astute tactically in order to sell yourself to a very cautious / conservative electorate. However there are other reasons – most of which don’t plot easily on a left /right continuum.

The view of many of the PLP was that they had a massive electoral mountain to climb and Corbyn was proving to be deeply unpopular with the GB wider electorate. Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.

So both competence and the EU issue were big, big issues even for those who weren’t that far away from him in terms of most areas of policy.

Finally, the difference between him and the PLP is minimal when it comes to austerity – I don’t think a single Labour MP has endorsed the shrinking of the state which appears to be the underlying motivation for most of what George Osborne wanted to do with his austerity measures.

[ 15. September 2016, 09:00: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
In case it is not clear - I'd be one of those who felt he needed time to fail or (even better) succeed. At least two years probably three, would be my time frame.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
How many of the examples of incompetence that have been instanced in this thread can be put down to a broken bat?
How did Benn trick or coerce Corbyn into calling for Article 50 to be implemented immediately?
What of Kerry McCarthy's criticisms?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
The entire group of rebels? All of them?

Yes, there were some MPs who were briefing against him from the beginning. And some prominent ex-MPs. But how did they win over four in every five MPs?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The thing is that, whenever a party leader is elected there will be those who are delighted with the result, those who are disappointed and those who either feel they have a duty to make the outcome work, or who turn from the setting sun to the rising. A skilful leader will use preferment and demotion to draw the party around them. A high profile rival gets moved to a Great Office of state, another one is demoted to the back benches. Loyalists are promoted to key positions and the ambivalent are tied into posts where their stock will rise, or fall, with the new leader. Victories against the government, or the opposition, incline the disappointed to make peace with the new dispensation. Defeats incline loyalists to reconsider their position. Often a Willie Whitelaw figure will emerge - someone not obviously a supporter of the regime, or someone who might have cause to consider themselves a successor, who can persuade doubters to back the leader - Heseltine, Clarke, Prescott and Mandelson fulfilled this role for Major, Smith and Blair and Brown respectively.

Corbyn's problem has been that he is ideologically obnoxious to a large part of the Labour Party and that, in no wise, has he ever been regarded as being the rising sun. Observers of the doings of Parliament have generally speculated as to whether he would be forced out, hand over to another Corbynite in the course of the Parliament or get thumped in the 2020 General Election. So, quite simply, he has never had access to the sort of preferment a normal party leader has access to. Such access as he has had, has been squandered by alienating people who thought they had a duty to make it work. And he's never had a respected figure on another wing of the party to back him up - unless you count Mr Andy Burnham as respected. Oh, and the opinion polls have been a nightmare so he's never had the insurance policy Ed Miliband had of people having their doubts because getting on with it had the fairly strong implication that you would be in the Cabinet in the next few years.

Now you can whinge about this all you like but complaining that politicians are acting like politicians, or that the rules of political gravity are operating as usual is, frankly, a bit silly. In the event that the entirety of the PLP refuseniks stood down, and were replaced by card carrying members of Momentum; whilst they might cease to object to Corbyn's policies on ideological grounds they might think - he's not a very effective leader and he runs a rubbish comms operation - perhaps someone else might do better. And if they did better and I supported them then I might be elevated from junior spokesman for health to something more promising. "Ah, good evening Shadow Chancellor, I see another Council Election went to the Lib Dems last night and our polls are flatlining, it's a great shame that the media are focussing on that and not on your excellent economic policies which, only if they were better known, would be very popular in the country..."
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.
I think his 'article 50' statement was, sadly, the deal breaker for many Labour voters/members who had, if a little equivocally, supported him. That plus the perception that he didn't campaign enough for Remain. I was desperate for Remain to win and I still hope that somehow we will not leave, but although I was horrified at his article 50 statement, I don't think much of the buck stops with Corbyn.

All we can hope for now is that he makes a better job of his likely second chance. I'm 50-50 on whether he will (or whether he will be allowed to, for that matter).
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.
I think his 'article 50' statement was, sadly, the deal breaker for many Labour voters/members who had, if a little equivocally, supported him. That plus the perception that he didn't campaign enough for Remain. I was desperate for Remain to win and I still hope that somehow we will not leave, but although I was horrified at his article 50 statement, I don't think much of the buck stops with Corbyn.

All we can hope for now is that he makes a better job of his likely second chance. I'm 50-50 on whether he will (or whether he will be allowed to, for that matter).
For me it wasn't so much that he didn't campaign enough, it was the quality of what he did. He avoided the main economic argument and on the one occasion he mentioned it, he undermined the remain position. Consequently, five economists (of the left), who are on his economic advisory team, wrote a letter making it clear just how much they felt he had let down the remain side.

Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence that his team didn't co-operate with the main campaign and at times seemed to be trying to sabotage it. What baffles me is why quite a few remainers want to defend him - it wasn't just his fault - but he was hopeless.

The argument that counters this is, Corbyn delivered more of the Labour vote than Cameron did with the Tory vote - a sign of how good his campaign was. This ignores the fact that Labour voters / members / MPs are generally a lot more pro-remain. Tory MPs were virtually split down the middle in terms of numbers. Two Tory ex-Chancellors were leavers as were most of the leave team leaders.

Corbyn's comments even this week, suggest that he really thinks Brexit will prove to be a blessing in disguise!

[ 15. September 2016, 22:36: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I really think that too. As do many otherwise Labour-leaning people.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
I voted remain, but that doesn't mean I can't see some advantages to not being constrained by EU rules e.g. on state aid. My major worry is that we'd also not be constrained by the working time directive and other rules that protect workers. I can see Brexit amplifying the positive effects of a socialist government and worsening the effects of a neo-liberal one. That said, if some of the reports I'm reading about trade rules post-Brexit are accurate we might well be screwed either way. Immediately after the vote I was leaning towards "respect the result and make the best of it"; now I'm starting to tilt towards "if these reports are accurate we need to row back ASAP".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I feel ambivalent about this rowing back thing. On the one hand, I think Smith's idea of a second referendum is very dangerous for Labour. I think it could produce a Scotland effect in some Labour areas, that is, Labour voters might feel extremely pissed off at the idea of overturning Brexit, and might quit Labour for good.

But then again, Corbyn is being rather mysterious about Brexit, and there are suggestions he favours it. Well, you can make that case, as I did above, we have to honour the referendum. But it's unclear what he does mean, there are even suggestions that he favours hard Brexit. This might be popular in some Labour areas, but not in others, e.g. London.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Oh well, I am wrong there. I just saw Corbyn's speech to Bloomberg, where he rejects hard Brexit, and WTO terms, and favours a Norway-type solution. Well, that's probably not gonna happen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-favours-norway-model-post-brexit-a7309861.html
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, I am wrong there. I just saw Corbyn's speech to Bloomberg, where he rejects hard Brexit, and WTO terms, and favours a Norway-type solution. Well, that's probably not gonna happen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-favours-norway-model-post-brexit-a7309861.html
He can claim to reject hard Brexit but it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories - both of which seem to be instinctively anathema to him.

The less coherent the UK position, the harder the Brexit - or at least that is how it seems to me.

[ 16. September 2016, 11:20: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, again, Scotland has been a terrible lesson. Cameron was utterly toxic there, and appearing with him in Indyref, disembowelled Labour in Scotland.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then again, Corbyn is being rather mysterious about Brexit, and there are suggestions he favours it. Well, you can make that case, as I did above, we have to honour the referendum. But it's unclear what he does mean, there are even suggestions that he favours hard Brexit. This might be popular in some Labour areas, but not in others, e.g. London.
I think that what we have to remember at this point is that we are in a phony war, with a popular vote and a government that says 'Brexit means Brexit', but no actual terms and conditions. So saying that hard Brexit will, or won't, be popular means very little until the consequences of Brexit start kicking in and affecting prices and jobs. ERM membership was very popular when it was first mooted in the 1980s, but it was significantly less so after the recession it caused.

Somebody recently, half-jokingly, suggested that it was most likely that Labour would come second but it was more likely that either UKIP or the Lib Dems would win than Labour, the reasoning being that if Brexit does go horribly wrong an unequivocally pro or anti EU party would be in a better position to capitalise than a divided or equivocal party. I think that there is some truth in that. We have, IMO, just signed up to commit an act of economic self-harm and when the nature and extent of that becomes apparent the political landscape will change markedly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though the UK does need to very rapidly develop a Brexit position from which to start negotiating with the EU and all the rest of our trading partners (which, IMO, is already at least six months too late - we needed that position before we voted in June - but, better late than never).

However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, again, Scotland has been a terrible lesson. Cameron was utterly toxic there, and appearing with him in Indyref, disembowelled Labour in Scotland.
To pretend there is no common ground would be too timid in my view. Indeed it would be the very worst type of triangulation - 'we can't argue what we believe would be best because it might harm us'.

They should play on the fact that they are not primarily agreeing with the Tories but are agreeing with those left leaning economists that they appointed to Labour's advisory team and who have been highly critical of austerity policies. It just so happens that some Tories are agreeing with those economists on this issue - on this one issue some of the Tories are agreeing with the people who in fact are right.

I think it has got to be tried. As Callan suggests Labour need to position themselves so that they are in a position to take advantage of what is likely, in time, to be the Brexit fall out. You can't say 'we said that there would be long term economic problems' if you don't make the case and all you have banged on about is workers' rights.

[ 16. September 2016, 12:26: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop - activate Article 50 forthwith, don't activate it immediately, not wanting to be in the Single Market and then wanting to be in - whereas Smith wants to overturn the referendum* and talked about rejoining the EU, complete with Euro and Schengen agreement. Even the Lib. Dems have said that they accept the referendum result, but want membership of the Single Market and any final decision be put to the electorate. I'm not sure that looking simultaneously more Europhile and less canny than Tim Farron, at this juncture, exactly bespeaks the forensic intelligence that is going to humiliate Theresa May at the dispatch box.

*Personally, I think that this is no bad thing but I am just some dude on the interwebs, not the prospective leader of Her Majesty's Opposition who ought, at this juncture be making noises about "the best deal for Britain", "holding the Leavers to account" and "listening to the people".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop
Aye, I'll probably agree about Corbyn struggling to find a message and stick to it. Though, he's far from unique in that.

I was mainly responding to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in. And, we can fault the Labour Party as a whole for not producing a statement of what the Opposition would be seeking (but, that's in large part a result of everyone there who has decided now is a good time to be divided), getting a coherent Opposition proposal together and beating the Government to it would send a strong "they couldn't organise a piss up in a distillary" message and give Labour a strong hand - instead Labour decided to enter the sobriety in the distillary competetion.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in.
Surely, if you are going to critique the Government's position, you need to have your own position from which to critique it. Assume that The People Have Spoken and there is no going back. So what bits do you want to keep and what bits will you reluctantly get rid of? Access to the Single Market? The guarantee of rights of residence for EU nationals here and our people abroad? Free movement? Passporting? What levels of Tariffs and Non-Tariff barriers are acceptable? Und so weiter, as Frau Merkel would say. You can't just say that we will critique it, or not, as proposals arise, particularly as Mrs May (to borrow an apposite phrase from Mr Nicholas Soames) seems bent on conducting the whole thing in the spirit of a Witness Protection Scheme. The opposition, at the very least, is in a position much like C. S. Lewis in 'Surprised by Joy' when he realised that he had to take a philosophical position on certain things to critique the essays of his undergraduates. To put it another way, you can only criticise the Governments position on Brexit if you have some kind of provisional distinction between 'Good (or not completely disastrous) Brexit and Bad Brexit. And, to do that, you have to have some kind of idea what you, yourself, would do and what you, yourself, if you were in government. Particularly, if your USP, is that you are supposed to be a government in waiting.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop
Aye, I'll probably agree about Corbyn struggling to find a message and stick to it. Though, he's far from unique in that.

I was mainly responding to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in. And, we can fault the Labour Party as a whole for not producing a statement of what the Opposition would be seeking (but, that's in large part a result of everyone there who has decided now is a good time to be divided), getting a coherent Opposition proposal together and beating the Government to it would send a strong "they couldn't organise a piss up in a distillary" message and give Labour a strong hand - instead Labour decided to enter the sobriety in the distillary competetion.
To be clear - I am not saying that he should be seeking to establish that common ground with the Tories now. I am saying he shouldn't be wary of building a coherent position that includes some of the arguments that the vast majority of remainers - including Tories - would agree with.

Of course that would actually mean him articulating some of the economic arguments he went to great lengths to avoid making in the election. And this was what so frustrated the economists who started off in his corner originally.

I largely agree with what you say, though I think the EU debate is somewhat different to normal politics and him mapping out the parameters of a strong left of centre position that many could agree with shouldn't be that hard - we all know the arguments having had the referendum.

ETA cross posted with Callan

[ 16. September 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely, if you are going to critique the Government's position, you need to have your own position from which to critique it.
Indeed. In particular, if you are going to critique the government's lack of position you need to have a position of your own.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.

I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
Didn't say majority.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.

I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
Michael Heseltine took on Mrs Thatcher when the country was on the verge of going to war in the Middle East. If a member of the PCP had said, in her hearing, that it wasn't fair to expect her to keep her eye on the ball on the subject, because of a leadership election, she'd have handbagged him to death. Both candidates ought to be setting forth their response to Brexit and what the government should be looking to achieve in their negotiations, and the fact that neither has been able to do so adequately is deeply depressing.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
I've been thinking about this - interested to know what others think.

Suppose last year's Labour leadership election had been won by someone who was not seen as effectively 'beyond the pale'. Say...Owen Smith.

Suppose Mr Smith then proceeded to make a series of gaffes, particularly ones that made him sound misogynistic, or that put him hot water over Brexit. For instance, instead of calling for article 50 to be initiated he might have said he didn't recognise the referendum as the vote was too close and that he wanted to make it Labour policy to reject Brexit and have another referendum.

Suppose this stance made him seem out of touch with a large section of the electorate, and his personal ratings were abysmal because the media had dubbed him gaffe-ridden and misogynistic (even though he probably wasn't the latter). Suppose Labour's polling ended up in the toilet and Smith was staggering about the studios making further Brexit and misogyny gaffes, his leadership skills were in question and everyone started to say Labour would not win an election under his leadership. Suppose also that the membership was leaving in droves and Labour was heading for financial problems again.

Do you think there would have been a 'coup', or even a vote of no confidence?

I think not because 1) Most members of the PLP agree with Owen Smith's politics and 2) Most of the media and establishment see him as 'one of them' and would not have harried him in the same way that they have harried Corbyn (and supporters). Smith's supporters would be viewed as 'normal people' so no need for the media to pounce.

I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.

I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
Michael Heseltine took on Mrs Thatcher when the country was on the verge of going to war in the Middle East. If a member of the PCP had said, in her hearing, that it wasn't fair to expect her to keep her eye on the ball on the subject, because of a leadership election, she'd have handbagged him to death. Both candidates ought to be setting forth their response to Brexit and what the government should be looking to achieve in their negotiations, and the fact that neither has been able to do so adequately is deeply depressing.
Yes!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think that if Smith had done as badly as Corbyn there would have been a challenge to his leadership.

After the 2015 election all the candidates, for the Labour leadership, were asked if they would step down if things were going badly. The reason being that it became apparent that Ed Miliband, for all his princely virtues, did not go down well on the doorstep, but the party declined to challenge his leadership. All of them agreed that this would have been a good idea, indeed, Jeremy Corbyn said that he favoured annual leadership elections [Stephen Fry voice] mwah! irony is a cruel mistress![/Stephen Fry voice]. So, yeah, he would have been challenged, IMO.

[x-post - responding to Amika, on the previous page].

[ 16. September 2016, 19:20: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Do you think there would have been a 'coup', or even a vote of no confidence?
I think there would. As soon as MPs sniff that the current leader might not be consistent with their best chance of re-election I think they get froggy. They did with Thatcher and Blair while in government leave alone in opposition. The Conservative party went through leaders like changes of underwear during the Blair years. It is a predictable reaction to the possibility of not being re-elected.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I think it is highly likely that if a Tory Leader was doing as badly they'd face a challenge - the Tories do take notice of opinion polls. Of course in the last 35 years no Tory leader of the opposition has actually done that badly in terms of personal ratings.

Mind you their MPs wouldn't back a candidate they didn't believe in, just to widen the debate - they take winning elections far too seriously.

The only thing surprising about the challenge is that it was after just one year. However, the panic that there might be a snap election after the Brexit vote was largely responsible for that - IMV.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:


I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
As a more or less complete outsider on this one, this rings true. But it does not excuse COrbyn from being incompetant as a leader, if he is -- and I have to say based on all the links in this thread, that there's at least a prime facie case that he is.

However, my real point is that, again based on the links in this thread, it seems crystal clear that over many years in Parliament, Corbyn has worked hard and assiduously to be recognized as an outsider and to maintain that status, almost in the face of what it takes to be an effective member of a party. He clearly valued being an outsider far above anything he might have achieved as a contributing, supportive member of the PLP.

Why is anyone -- why are you -- surprised that a person who has made a virtue of being an outsider is asked to "pay the price" for being one?

John
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
"clearly valued being an outsider"?

Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"clearly valued being an outsider"?

Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
Doing the right thing like: voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, being paid £20K to appear on an Iranian propaganda channel, supporting conspiracy theorists who say that the Jews caused 9/11?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, I am wrong there. I just saw Corbyn's speech to Bloomberg, where he rejects hard Brexit, and WTO terms, and favours a Norway-type solution. Well, that's probably not gonna happen.
He has also just said he wants to explore a universal basic income / citizen's dividend as a policy. Which is an idea that has merit, but is probably unworkable unless there are restrictions on how, if at all, non-citizens can claim it. Which in turn rules out the Norwegian model.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"clearly valued being an outsider"?

Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
Doing the right thing like: voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, being paid £20K to appear on an Iranian propaganda channel, supporting conspiracy theorists who say that the Jews caused 9/11?
An explanation of the latter two accusations is well covered in this article I think.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:


I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
Amika - there are hints of a view here that seems to be commonly held by Corbyn supporters - certainly people like Billy Bragg seem to buy it. It is that the establishment / status quo attacks Corbyn because he is not one of them and that they (Labour's mainstream and the Tories' mainstream) are quite happy to take it in turns in power. Corbyn is a real threat to this cosy little set up and this is why he is attacked - or at least that's how the story goes.

This position just doesn't stack up. The Tories attack him because they see a chance of destroying Labour for a generation - perhaps permanently. They'd happily face him in 2020. They'd love to be in power and are not scared of him.

The left that isn't behind him fear that very thing. Again it is not the thought that he will sweep to victory and bring in a fairly Milibandesque set of policies, it is the thought of the Tories being in power for a generation they really dread.

The biggest problem with the view that the establishment is working together, is that in the 2015 election it was very obvious that Labour MPs and members were incredibly disappointed / depressed by the result. The status quo / establishment isn't this homogeneous blob. In fact there are a number of mini-status quos and they certainly aren't working together.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I think not because 1) Most members of the PLP agree with Owen Smith's politics
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?

His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.

He voted for Trident, so if you think getting rid of Trident is the single overriding issue in UK politics today (more important than austerity) then you'll vote for Corbyn. I think we should get rid of it, but I think austerity is more important.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
According to The Guardian, Corbyn admits he has made mistakes and appeals to his parliamentary colleagues to get behind him provided they broadly accept his ant-austerity policies.
He doesn’t get it, does he? Not even yet. It’s not so much his policies that many people find unattractive, as it is his incompetence, his ‘go-it-alone’ behaviour and his general lack of leadership skills.
I fear that he will win the vote and we'll get more of the same in-fighting and more failing to be an effective opposition.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think he gets it better than you do. He knows that he's not an expert at front bench politics, but also knows that there is a significant chunk of the PLP, possibly even a majority, who are determined to see him fail whether he's competent or not, because they hate his policies. This is why the messaging from the anti-Corbyn crowd has changed over the last 12 months. They're no longer slagging off his policies because they have too much support (even Owen Smith pretends to support them now) and so are now playing the man instead (the man they were previously saying was such a nice and decent man). The question has to be: were they lying then or are they lying now? Or, more likely, is it a case of "both, and" rather than "either, or"?

Had the PLP spent the last months working with Corbyn to achieve the platform he was elected on, and helping him learn the ropes of being at the top of the party rather than sniping from the sidelines then the picture would look rather different. The issue is that the only thing the right of the PLP fear more than a Corbyn defeat in 2020 is a Corbyn victory.

[ 17. September 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?

His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.
The issue is one of trust. Nobody thinks Owen Smith believes in those policies or is committed to implementing them. He's mouthing support for them because he thinks that's what the party wants to hear. If (fat chance) he's elected leader he'll switch to whatever he thinks will get him support with the PLP and/or the general public. He's the sort (to paraphrase The West Wing) who if addressing a group of cannibals would promise them missionaries.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
So someone who opposes Corbyn's policies is a tory-lite/blairite/traitor who sneers, but someone who agrees with them is just saying so to get votes and can't be trusted? We really are truly screwed. This is through the looking glass stuff.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, it's that Owen Smith's policies and actions to date do not match what he is doing now. So it's difficult to trust someone who has changed his spots to stand for election.

This is the guy who backed Pfizer over some of the NHS changes that are currently destroying the NHS.

Not quite as bad as watching Andy Burnham equivocate before an audience. I was near enough to see his face as he changed what he was going to say.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, it's that Owen Smith's policies and actions to date do not match what he is doing now. So it's difficult to trust someone who has changed his spots to stand for election.

This is the guy who backed Pfizer over some of the NHS changes that are currently destroying the NHS.

Not quite as bad as watching Andy Burnham equivocate before an audience. I was near enough to see his face as he changed what he was going to say.
And yet Smith's voting record suggests that since entering Parliament, he's consistently voted to prevent greater private sector involvement in the NHS. And according to this Telegraph article, he was helping brief Ed Milliband against Pfizer's takeover of AstraZeneca. Which hardly suggests he's only just changed his tune on private involvement in the NHS.

But this whole thing about Smith only supporting left-wing policies to get elected as leader really isn't backed up by the facts. He's consistently voted against austerity measures while he's been an MP. In fact, his voting record as a whole is similar to Jeremy Corbyn's, so the suggestion he's really a right-winger intent on austerity and privatisation, as he's constantly being accused of, seems nonsense.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?

His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.
The issue is one of trust. Nobody thinks Owen Smith believes in those policies or is committed to implementing them. He's mouthing support for them because he thinks that's what the party wants to hear.
And yet his voting record is consistent with the policies he's now putting forward. So either he's been putting forward these policies because he foresaw that Corbyn would be elected leader and he planned to run against him for the last six years. Or else when you say 'Nobody think Owen Smith believes in those policies' what you mean is 'Nobody who supports Corbyn wants to think Owen Smith believes in those policies.'

[ 17. September 2016, 19:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Owen Smith has voted with the whip since being elected. When that was against cuts he voted against cuts, when that was to abstain he abstained, even when anyone with an ounce of conscience was voting against.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Owen Smith has voted with the whip since being elected. When that was against cuts he voted against cuts, when that was to abstain he abstained, even when anyone with an ounce of conscience was voting against.
That still doesn't show that he's really a right-wing, pro-austerity and privatisation candidate who's only taking on these policies to be elected, which seems to be the charge against him.
And doesn't the fact that he can vote in line with the party whip and still come out with a voting record similar to Corbyn's suggest that the "PLP is a bunch of right-wingers" line is a bit of a myth?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Personally I think a major part of the appeal is that Corbyn was against war in Iraq. Owen wasn't around. People who feel angry about that decision of the PLP naturally turn to Corbyn as someone who was visibly against the war.

Maybe there's also a personality following to do with getting the bus home and sitting on the floor, and not looking or sounding like a typical politician. Owen looks and sounds more typical.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
That still doesn't show that he's really a right-wing, pro-austerity and privatisation candidate who's only taking on these policies to be elected, which seems to be the charge against him.
And doesn't the fact that he can vote in line with the party whip and still come out with a voting record similar to Corbyn's suggest that the "PLP is a bunch of right-wingers" line is a bit of a myth?
Labour have been in opposition the whole time Smith has been in parliament. Voting against the government doesn't always mean being against the policies (c.f. tories voting against hikes in tuition fees when Blair was in charge). When you're in opposition you need a competing narrative as well as opposition in commons votes. In the last parliament that narrative was "we'll do austerity too but it will be a bit slower and a bit nicer". The mood music, if not always the whipped votes, was in favour of cuts to benefits and Owen Smith was nowhere to be seen.

His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
I have a pretty clear view of where Owen Smith is coming from generally - as do I for many well-known politicians. Of course I don't know exactly how they will vote on every issue. I want politicians who are reflective and know how to respond to the current context.

I don't want a lazy thinker like Corbyn who does everything according to his pure socialist ideology. He could work out even before the Kosovo crisis happened that he'd be against it. I find his simplistic, black and white, goodies and baddies thinking extremely unconvincing. I suspect that this explains his poll ratings much more than his policies.

[ 18. September 2016, 09:10: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
He used to be supportive of the Iraq war...
Based on a quick google I couldn't find evidence of that. It seems to me that the most one can say is that he didn't take a strong stand. Granted, contrast that with Corbyn who had a very clear stand, but that means one can afford to be fair.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Kinnock thinks Corbyn's got to go. To be fair he knows about losing Elections
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Kinnock thinks Corbyn's got to go. To be fair he knows about losing Elections
Another take would be he did get the Labour vote up to (34.4%) from the Foot low (27.6%), but still hadn't done enough to make Labour electable in the minds of too many voters after the Foot years. Foot of course saw Labour's vote drop by 9% and lost 52 seats. So a lot better than Foot.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
There are certainly hints of déjà vu with this Corbyn episode and that of Foot. Both maybe a little too principled and true of heart to make political Leaders.

If you look at what happened to British politics once Thatch burnt herself out, then you see an exercise in the stealing of clothes. Blair off of Major, then Cameron off of Blair. We are told that Brexit has shaken British politics to it's core. H,mmm, we will have to wait and see, there is no evidence so far that the pattern has altered much.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
rolyn wrote:
quote:
We are told that Brexit has shaken British politics to it's core. H,mmm, we will have to wait and see, there is no evidence so far that the pattern has altered much.
Since we haven't got any real live Brexit (or even any intimations of what it will mean) yet, then we'll certainly have to wait some while longer to see how this one pans out.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
The party leadership isn't the only promotion opportunity aided by being on-message. Under any Labour right leader it has been verbotten to be anything other than rabidly pro-violence if you want to remain in cabinet.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought that it's the other way round, Brexit is a symptom of a great shake-up in politics and society, partly because of the great crash, but also the onrush of globalization, which is taking no prisoners. Many of the old shibboleths don't seem appropriate, so most politicians are flapping about, and repeating old shibboleths.

It's summed up by Hinkley, the massive cost, the outsourcing to other countries, the likelihood of time and cost overruns. Rejoice, rejoice, Mad Max is here.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that it's the other way round, Brexit is a symptom of a great shake-up in politics and society, partly because of the great crash, but also the onrush of globalization, which is taking no prisoners. Many of the old shibboleths don't seem appropriate, so most politicians are flapping about, and repeating old shibboleths.

It's summed up by Hinkley, the massive cost, the outsourcing to other countries, the likelihood of time and cost overruns. Rejoice, rejoice, Mad Max is here.
They are probably both true, I think. Certainly inter-related.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
The party leadership isn't the only promotion opportunity aided by being on-message. Under any Labour right leader it has been verbotten to be anything other than rabidly pro-violence if you want to remain in cabinet.
Which is why Mr Miliband appointment Emily Thornberry as Shadow Attorney General, I suppose ...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
So someone who opposes Corbyn's policies is a tory-lite/blairite/traitor who sneers, but someone who agrees with them is just saying so to get votes and can't be trusted? We really are truly screwed. This is through the looking glass stuff.
To be fair, I can't see a Shadow Cabinet in which most of the not entirely tiny beasts returned to office thinking that they could win an election on magic money tree policies. Owen would be like a Welsh husband who has assured his mates that he's totally up for going to the Cup Winners Cup Tie in Europe only to discover that Rachel Reeves has decided that the money needs to be set to one side for Mfanwy's wedding. "Well, see lads, I know I promised you the moon on a stick, but Rachel here, well, she's been doing her sums, lads, and she tells me we don't have the money. And Chris, Yvette and Liz all agree with her. Apparently there's this thing called 'Brexit' and this other thing called 'capital flight' and it means that we can't just go round chucking money about now and worry about the consequences later. Look, Boyo, there's no point calling me a Red Tory. I don't like it any more than you do but there we are".

The problem that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls faced was trying to set out social democratic policies in the aftermath of the financial crash when the whole Blair/ Brown thing of distributing the proceeds of growth a bit more fairly had just gone Pete Tong. And then, just as we had crawled, painfully, out of the slump into slightly more propitious circumstances, lo and behold the British electorate, bless their fur and whiskers decide to hole the British economy under the waterline by voting for Brexit. The idea that, in these circumstances, we could indulge, say, in the luxury of re-nationalising the railways is a joke. In the unlikely event of the reality based community taking over from the Corbynistas, the idea that Corbyn's policies surviving serious politicians who would quite like to win an election and then govern competently are close to zero.

Right now the question is how do you mitigate the effects of Brexit and what social democratic policies are remotely viable in the aftermath. We live in a world where the SPD scored 23% in Berlin and started playing "Seven Nation Army" at the post election party. Labour needs a Danton, someone whose analysis is "La Patrie est en danger" and "De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace ". Not the kind of emo rubbish that currently constitutes the Smith-Corbyn debate, that basically we can have Corbynite policies and the only thing at state is whether or not Corbyn or Smith is the go to guy for delivering them.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Your understanding of economics is flawed. A national economy isn't a household budget, it's not the case that when the economy is in trouble you have to tighten your belt and hold of spending. In a national economy that makes things worse, not better. You need to invest in things that have a multiplier effect through the economy, like housing and infrastructure, and on providing support to the new businesses that will provide the jobs and put people to work to pay off debt in the boom that follows. It's called priming the pump. We've got the lowest borrowing costs in history, it's time to put them to work.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If we are going to argue about who has a flawed grasp of economics, it might be worthwhile answering the as-yet unanswered question: If you are serious about wanting to end the policies of austerity, why would you support the guy whom even anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?

FWIW, since the last time the railways were nationalised was in 1948, which was hardly an era of outstanding national prosperity, I don't think rail renationalisation is necessarily a daft idea, but I don't believe Mr Corbyn is the guy to do it.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
There's a difference between a properly costed Keynesian economic policy and the sort of thing that's been going on in the Labour leadership contest.

It's a bit like the inverted version of the Laffer curve.

According to the Laffer curve you can, in certain circumstances, raise revenue by cutting taxes. If tax rates are zero you get nothing, if tax rates are 100% you get nothing. So, if taxes are too high, cutting them raises revenue. But the idea that you can get more revenue by cutting taxes indefinitely is cargo cult stuff. Eventually you fall down the wrong side of the curve.

The same is true of Keynesian theory. Up to a certain point you can prime the pump. If you invest in public works you can, up to a point, stimulate economic growth. But only up to a point. To pay for this little lot you have to either borrow, divert money from other departments or raise taxes. Now if you have a proper plan, this might work, but if you merely have an aspiration to spend a shed load of money without worrying about where it is coming from, then you might bump up against obstacles.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't accept the premise of the question. Even if I did, the answer would be "because he's the only game in town". Show me a better candidate who is committed to sensible economic policies I'll gladly vote for them. Until then, Corbyn's the best option available.
EDIT: cross-posted

It's been made very clear the money is to come from borrowing. So long as it produces more growth than it costs to service the debt, that's not a problem - debt will fall as a percentage of GDP over the medium term.

[ 18. September 2016, 20:00: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't accept the premise of the question.
So are you saying that David Blanchflower, Simon Wren-Lewis, Thomas Piketty, and Richard Murphy don't exist?
quote:
Even if I did, the answer would be "because he's the only game in town". Show me a better candidate who is committed to sensible economic policies I'll gladly vote for them.
David Blanchflower and Simon Wren-Lewis both back Mr Smith.

The way it looks to me, Mr Smith's capacities are unproven, whereas Mr Corbyn's are proven to be not up to the job. Basically it is the equivalent of putting the inexperienced Academy kid on the pitch in place of the signing who has flopped all season.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't accept the premise of the question.
So are you saying that David Blanchflower, Simon Wren-Lewis, Thomas Piketty, and Richard Murphy don't exist?
They could be illusions created by Portland Communications.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet wrote:
quote:
It's been made very clear the money is to come from borrowing. So long as it produces more growth than it costs to service the debt, that's not a problem - debt will fall as a percentage of GDP over the medium term.
As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation. There's no point borrowing at 48% (which is what Greece had to do in 2012).

The point here is that an anti-austerity strategy has to have a realistic costed plan. Not of course some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Do that and you should be able to get it to fly. Lenders are reasonably realistic - they tend to be outfits committed to the longer term such as pension funds etc. But right now no such thing exists.

Which is why it is worrying that economists who do have insight into how this can be made to work are walking away.

(I'm only talking about the borrowing component here of course).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Oh well, Rachel Reeves has just written an article arguing the most important thing to do WRT Brexit is to end free movement of Labour so scratch my points about Labour's mainstream dragging Owen Smith to a reality based economic policy.

My current plan for Election Day 2020 is not quite finalised but visiting a polling station won't be high on my list of priorities.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation.
At this point government borrowing rates are low, so there is clearly room to borrow. Arguing that something unexpected could happen that would raise rates is really an argument for never borrowing enough 'just in case', you either choose to trust the current yield curve on gilts, or you don't - in which case you are making an argument based on something else (ideology perhaps).


[Your Greek comparison is off because there were
other factors there that don't apply in this case - most importantly that they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
To my mind, the problem isn't that borrowing for massive infrastructure projects is unsustainable (the model is presumably FDR's New Deal), but that it's possible to screw it up. And given that Mr Corbyn doesn't talk to his own economists, I'd say the chance of him screwing up and turning the UK into Venezuela is very high.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Yes, this is a very good time to borrow money on long term fixed interest repayment programmes for capital projects that deliver long term tangible benefits.

It's not a good argument for borrowing money just for the hell of it nor because you think borrowing money is fun, nor because you've got an ideological belief that spending public money is inherently good irrespective of what you spend it on, nor simply to create jobs, nor to fund current revenue expenditure.

A depressing feature of those of all parties responsible for managing public expenditure is that none of them ever seem to have understood this.

There are times when one despairs of people being able to spot the obvious. It's like not being able to see traffic lights because you are distracted by all the flashing adverts.

[ 19. September 2016, 11:35: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation.
At this point government borrowing rates are low, so there is clearly room to borrow. Arguing that something unexpected could happen that would raise rates is really an argument for never borrowing enough 'just in case', you either choose to trust the current yield curve on gilts, or you don't - in which case you are making an argument based on something else (ideology perhaps).


[Your Greek comparison is off because there were
other factors there that don't apply in this case - most importantly that they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.]
I would have thought that the current financial state of the national accounts might spook the markets were a government to declare its intention to go on an uncosted spending spree financed entirely on the old never-never. Like the Irish Republican Army, the deficit hasn't gone away.

It might be added that, at the moment we are on the verge of re-negotiating the terms, under which, 85% of our foreign trade takes place. This may well take around a decade to resolve and it is the opinion of most informed observers that we will get a worse deal than the one that currently exists. I suspect, therefore, that attempts to borrow large sums of money predicated on the ability to repay it as a result of continual economic growth may be viewed with some scepticism by the markets, even were our debts less severe. Given that much of the electorate hold the position that the Labour government borrowed too much (I report, I do not condone), I doubt very much that it would get as far as the markets, but the sight of Mr McDonnell out on the stump for the next few years attempting to rehabilitate the record of Mr Gordon Brown will do something at least to alleviate the mournful scene our current political position presents.

The irony here is that the far left, who as the old joke goes, predicted seventeen out of the last five recessions are now arguing for favourable economic conditions which will continue inevitably. No more crises of capitalism! All hail the stability of the global financial markets!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, this is a very good time to borrow money on long term fixed interest repayment programmes for capital projects that deliver long term tangible benefits.
Conversely there are very few times where cutting back on maintenance of infrastructure to save money short term makes any sense, and this is not one of them.

Failing to maintain roads (as an example) under the rubric of austerity, is frankly just barmy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Oh well, Rachel Reeves has just written an article arguing the most important thing to do WRT Brexit is to end free movement of Labour so scratch my points about Labour's mainstream dragging Owen Smith to a reality based economic policy.

My current plan for Election Day 2020 is not quite finalised but visiting a polling station won't be high on my list of priorities.
I think it will be essential: not to vote for someone, but to vote against someone or something else, that is very nasty indeed. Politics isn't pleasant now and it won't improve in the next few years.

[ 19. September 2016, 12:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

The irony here is that the far left, who as the old joke goes, predicted seventeen out of the last five recessions are now arguing for favourable economic conditions which will continue inevitably. No more crises of capitalism! All hail the stability of the global financial markets!
Yes, surely I missed the part where I called for a red-revolution, free money for everyone and repealed the Law of Gravity. [Roll Eyes]

As you were.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation.
At this point government borrowing rates are low, so there is clearly room to borrow. Arguing that something unexpected could happen that would raise rates is really an argument for never borrowing enough 'just in case', you either choose to trust the current yield curve on gilts, or you don't - in which case you are making an argument based on something else (ideology perhaps).


[Your Greek comparison is off because there were
other factors there that don't apply in this case - most importantly that they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.]
I'm a bit mystified by this response, Chris. Maybe the fault is mine for not being clear enough. My point was not that further money cannot be borrowed - indeed, I hope it was fairly obvious from that post that I think it can. It was simply to point out certain conditions that must first exist.

But in response to your own points, current bond yields are entirely predicated on the current situation and its foreseeable future, which is of course a conservative government with a diminishing likelihood of a labour government in the medium term. Assuming that is equivalent to some hypothetical moment when a labour government comes to the market for a big chunk of money is a step too far, at least without covering the necessary preconditions to make that borrowing affordable. Which was my point.

Of course the situation here is not the same as Greece, I agree with you there. But the point about Greece was solely to illustrate the fact that credit never really runs out - it simply gets too expensive. Though in passing, the external vs. internal currency argument is only partial in a world with (relatively) free movement of capital between currencies. But that is beyond the point I was trying to make.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:


I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
Amika - there are hints of a view here that seems to be commonly held by Corbyn supporters - certainly people like Billy Bragg seem to buy it. It is that the establishment / status quo attacks Corbyn because he is not one of them and that they (Labour's mainstream and the Tories' mainstream) are quite happy to take it in turns in power. Corbyn is a real threat to this cosy little set up and this is why he is attacked - or at least that's how the story goes.

This position just doesn't stack up. The Tories attack him because they see a chance of destroying Labour for a generation - perhaps permanently. They'd happily face him in 2020. They'd love to be in power and are not scared of him.

The left that isn't behind him fear that very thing. Again it is not the thought that he will sweep to victory and bring in a fairly Milibandesque set of policies, it is the thought of the Tories being in power for a generation they really dread.

The biggest problem with the view that the establishment is working together, is that in the 2015 election it was very obvious that Labour MPs and members were incredibly disappointed / depressed by the result. The status quo / establishment isn't this homogeneous blob. In fact there are a number of mini-status quos and they certainly aren't working together.
My view isn't that the Tories fear Corbyn. I read that a lot on social media and always cringe a little. I know they don't fear him; I know they're loving this. I also understand, to some extent, the views of the Labour resigners. Even so, I don't see much point in having semi-Tory Labour in instead of the Tory Tories. I can no longer vote for semi-Tories, and that's what's on offer apart from Corbyn. My fear, too, is that we will never get rid of the Tories (of either stripe). That's why I can't forgive the resigners.

Right-wing Labour talks about 'the vulnerable' and how it would help them, and how, effectively, they are the only hope of the poor/disabled, because Corbyn can't win, but right-wing Labour's track record, by the end of the Blair/Brown era, is appalling, and most of those people are still there, among the resigners.

I don't believe the whole 'might of the establishment' is working as one to destroy Corbyn, but I do think that when he emerged as leader, the media in particular didn't take him seriously, thought he was a silly flash in the pan, not worthy of their time, and dismissed him. Now many of them try to dismiss his supporters as well.

This situation could have been ameliorated if only there had been a large, experienced set of left-wing Labour MPs waiting in the wings. As it is we have the likes of Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt, and Liz Kendall making the most noise. We have MPs who are so unlike the working class people of this country (of which I am one - or was so born and certainly in the Precariat now) that people don't vote for them because they see them as too distant from their own experience.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I think not because 1) Most members of the PLP agree with Owen Smith's politics
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?

His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.

He voted for Trident, so if you think getting rid of Trident is the single overriding issue in UK politics today (more important than austerity) then you'll vote for Corbyn. I think we should get rid of it, but I think austerity is more important.
The difference is I don't believe Owen Smith means it; it was just a platform, a pitch to get Corbyn supporters onside. Initially, albeit that I support Corbyn, I wanted to think well of Owen Smith, but his campaign just got nastier and nastier. The end campaign of smears was not a good tactic to get Corbyn supporters onside.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think the Tories fear Corbyn in an electoral sense. But I do wonder if the Establishment, using that word rather lazily, dislike left-wing ideas, and don't want to see them widely disseminated.

Thus, Corbyn is often dismissed as some kind of throwback to the 70s, or some kind of Marxist relic, with mothballs coming out of his ears. I think there is more going on than that.

I sometimes look at my wife, who used to be very Green, member of Greenpeace, blah blah, and she cheers every time the Corbusier appears on TV. What is this about?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
We have MPs who are so unlike the working class people of this country
If this is indeed a problem, is independent-school educated Jeremy Corbyn the solution?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Amika wrote:

quote:
This situation could have been ameliorated if only there had been a large, experienced set of left-wing Labour MPs waiting in the wings. As it is we have the likes of Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt, and Liz Kendall making the most noise. We have MPs who are so unlike the working class people of this country (of which I am one - or was so born and certainly in the Precariat now) that people don't vote for them because they see them as too distant from their own experience.
Now I feel gloomy. Labour has become posh, and right wing. I think in Scotland, voters had an outlet for this fedupness - SNP. In England, there is either UKIP or the LibDems.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
We have MPs who are so unlike the working class people of this country
If this is indeed a problem, is independent-school educated Jeremy Corbyn the solution?
I gather that was a prep school and that later he went to a grammar, but didn't go to Oxbridge, as have so many MPs. It shouldn't matter, but recent research has shown that it is indeed this dissonance that prevents some working class people from voting Labour, or indeed engaging in politics at all.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think the point is Corbyn's own background, but whether his leadership could facilitate new kinds of people coming into politics and Parliament.

Not just working class people, but people who would not normally see it as their thing.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I don't see much point in having semi-Tory Labour in instead of the Tory Tories.
Here's one example. Tony Blair passed a law banning new grammar schools. Theresa May is going to bring them back.

Here's another. The Brexit referendum. Not even considered under Blair, done under the Tories.

Here's another. A significant increase in spending on Health and Education. Versus Tory cuts.

Three examples of very many. After a decade or so of right wing government, the advantages of an actually electable centre left government, over a right wing one, will become painfully clear, not least to the most vulnerable in society.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
... After a decade or so of right wing government, the advantages of an actually electable centre left government, over a right wing one, will become painfully clear, not least to the most vulnerable in society.
As it was in 1997. Or am I the only person reading this thread whose memory goes back that far.

There are a lot of us who want neither a raving right wing government nor a raving left wing one.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Thank you Sarah G. Was going to post something similar but really couldn't be arsed. Have rehearsed it numerous times on this and other forums.
[brick wall]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Plus I think the late Mr Chávez's Venezuela illustrates how an incompetently administered social-democratic regime can have far worse outcomes than a well-administered centrist regime.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?
The difference is I don't believe Owen Smith means it; it was just a platform, a pitch to get Corbyn supporters onside. Initially, albeit that I support Corbyn, I wanted to think well of Owen Smith, but his campaign just got nastier and nastier. The end campaign of smears was not a good tactic to get Corbyn supporters onside.
I assume both sides notice smears against their own side more than against the other: there've been plenty of smears against Corbyn's critics. That they're making it all up, to start with. And that Owen Smith does not mean anything he says. That's a smear.

The Tory-lite thing: well, I agree there has been rather too much of trying to look like that in Labour's campaigning, but Blair's government was to the left of Major's government, let alone what we've got now. (It's not as if the Osborne and Duncan-Smith looked at Sure Start and said to themselves, that's a good Tory policy, we'll keep those.)
Miliband's campaign failed to challenge the Tory narrative, but that's a problem with his campaign, rather than with most of his policies.

I supported Corbyn tentatively when he was elected. He looked at least as plausible as Cooper, and more so than Burnham or Kendall. I'd really like him to do something to make democratic socialist ideas mainstream. Has he done so?
I know there's a substantial body of opinion that claims Benn and Umunna have been secretly hacking Seumas Milne's email account and deleting all the press releases before they can be sent. But I don't buy it.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
If I recall correctly, until recently Venezuela was praised quite fulsomely not only by Mr Corbyn but also by many on this discussion board. They all seem to have become rather more muted on this subject lately.

(ETA: in response to Richardus)

[ 21. September 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
My view isn't that the Tories fear Corbyn. I read that a lot on social media and always cringe a little. I know they don't fear him; I know they're loving this. I also understand, to some extent, the views of the Labour resigners. Even so, I don't see much point in having semi-Tory Labour in instead of the Tory Tories. I can no longer vote for semi-Tories, and that's what's on offer apart from Corbyn. My fear, too, is that we will never get rid of the Tories (of either stripe). That's why I can't forgive the resigners.

Right-wing Labour talks about 'the vulnerable' and how it would help them, and how, effectively, they are the only hope of the poor/disabled, because Corbyn can't win, but right-wing Labour's track record, by the end of the Blair/Brown era, is appalling, and most of those people are still there, among the resigners.

I don't believe the whole 'might of the establishment' is working as one to destroy Corbyn, but I do think that when he emerged as leader, the media in particular didn't take him seriously, thought he was a silly flash in the pan, not worthy of their time, and dismissed him. Now many of them try to dismiss his supporters as well.

This situation could have been ameliorated if only there had been a large, experienced set of left-wing Labour MPs waiting in the wings. As it is we have the likes of Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt, and Liz Kendall making the most noise. We have MPs who are so unlike the working class people of this country (of which I am one - or was so born and certainly in the Precariat now) that people don't vote for them because they see them as too distant from their own experience.
I think the main difference between us is that you see very little difference between most Labour MPs and Tories - I don't. Equally you seem to see a big difference between what the vast majority of Labour MPs would do and what Corbyn would - again I don't.

I think most Labour MPs do want to see greater social justice - however they think this will take time and is very, very hard. They talk centre because they feel they have to, but would want to act left wherever possible. Corbyn talks left but I think even if he got into power he would achieve very little radical change. Partly because there is so much inertia in the system; partly because neo-liberalism is interwoven throughout so much of modern life. But perhaps most importantly because much of what people attribute to neo-liberalism has more to do with technological advances - e.g. the decline of traditional manufacturing industries.

Money and power is more mobile than ever before and this presents significant problems to those wanting to tackle inequality. Perhaps the reason Mandelson said he was very relaxed about people becoming filthy rich was because he and the other Blairites had no idea how to tackle growing inequality without putting significant economic growth at jeopardy. But this appears to be problematic in every advanced technological economy.

I think the truth is the right of the Labour party has no easy workable answers to this. I also think Corbyn hasn't either. If he took inequality seriously he would engage more fully with the complexity of the problem. I am very disappointed that he can't be bothered to do that hard thinking.

[ 21. September 2016, 21:39: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
The above cross-posted with all the answers from Sarah G onwards.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I don't see much point in having semi-Tory Labour in instead of the Tory Tories.
Here's one example. Tony Blair passed a law banning new grammar schools. Theresa May is going to bring them back.

Here's another. The Brexit referendum. Not even considered under Blair, done under the Tories.

Here's another. A significant increase in spending on Health and Education. Versus Tory cuts.

Three examples of very many. After a decade or so of right wing government, the advantages of an actually electable centre left government, over a right wing one, will become painfully clear, not least to the most vulnerable in society.
All true, and I've said before that Blair did some very good things. I supported him even though I could see he was to the right of my own politics. This is something I think people don't get about those of us who support Corbyn now. We've been there, we've supported Blair, Brown, and Miliband. We've been loyal to Labour through incarnations we found sadly wanting. Like all other Labour voters, we suffered the sucker punch when Miliband failed to win in 2015. We are the same people, but now we have a leader who actually represents us and the party right says NO WAY, even though the right has lost two elections. How has it changed to render it more electable now? If anything it is worse, and the Labour 'brand' tarnished by so many unsavoury shenanigans (on all sides).

A Labour party that introduced the Work Capability Assessment and joined in with the demonisation of unemployed people had lost its way.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good old Blair, banned grammar schools, and helped kill hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Good old Corbyn, protested against the Iraq war and voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Perhaps he voted in favour for the minimum wage, civil partnerships and increased NHS funding. Though given his record, I wouldn't put money on it.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I supported Corbyn tentatively when he was elected. He looked at least as plausible as Cooper, and more so than Burnham or Kendall. I'd really like him to do something to make democratic socialist ideas mainstream. Has he done so?
I know there's a substantial body of opinion that claims Benn and Umunna have been secretly hacking Seumas Milne's email account and deleting all the press releases before they can be sent. But I don't buy it.
There have been a lot of disappointments, from 'article 50' to (apparently) dropping his enthusiasm for Richard Murphy's 'people's quantitative easing'. I felt that was the way to go, a means of sorting out the NHS and others. I'm no economist but I become uneasy when any politician claims s/he will pay for various schemes by ensuring corporations and rich people pay more taxes. I don't think that's likely to be as easy as claimed, or bring in as much money as they suggest.

I'm not sure why Corbyn has (according to Richard Murphy) dropped PQE. I hope he will look at it again. I do think a universal basic income is an excellent proposal. I'm disappointed that he doesn't seem willing to look at a Progressive Alliance with Greens, SNP and others, which I think is probably the only way forward to kick out the Tories.

Yes, I support Corbyn, but I don't feel he is perfect by any means.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think people's QE was dropped because it would effectively end the independence of the Bank of England. Now that is an option (and McDonnell I think is in favour of ending independence) but if the government is thus able to magic money into existence to finance anything it wants, the temptation will be for them to do it again and again, and any pretence of fiscal discipline will collapse. QE is a desperate measure to keep a flatlining economy on life support. If it became the standard method of financing public services, we could have uncontrolled inflation.

Corbyn won't have any truck with alliances with non-socialist parties. Hell will freeze over first.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Amika:

quote:
I'm not sure why Corbyn has (according to Richard Murphy) dropped PQE. I hope he will look at it again. I do think a universal basic income is an excellent proposal. I'm disappointed that he doesn't seem willing to look at a Progressive Alliance with Greens, SNP and others, which I think is probably the only way forward to kick out the Tories.
Given that the possibility of a Labour Government, propped up by the SNP, allowed David Cameron to become the first Prime Minister to increase the share of the vote at a General Election since the Old Queen was on the throne, I can't see an electoral pact with the SNP doing much for Labour's prospects and, I can't really see what's in it for the SNP either. If every Green voter in the UK transferred their vote to Labour without conditions, it would barely dent the Tories lead in the poll.

The way to government for the Labour Party runs through marginal seats, places like Nuneaton, Warrington South and Finchley, which can only be won if the Labour Party takes votes from the Conservatives. I think there are other reasons Corbyn would not win in Warrington or Finchley but if there is no plan or intention to take votes of the Tories there is no chance of Labour winning.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Oh well, Rachel Reeves has just written an article arguing the most important thing to do WRT Brexit is to end free movement of Labour so scratch my points about Labour's mainstream dragging Owen Smith to a reality based economic policy.

My current plan for Election Day 2020 is not quite finalised but visiting a polling station won't be high on my list of priorities.
I think it will be essential: not to vote for someone, but to vote against someone or something else, that is very nasty indeed. Politics isn't pleasant now and it won't improve in the next few years.
At the moment I think the single most important thing is to ensure that the UK retains membership of the Single Market. As things stand neither of the main parties look solid on that score, the Lib Dems are apt to give up important things in coalition negotiations and neither Plaid or the SNP stand in England. The Greens haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of being in government and I would rather stab myself in the eye with a pickle fork than vote for UKIP, who are a bunch of Petainist scum who would rather see the country burn than flourish as a modern 211st Century Democracy. Why on earth would I waste half an hour writing "you're all scum, Come back Tony, practically everything nearly forgiven" on my ballot paper when I could do something productive like watching Omar's finest moments on Youtube instead?

[ 22. September 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good old Blair, banned grammar schools, and helped kill hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
Well voting for Mr Corbyn isn't going to bring them back, is it?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good old Blair, banned grammar schools, and helped kill hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
Well voting for Mr Corbyn isn't going to bring them back, is it?
But it'll probably help bring back grammar schools (in a round-about way).
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
...even though the right has lost two elections. How has it changed to render it more electable now?
That's a little simplistic as an analysis.

Both Brown and Milliband came close to winning. However they were up against a Tory party that had, after a very long time in opposition, worked out that you win elections from close to the centre. Cameron positioned the Tories accordingly.

It then came down essentially to a battle of personalities, and Cameron squeaked it twice.

What worries me is that it will take Labour as long to work out how to win elections as it took the Tories previously. That just as the Right last decade anchored the Tories away from the centre and power, believing victory would come, Momentum will (ironically given the name) keep Labour anchored away from the centre and power.

The Labour left will work reality out eventually, but Kinnock may well be right that it won't be in his lifetime.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

My point was not that further money cannot be borrowed - indeed, I hope it was fairly obvious from that post that I think it can. It was simply to point out certain conditions that must first exist.

But in response to your own points, current bond yields are entirely predicated on the current situation and its foreseeable future, which is of course a conservative government with a diminishing likelihood of a labour government in the medium term. Assuming that is equivalent to some hypothetical moment when a labour government comes to the market for a big chunk of money is a step too far, at least without covering the necessary preconditions to make that borrowing affordable. Which was my point.
So you think that the current rates are a result of there being a Conservative government, and were there to be a Labour government voted in there would then be a sharp rise in the rates? Remind me again what they were back in March 2009 (a time where there was far more uncertainty around as to what might happen next, because we were in genuinely uncharted territory and few knew how the major economies were going to react).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:


Both Brown and Milliband came close to winning. However they were up against a Tory party that had, after a very long time in opposition, worked out that you win elections from close to the centre. Cameron positioned the Tories accordingly.
FWIW I don't think Mr Cameron did win from the centre. I think he won from a position somewhere to the right of Mr Duncan Smith but which he presented in terms that appealed to centrists. Mr Corbyn, by contrast, expresses everything he says in terms exclusively designed to fire up left-wingers. He has shown no interest in expressing his ideas in terms that centrists and right-wingers would approve of.

The other aspect is that people who self-identify strongly in terms of 'left' and 'right' probably aren't going to switch from one to the other - they might vacillate between Labour and Lib-Dem or Tory and UKIP but not between Tory and Labour. Floating voters are people who are less committed to left-wing or right-wing ways of doing things and more committed to party leaders who look like they are going to get the job done and know what they are talking about. Which Mr Cameron apparently did more successfully than Messrs Major, Hague, Duncan Smith or Howard. Does Mr Corbyn look like he can get the job done? Not to anyone outside Momentum.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Most of the pundits this morning seem to be saying Corbyn's got it. So Labour are going to have to start backing and stop whacking if it wants even a sniff at TM's colourful heels at the next General Election.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
And every interview of a returning minister begins:

"So, Shadow Secretary of State for Posts and Telecommunications, after the Referendum you said that Jeremy Corbyn was unfit to lead the Labour Party, you are now effectively saying he should be the next Prime Minister. What happened to change your mind?"
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Seems like Corbyn has won with a larger majority than he got last time.

I wonder if a large wave of members will have left by the end of this afternoon.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
62%!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Just your regularly scheduled reminder that winning over the membership of the Labour Party and winning over the country in a General Election may not require identical skill sets.

The popping noise you may hear is Theresa May breaking out the champers, by the way.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Just your regularly scheduled reminder that winning over the membership of the Labour Party and winning over the country in a General Election may not require identical skill sets.

The popping noise you may hear is Theresa May breaking out the champers, by the way.
That's one possibility, but George Osborne has been saying some very odd things for someone who was in the cabinet so recently. If within the House of Commons for a start, some pro-Europe Tories were to talk to anti-Corbyn Labour members and the LibDems, who knows what could happen in the near future?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

The popping noise you may hear is Theresa May breaking out the champers, by the way.
Y'know, if the Tories see the chaos and think it'd be a good time for a snap GE, things could get very interesting very quickly.
 
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The other aspect is that people who self-identify strongly in terms of 'left' and 'right' probably aren't going to switch from one to the other - they might vacillate between Labour and Lib-Dem or Tory and UKIP but not between Tory and Labour. Floating voters are people who are less committed to left-wing or right-wing ways of doing things and more committed to party leaders who look like they are going to get the job done and know what they are talking about. Which Mr Cameron apparently did more successfully than Messrs Major, Hague, Duncan Smith or Howard. Does Mr Corbyn look like he can get the job done? Not to anyone outside Momentum.
You are forgetting that Momentum largely constitutes people like that. Including myself.

.

I will say that I am concerned with Corbyn's ability to unite not just grassroots, but the elite leaders (including the experts council who were supposed to be there to help him gain credibility). I will also say, however, that the Corbyn who just gave a victory speech was a different Corbyn than I've seen before. He radiated confidence. Media training, sure, but he outclassed Miliband and anything his Labour opponents have put up against him. He showed what I believe will be perceived as leadership, in a similar way to that scarily well-performed speech by May as she took the throne in Tories.

I do believe that a confident Corbyn will be a different one to the one we've seen the last year. I do think confidence might bring a bit of calm and the strength of his new mandate can make him a better leader even to his former adversaries. I hope that will be the case. I still think even a terrible Corbyn would be better than Smith on his best days.

And I don't expect his detractors within Labour will agree with me. I do think we will see it in the polls to come though, if the detractors can give him the chance without focusing on destabilization.

Also, he smashed May in Tuesday's PMQ. Neither Miliband, Eagle, Watson or Smith have really been close to that in their performances. I do think that things might be looking up, if Corbyn and PLP can both let go of partisanism and work somewhat together.
 
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Just your regularly scheduled reminder that winning over the membership of the Labour Party and winning over the country in a General Election may not require identical skill sets.
Sorry for double-posting, but I do have to point this out:
I keep hearing this said by the people whose candidates have failed to win over the country in a General Election twice in a row.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The popping noise you may hear is Theresa May breaking out the champers, by the way.
Or Tim Farron (remember him?) opening the Cava.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
38pp of this thread and that man still hasn't gone.

It might have been a different story if Owen Smith had been one of the big names, but he wasn't. He was someone most people knew little or nothing about before all this happened.

There must be some way of getting Corbyn out. The worry is that he would be replaced by someone even worse.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Just your regularly scheduled reminder that winning over the membership of the Labour Party and winning over the country in a General Election may not require identical skill sets.
Sorry for double-posting, but I do have to point this out:
I keep hearing this said by the people whose candidates have failed to win over the country in a General Election twice in a row.
Doesn't really matter who's saying it; what matters is if it's true.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Just your regularly scheduled reminder that winning over the membership of the Labour Party and winning over the country in a General Election may not require identical skill sets.
Sorry for double-posting, but I do have to point this out:
I keep hearing this said by the people whose candidates have failed to win over the country in a General Election twice in a row.
Not an original point, even on this thread. It's just a reheated version of the old saw that says "Labour doesn't win elections because it isn't left wing enough". At least that should now be tested to destruction.

I really hope Corbyn does improve, I really do. He needs to move out of his left-wing comfort zone, and actually work with people who don't agree with him on everything, whom he may not know very well, and with whom he may have crossed swords in the past. It's a messy business, politics in the big leagues. Some of this will probably cause his more starry-eyed supporters to lose faith in him and accuse him of selling out. How he responds to that may come to define his leadership.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The fallout from Brexit and events across the pond could lift Corbyn. Many bystanders have noticed his tenacity and are quietly impressed. The Labour Party needs to think hard on this and regroup if it wants to put in any meaningful challenge at the next GE.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
38pp of this thread and that man still hasn't gone.
Of course, this thread didn't decide the vote. That was the Labour membership.

But, this is a man who has stood up to a variety of attempts to get him out, who had to fight to even be included as a leadership candidate, who had most of his shadow cabinet quit to try and force him down, who had to have various decisions by the party challenged. Whatever you think of his politics you have to admire his tenacity and strength of character, if he follows through on generosity to his opponents to pull Labour back together then that will be another big tick in his favour.

Now he has the chance to unite the Labour Party around a position he will be able to defend as leader (even if not a position he's 100% in favour of - but, in politics you'll never be 100% in favour of any party position, 7 or 7.5 out of 10 is probably as strongly in agreement with any position you're likely to be). And, he has to sell that to the nation come the next general election.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
On a mundane but, I believe, relevant note; I think Corbyn needs to learn to accept adulation. I know why he moves on quickly whilst people are applauding but I think he is not doing his leadership any favours. Charisma, whether we like it not, is important.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, this thread didn't decide the vote. That was the Labour membership.
No! Really? [Biased]

My point was basically that this has been rumbling on for months and it's still the same old story.

quote:
But, this is a man who has stood up to a variety of attempts to get him out, who had to fight to even be included as a leadership candidate, who had most of his shadow cabinet quit to try and force him down, who had to have various decisions by the party challenged. Whatever you think of his politics you have to admire his tenacity and strength of character
No, I don't. I think he should have taken the hint and stepped down gracefully when the troubles first blew up. Instead, he's come across like a dull grey obstinate barnacle that resists any attempts to remove it from the rock it's clinging to. Strength of character is one thing, learning to listen to other people and knowing when it's time to give in and let someone else run the show is another.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
On the otherhand, a large majority of the party voted for him to be leader (twice now). So, who was he supposed to be listening to? A minority who didn't like him, or the majority that did? As far as I can see, the evidence is that he did the right think by keeping going, as he's still the person the Labour Party membership consider to be the best representative of their views.

Of course, if you disagree with Labour Party policies you don't need to vote for a Labour candidate when the election comes round. But, there's no doubt at the moment that the person who best represents the views of the Party, and is therefore in the best position to lead the party forward in developing policies for the manifesto for the next election is Corbyn.

Over quarter of a million people voted for him as leader, that's a lot more than supported Theresa May. Mobilising that support at the next election, and Labour will be in a strong position.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, a large majority of the party voted for him to be leader (twice now). So, who was he supposed to be listening to? A minority who didn't like him, or the majority that did?
Supposing you're just an ordinary office worker, and from time to time the director wanders past and smiles and says something nice then disappears off again. And you think: what a nice bloke.

You happen to know that the managers who actually work with him and go to meetings and all the rest of it are somewhat less than impressed by his management style, and on a day to day basis many are discontented to furious with him, and some have resigned in protest. You personally have no contact with him other than the occasional smile in the corridor.

Naturally, the ordinary workers in the various departments (who hardly ever see him) know from this that the managers can't be anything but malcontents who have some kind of grudge against this lovely man.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
On a mundane but, I believe, relevant note; I think Corbyn needs to learn to accept adulation. ...
Funny. Not having experienced much adulation over what has now been quite a long life, I get the opposite impression that it has rather gone to his head.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, a large majority of the party voted for him to be leader (twice now). So, who was he supposed to be listening to? A minority who didn't like him, or the majority that did?
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Naturally, the ordinary workers in the various departments (who hardly ever see him) know from this that the managers can't be anything but malcontents who have some kind of grudge against this lovely man.
Taken to its logical conclusion Alan's quote leads to populism. Why should the CEO listen to the head of IT saying that we need to develop an SOP on cybercrime when the workers are in favour of the CEO's approach? Why do we need to listen to the office elites who think the accounts aren't well ordered when the clerks are completely supportive of the current system?

That said it will be really interesting to look back at this thread in a few years, especially in 4 years. I very much hope my fears all turn out to be misplaced and that Corbyn gets the party together and manages the PLP.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Most of the pundits this morning seem to be saying Corbyn's got it. So Labour are going to have to start backing and stop whacking if it wants even a sniff at TM's colourful heels at the next General Election.
The trouble is that Labour has been whacking off in electing Corbyn.

Tory victories in 2020 and 2025 coming up. There'll be precious little left of the reforms Attlee's government brought in (and which were largely consolidated under Tory governments until Thatcher, to be honest).
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Happy Day One everybody.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
This is a year old, but still: "Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and the general public are divided by a gulf that is unprecedented in modern British politics". This is what Corbyn has now to address... and I just can't see him doing it. Particularly with the emphasis he seems to be placing on the members and their role - if this gap still exists, it's surely only going to get worse unless he works as hard as he can to reach out beyond those members.

I actually, genuinely hope he does it. I just can't see it.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
This is a year old, but still: "Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and the general public are divided by a gulf that is unprecedented in modern British politics". This is what Corbyn has now to address... and I just can't see him doing it. Particularly with the emphasis he seems to be placing on the members and their role - if this gap still exists, it's surely only going to get worse unless he works as hard as he can to reach out beyond those members.

I actually, genuinely hope he does it. I just can't see it.
I agree. But I don't think he is capable of reaching out, he's too committed to his policies, his style and the members. No matter how hard he works, one man cannot do it alone (important as I think the leader is). And the members, seems to me, are committed to an ideology (which I happen to like) that does not appeal to the electorate. Sadly. I suspect that a good number of Labour MP's will not have the heart to campaign as hard as they might.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Corbyn doesn't need to reach out to the members. They already think the sun shines out of his fundament. He will only take Labour further up said orifice.

Floating voters in marginal seats are the people who can give Labour the only mandate that matters a toot. They are the ones to reach out to.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I don't agree that there is an unprecedented gulf between Labour Party members and the British public. Remember Michael Foot? In the 1983 general election the Labour Party he led advocated nuclear disarmament, widespread intervention in industry, nationalisation of the banks, abolition of the House of Lords in addition to leaving the Common Market. That's a far more left wing programme than Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic wishlist.

I believe Foot was tolerated because the Labour Party was still in hock to the unions but generally far broader than now and those policies advocated, coming just after the defection of some of the centrists to form the Social Democratic Party, had wide but far from universal support of the PLP. What really told against Foot was that his lack of credibility and Britain wold have been a better place had Denis Healey set party loyalty aside for a week and staged a palace coup to depose him.

[ 25. September 2016, 10:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think it's different from the early 80's. Foot's Labour party largely had the support of the traditional Labour voters. Labour got thrashed in '83 partly because the manifesto was a dog's breakfast and the campaign an embarrassment, but also very largely because the SDP/liberal alliance attracted most of the centre left and floating voters and effectively split the opposition.

Now we have Brexit and everything's different. There is plenty of polling evidence that "traditional" Labour voters in the northern cities and Welsh valleys are defecting to UKIP in droves. Corbyn is attracting new voters in throught the front door, no doubt, but there's a stampede of people leaving at the back.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it's different from the early 80's. Foot's Labour party largely had the support of the traditional Labour voters. Labour got thrashed in '83 partly because the manifesto was a dog's breakfast and the campaign an embarrassment, but also very largely because the SDP/liberal alliance attracted most of the centre left and floating voters and effectively split the opposition.

Now we have Brexit and everything's different. There is plenty of polling evidence that "traditional" Labour voters in the northern cities and Welsh valleys are defecting to UKIP in droves. Corbyn is attracting new voters in throught the front door, no doubt, but there's a stampede of people leaving at the back.
I don't think there's much evidence that the flow to UKIP has increased. If anything UKIP's support is about where it was at the last election. It will certainly dip without Farage who, for all his many faults, knows a thing or two about populist politics.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Unless there's a snap election, UKIP will need to reinvent themselves quite significantly. Having been a single-issue party, where do they go now they have their wish?

A snap election, and they can probably manage a position for a particular form of Brexit. But, by 2020 the UK will be out of the EU, with Brexit defined by the Tory government. If they are to continue to influence UK politics they will need to actually develop policies other than "we will leave the EU". Whether they will continue to attract dis-satisfied voters from Labour is going to depend very heavily on what those policies will be. If UKIP collapse, where will voters who don't like where Corbyn and his supports are heading go? The LibDems may find themselves regaining support, but if voters prefered anti-EU UKIP to Labour they're unlikely to go to the still pro-EU LibDems.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
This caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/Corbyn seen as out of touch with working class voters

YouGov have published the following:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/labours-losing-leave-voters/

Actually, on reviewing the data it looks like Labour "leavers" who no longer intend to vote Labour are evenly split between UKIP and Conservative, but there is larger group of undecideds. This is a big opportunity for UKIP, one which they are well aware of.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
cross-posted with Alan Cresswell, I agree on the need for UKIP to re-invent themselves. I think the election of Diane James might indicate a dawning awareness that they need to broaden their appeal beyond "angry elderly white men".
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Happy Day One everybody.
Nobody learn anything from the last twelve months. That'll help put the party back together.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It will certainly dip without Farage who, for all his many faults, knows a thing or two about populist politics.
That is one of his faults.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I agree on the need for UKIP to re-invent themselves.
Well, they've already done that once:
this article is fascinating.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Happy Day One everybody.
Nobody learn anything from the last twelve months. That'll help put the party back together.
Always happy to take positive, constructive contributions
[Smile] (Hint - that wasn't one [Razz] )
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't agree that there is an unprecedented gulf between Labour Party members and the British public. Remember Michael Foot? In the 1983 general election the Labour Party he led advocated nuclear disarmament, widespread intervention in industry, nationalisation of the banks, abolition of the House of Lords in addition to leaving the Common Market. That's a far more left wing programme than Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic wishlist. ...
It was the 1983 election which convinced me that we need a properly representative electoral system. Nothing since has changed my view, which I've expressed frequently on various threads.

On the electoral figures in that election, the Labour Party should have experienced a level of wipeout that would have rubbed its nose in realism a great deal sooner and more quickly than eventually happened.

With a different electoral system, it could choose to follow a socialist dream ticket and accept the price that it would bump along on 20-25% of the vote and 20-25% of MPs. It would only get to exercise power under such a system by having to compromise with other parties. If that stuck too much in its ideological craw, well hard luck.

To be able to win elections under the present system, it has to win constituencies. The electoral system happens to give it a cushion of a phalanx of safe seats where enough people will vote for it, whatever its policies are. But that phalanx has not been enough to give it a majority, unless it can position itself to attract the sort of middle ground that the 20-25% terrifies.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Happy Day One everybody.
Nobody learn anything from the last twelve months. That'll help put the party back together.
Always happy to take positive, constructive contributions
[Smile] (Hint - that wasn't one [Razz] )
'Happy Day One' is neither positive nor constructive. Because it's not Day One. If you want to play along with the narrative that Corbyn supporters go around pretending facts they don't like don't exist, then pretending the last three months / twelve months didn't happen is the perfect way to play along.
If you want to rebuild unity in the Labour Party you need to acknowledge the last twelve months, not sweep them under the carpet.

How about:

Corbyn clearly has a mandate from the Labour Party membership at this time. However, we recognise that his critics had reasonable grounds for their views. We apologise for implying that they were insincere or that they were setting Corbyn up to fail, or that Owen Smith is untrustworthy. We believe Corbyn will learn from the criticisms that have been advanced. We would like to point out that Corbyn's engagement with the media has improved since the leadership challenge started, and that for the first time he is widely agreed to have held May to account at Prime Minister's Question Time, on the issue of grammar schools.
Once again we apologise for all aspersions we cast upon Corbyn's critics. In the words of one of them, what unites us has always been greater than what divides us.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It will certainly dip without Farage who, for all his many faults, knows a thing or two about populist politics.
That is one of his faults.
I would suggest that it is considered a good trait when one is the leader of a right wing populist political party, even if the ultimate effect is negative; much as being an habitual liar and con-person is a positive boon in leading the conservative party.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The problem with that, Dafyd, is that people shouldn't apologise for saying things that are true.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem with that, Dafyd, is that people shouldn't apologise for saying things that are true.
If you think that you've got two options:

1) Spend the next three and a half years eagerly waging an increasingly bitter civil war in the Labour Party and then conduct even more bitter recriminations over whose fault it was that you lost the election.

2) Look in the mirror and practice saying, 'Owen Smith is an honourable man and I apologise for ever implying otherwise' until you can make it sound convincing.

The choice is yours.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

My point was not that further money cannot be borrowed - indeed, I hope it was fairly obvious from that post that I think it can. It was simply to point out certain conditions that must first exist.

But in response to your own points, current bond yields are entirely predicated on the current situation and its foreseeable future, which is of course a conservative government with a diminishing likelihood of a labour government in the medium term. Assuming that is equivalent to some hypothetical moment when a labour government comes to the market for a big chunk of money is a step too far, at least without covering the necessary preconditions to make that borrowing affordable. Which was my point.
So you think that the current rates are a result of there being a Conservative government, and were there to be a Labour government voted in there would then be a sharp rise in the rates? Remind me again what they were back in March 2009 (a time where there was far more uncertainty around as to what might happen next, because we were in genuinely uncharted territory and few knew how the major economies were going to react).
No.

It has little to do with which party we are talking about. It has everything to do with whether any potential lenders have confidence in getting their money back. All we have now (now that the left-wing economists have lost confidence and gone away, or been ignored, whichever) is the desire to reject austerity. Which I share by the way. It now needs a credible strategy for implementation.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Exit Poll. Here.

Obviously very much supporting Corbyn.
The three groups that are majority pro-Owen Smith are longstanding Labour members, 18-24 year olds, and Scottish members.
I'm surprised by the support for Owen Smith in the 18-24 age range.
Scottish Labour is pro- Owen Smith. If Corbyn wants Scotland back from the SNP, he needs to take note.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The 18-24 demographic are particularly pro-Remain. Also the Iraq War (and the Blair era more generally) won't be the defining political experience for them in the way it is for some people on the left.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I'm surprised by the support for Owen Smith in the 18-24 age range.
From looking at the breakdown; it does not appear to me that the answer is as clear as 'young people were more pro Remain'.

The previous poll purported to show support for Corbyn amongst the 18-24 Labour members running at 58%. His policies on Remain did not change significantly in the last month (the exit poll had him running at 45%).

I suspect that the numbers of 18-24 year olds who had both joined the party and were able to vote were not necessarily representative of 18-24 year olds at large, or even 18-24 year old Labour supporters.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
If I were being mischievous I would suggest that the Coalition and Tory cuts since 2010 have fallen disproportionately on the young and therefore they prefer an electable Labour opposition to the luxury of a left-wing party which has socialist principles and no real likelihood of getting back into government.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
That poll does not provide much of a basis from which to draw that conclusion.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Seriously folks, look at the sample size. You can conclude a whole load of nothing based on a crossbreak of 50 people (applies both to 18-24 age group and to Scotland). I could have shifted the Scotland tally 2% myself.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Short video link. Contains swearing and satire.

Who decides Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
During his keynote speech.

"But I've got to slightly correct myself because I did say the hall is completely packed, well I did get a message on the way in from Virgin Trains, they have assured me there are 800 empty seats in the hall."

[Smile]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
In a pure #facepalm moment, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott were headline speakers at an event linked to the SWP (Socialist Worker Party)*.

It is hard to conclude anything other than he is now toast, there is nowhere else to go if he thinks it is acceptable to court the doyens of the SWP.

Pretty much anyone who has ever campaigned on anything in the UK in the last 30 years could tell Corbyn what a trainwreck the SWP are, and the idea that a seasoned left-wing Labour MP wouldn't know about them is extremely hard to comprehend. This is a really bad decision, made on really bad advice. He should resign immediately.

* the issues with the SWP being many and varied, including casual misogyny and overt racism. But more to the point, the SWP has a reputation for invading and then bollocksing up other people's campaigns with their single-track communist schtick. They don't actually do anything at all.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Don't most parties have a rule that your membership is terminated if you support another political party? (That'd be one way to deal with the JC problem...)
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Also, Corbyn is presumably v. familiar with the SWP's work through the Stop the War Coalition, which is presumably a SWP-front organisation?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Also, Corbyn is presumably v. familiar with the SWP's work through the Stop the War Coalition, which is presumably a SWP-front organisation?
Well initially StTW was a coalition of various people including Corbyn, Tony Benn, some Greens, some people from the party which became Respect and various other people from the SWP.

But in time it all fell apart with various people and groups leaving - many saying that the SWP was trying to take over.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't most parties have a rule that your membership is terminated if you support another political party? (That'd be one way to deal with the JC problem...)
The organisation in question has Diane Abbot as it's President but two SWP types as co-convenors. In principle it's no worse than Liz Kendall addressing a Lib Dem fringe meeting or Ed Balls, Vince Cable and George Osborne appearing together in the Referendum Campaign. However the SWP is a far-left Trotskyist sect which is widely loathed by pretty much everyone else on the left for covering up a rape by one of it's senior members so the optics, to put it politely, are a bit of a fucking disaster.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The co-chair of STUR, Steve Hart, is making plenty of noise about this, as he is a supporter of Owen Smith. Sounds like a classic anti-Corbyn whine to me.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Also, of course, there are Labour MPs who are members of two parties: the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party.

I've never quite worked out how they manage it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The co-chair of STUR, Steve Hart, is making plenty of noise about this, as he is a supporter of Owen Smith. Sounds like a classic anti-Corbyn whine to me.
Sorry, that's rubbish. Some of the most vocal supporters of Corbyn are saying this is totally beyond the pail. What makes this crisis so serious is that many of the Left who are natural supporters of Corbyn are sickened by the SWP.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, of course, there are Labour MPs who are members of two parties: the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party.

I've never quite worked out how they manage it.
They've had an agreement since the 1930s! There was some talk of Labour MPs who didn't agree with the second leadership election all joining the Co-operative Party but the Co-op Leadership said "no way". The Co-ops are a bit like the National Liberals who were ostensively a separate party but basically just Tories under another name. Michael Heseltine ran for election as a National Liberal as late as the early '60s IIRC.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The co-chair of STUR, Steve Hart, is making plenty of noise about this, as he is a supporter of Owen Smith. Sounds like a classic anti-Corbyn whine to me.
The standard case against Corbyn is that he is incompetent and has unpalatable associates so, yes, you can add that to the tally. In this instance the difference appears to be that it has cut through to the likes of Owen Jones and Aaron Bastani. Baby steps, but we might conceivably have a competitive Labour Party by the 2035 election

[ETA: Hart supported Owen Smith but has no problem with Comrade Delta and his chums being involved in STUR].

[ 10. October 2016, 20:53: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The UK will be Texas by then.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The UK will be Texas by then.
Assuming the US is a viable country by then. What happens when the Republicans put up a fascist next time who can keep his hands to himself?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The trains will start running on time.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The trains will start running on time.
[Killing me]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0