|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stoke by-election
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
when his union backers see how bad things are and see that there are competent left-leaning candidates who could lead the party, they may start putting pressure on him.
Mr Prentis of Unison has already put him on a final warning. Meanwhile Momentum seems to be imploding into People's Front of Judaea-style infighting.
I understand that at a local level the Corbynistas, despite their numerical superiority, have generally failed to get their candidates into the sort of positions that would allow deselections to take place, because too many of them are clicktivists who aren't interested in the nuts and bolts of politics. Plus he has lost support from those who thought that progressivism implied a stronger commitment to Europe than Mr Corbyn offered, even though Mr Corbyn's voting record on the matter is hardly a secret or a Blairite smear.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Corbyn's days are surely numbered.
If Theresa May wants an early general election, we will have one. She strikes me as a lady who takes her time over the big decisions, but once she's decided, she gets what she wants.
There would, of course be early warnings in the form of legislative machinery to circumvent or overturn the (now very inconvenient) Fixed Term Parliament Act. This would concentrate minds in the Labour movement; there would be enough time for the union bosses to elbow Corbyn aside and install a more voter-friendly caretaker. Labour wouldn't win, but they might thereby avoid plunging into the abyss.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
One note from family in the area:
Don't underestimate the amount of people who live in Barrow and work at Sellafield. Won't help Labour one bit in the area all this.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A bit of raw realism. Under the Fixed Parliaments Act, there are two ways of precipitating a premature general election.
1. A vote of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government. A party in power with a majority could only use this method by the bizarre notion of whipping a vote that it did not have confidence in itself. Imagine the field day that every commentator, comedian or worthwhile opposition, if we had one, would make of that. It ain't going to happen.
2. A vote that there be an early general election - i.e. that the Commons dissolve itself. This requires a special majority of ⅔ not just of those who vote, but of the entire membership - i.e. including vacant seats and presumably those Feiners who refuse to take part.
On the mathematics at the moment, that probably also ain't going to happen. Total number of seats 650. ⅔ = 433⅓ and therefore 434. Total number of Conservative seats currently (I think) 331. Shortfall 103.
Unless enough of the other parties think they are likely to up their number of seats, they are likely to say (but using more overtly principled euphemisms) 'No. You sweat it out'. The Conservatives will make capital of that. They will say 'you've all been saying ever since the referendum we should have a general election'. Unless they are very stupid, the others will carry on saying, 'You made this mess. You sweat it out'.
At the moment, the only other party that just might increase its share of seats would be the Lib Dems, but they've only got 8 seats. The SNP are only three seats short of a full house. It's not in their interest to risk it. And it certainly isn't in Labour's interest to do so.
The third option is to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. That's actually more more of a runner, but it would have to get in a Queen's Speech, go through the standard legislative programme, pass the Lords etc. The PM probably can't just suddenly throw down a draft bill on the table in the aisle of the Commons repealing the 2011 Act and say 'vote on it three times today and we'll send it to the Lords tomorrow'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I saw an interview with Corbyn last Autumm (in the Indie, I think) in which he said that he would not use the FTPA to get out of an early election if the government called a vote.
If he sticks to that, it would be down to whether enough Labour MP's defied the whip to stop government getting the 2/3 majority. Many of them would be somewhat torn, I imagine.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much. The Labour base had been ebbing away since 1997, see for example, the Labour majority in Copeland, which dwindled with each election.
11,000, 7,000, 4,000, 2,500 were the majorities for 97, 05, 10, 15.
Assuming Brexit is a fiasco, Labour could capitalize on this, with a moderate left leader, not sure who. But Mrs May can probably disguise any Brexit chaos with her smoke and mirrors.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I saw an interview with Corbyn last Autumm (in the Indie, I think) in which he said that he would not use the FTPA to get out of an early election if the government called a vote.
If he sticks to that, it would be down to whether enough Labour MP's defied the whip to stop government getting the 2/3 majority. Many of them would be somewhat torn, I imagine.
If Mrs May were to call his bluff and he didn't find some way to squirm out of it, he'd be an even bigger twerp than I already think he is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much.
And that's a bigger problem than Mr Corbyn, I think. Who would replace him? None of the slicker alternatives seem very appealing. I'm not convinced that any of them would have inspired the people of Stoke.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much.
And that's a bigger problem than Mr Corbyn, I think. Who would replace him? None of the slicker alternatives seem very appealing. I'm not convinced that any of them would have inspired the people of Stoke.
Also, I'm not sure another leadership election is going to do wonders for Labour's image. Blair did successfully bring together working class and middle class voters, but some people are saying that he alienated both! Some are even saying that Blairism led to Brexit, but that's another guess.
Of course, the electoral cycle is a savage beast, and Labour are right at the bottom of it now. I am guessing that they will emerge eventually, as the Tories did.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question and a thought.
1. Knowing that the Coalition brought in 5-year fixed term Governments, does May have the freedom to call a snap election?
2. The huge difference between Labour's present situation and both its own in the Foot years and the Tories' in the IDS years, is surely the rise of the SNP. This means that Labour are almost inevitably doomed to lose any future national election, irrespective of leader, unless they get a 1945-style landslide. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not sure that 2. is right. Boundary changes, the possibility of Labour winning Scottish seats back, and other factors make the maths rather shaky, but...
In 1997 New Labour won 418 seats. This included 56 seats in Scotland. In 2001, Tony Blair won 413 seats, again with 56 in Scotland. A party only needs 330 seats to have a majority.
However I think it highly unlikely that this can be achieved from the far left of British politics.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Is it just that the proportion of the population subscribing to core Labour values is lower now, so that there just aren't so many votes in that area of the political spectrum?
Similarly, are there now more votes in the UKIP part of the spectrum, so that a better organised party could hoover them up? Is that what the PM is currently trying to do?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Many journos are saying that Mrs May has taken over some UKIP positions, especially on immigration. The interesting question is whether she can maintain this, as various industries claim exemption, since they desperately need foreign labour. But I think she can keep the smoke and mirrors going for years.
Not sure about Labour core values, since Blair was able to form a coalition of the willing, many of whom didn't give a fuck about clause 4. At the same time, did he alienate some of the Labour base? Maybe.
As they say, it's governments that lose elections. One problem for Labour is that the electoral cycle is still against them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I personally believe that Labour core values are something that a majority of people in Britain are sympathetic to. Most of us benefit from decent working conditions, affordable housing, having the NHS there for us when we fall ill and having a welfare state if we fall on hard times.
Jeremy Corbyn has tried to articulate this, but he hasn't cut through, partly because of a hostile media (a problem for any Labour leader), partly through his own lack of experience of talking to people outside his left-wing bubble and poor choice of people to run his communications. According to a poll in today's Observer, only 16% of working-class people intend to vote Labour, so clearly just having a left-wing leader isn't solving the problem.
Someone I spoke to recently said that Labour should be the party of the working classes, but has become the party of the non-working classes. This is partly the product of the disgraceful media portrayal of anyone claiming benefits as a scrounger, but there may be a grain of truth in it. New Labour did not completely take the working class core vote for granted: Blair and Brown poured money into in-work benefits but this was all too easily twisted into "Labour is the party of scroungers". In the end it was a poor substitute for a proper industrial policy creating well-paid skilled jobs, and the Labour core voters became resentful.
The low-skill low-wage jobs that New Labour policies supported also proved hugely attractive to immigrants, which has I think contributed to our present mess. Rightly or wrongly, core Labour voters see immigrants as a problem, driving down wages and competing for jobs, and they see Labour apparently not caring about that.
The next Labour leader needs to be a superhero, which is why I favour a caretaker to get the party through the next few years. It shouldn't be a binary choice between a leftie dinosaur who can't find his arse with both hands, and Blair redux. There are promising left-leaning people in the Labour ranks, Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy spring to mind, but they shouldn't be expected to deal with the current mess.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not sure about Labour core values, since Blair was able to form a coalition of the willing, many of whom didn't give a fuck about clause 4. At the same time, did he alienate some of the Labour base? Maybe.
Well this is what I mean. In order to achieve a majority, Blair had to take a centrist position, because there are no longer enough people prepared to vote for an Old Labour position.
And a centrist position is completely reasonable and defensible - indeed exactly what I (for example) want.
BUT because this is not the traditional Labour position, this requires a lot of ... spin! This was, I reckon, Blair's eventual downfall - this perception that he was "fake sincere" a la Bob Monkhouse.
And NB! These levels of spin would not have been necessary if Blair had been leading, say, the SDP, or a Centre Party, or a Christian Democrat party. It was because the British Labour Party was attempting to be a centre party, against the grain, that this abnormal tension developed.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I personally believe that Labour core values are something that a majority of people in Britain are sympathetic to. Most of us benefit from decent working conditions, affordable housing, having the NHS there for us when we fall ill and having a welfare state if we fall on hard times.
Jeremy Corbyn has tried to articulate this, but he hasn't cut through,...
Rocinante, a fundamental issue is that there isn't unanimity that those are Labour's core values.
Is Labour primarily about those, or is it about class war, clause 4 and socialism? I know the Labour faithful are totally sold on the assumption that the second lot are essential to get the first, but that's a non sequitur. For a start, most of those aspirations come from Lloyd George, who didn't reckon much to class war or clause 4, and was hostile to socialism as an ideology.
The other major parties claim, and aspire, to represent everybody. You may not think they succeed, but they do at least claim to want to persuade everybody to line up behind them. Yes, to be SNP you've got to be Scots, but they do pitch at everyone in Scotland. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems both aspire to want to represent everyone.
Twice in my lifetime, the Labour Party has looked as though it was going to move on from being a factional and dogmatic organisation, in the 1960s and in the 1990s. Both times, the strategy was a success. It won office and held it successfully.
Each time, though, the committed have accused their own leaders, Wilson, Callaghan, Healey, Blair, of betrayal. The faithful have scuttled back into their cosy redoubt. The accusation every time is that it's all the electorate's fault for not voting for them.
It has been a big misfortune that after the First World War the Labour Party cut loose from forming a common position as a wing teamed up with the Liberals. It's been each time that the Labour Party has looked like starting to occupy the position on the political spectrum that the Liberals did before 1914, whether under Gladstone or from 1906 that it has succeeded. But in stead of building on that, each time, as soon as the political pendulum swings against them, the Radicals grab the party and hoick it off into ideological purity and unelectability. And each time, the Radicals proclaim that it's all the fault of the rest of us for not getting the message and not electing them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Thanks Enoch, those are all valid points. I think I described socialism as practised by Clement Attlee, from whom Corbyn is not a million miles politically. However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)
I assumed that was because they'd all decided to shut up to avoid being accused of disloyalty.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Doesn't this entail another by-election?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I assumed that was because they'd all decided to shut up to avoid being accused of disloyalty.
Plenty of them have been fairly vocal in the press, in print and on screen as well as on other places like twitter. Other than Listening to the Very Real Concerns of Real People, they haven't really advanced much else.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Doesn't this entail another by-election?
Yes, and one that really Labour ought to walk - majority of 25,000 odd. No other party got much over 4,000. Greens were second. There's a certain amount of incumbency effect when you're as far embedded as he was, but even so surely Jeremy can't stuff that up....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think I described socialism as practised by Clement Attlee, from whom Corbyn is not a million miles politically. However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
I certainly recognise some of your points, however in the case of Corbyn the impression I get (and, in politics impressions are often more important than anything else) is somewhat different.
There are idealogues on all parts of the political spectrum, of course, but for this discussion we're only talking about those to the left of centre in the Labour Party. These are the people with a vision of a "socialist utopia". Yes, there are plenty who are basically "all or nothing" - no compromise on the plan, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented through a democratically elected government, the ideological purists of your post. There are also a lot of pragmatists, who recognise that the pure vision is not going to appeal to enough voters because (in their view at least) the right have very successfully sowed the view in the public at large that it's impractical and will never work. These pragmatists are willing to compromise to a less ideologically pure version of the vision inorder to get elected, and then demonstrate by enacting left-wing policies that a move left-wards is not going to be a disaster for the nation, and hence make the pure vision more realistic because the public at large will have been shown that the right has lied to them about how left-wing policies will destroy the country.
I have a preference for left-of-centre politics, and despise Blair for effectively compromising too far and turning Labour into Tory-lite. And, I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it. He isn't standing on his principles as moral high ground, waving the red flag and declaring "utopia is this way, follow me!", he seems incapable of expressing a clear vision for the Labour Party - either as an idealogical purist or a pragmatist. It looks like he's spent so much of his political career as a bulwark or an anchor trying to stop the Labour Party, and the nation as a whole, sliding away from the principles the Labour Party managed to enshrine in the nation (welfare state, social housing, NHS etc) that he doesn't actually know how to lead. He's spent his career campaigning against a rightward drift that he doesn't know how to campaign for something. An idealogical purist trying to achieve something impossible would be far preferable to what we have.
In summary - I admire his political views, and would love to see a PM from that part of the Labour Party. And, over the last couple of years I've stood by him (even though my vote would always go SNP) because I largely agree with his political position. But, it's become increasingly clear that he's a total failure as a leader because he has been unable to articulate his vision.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Doesn't this entail another by-election?
Yes, Kaufman's sad death will give rise to another by election. However, he had a majority of just over 24,000 at the last election, and I think there's far too many ethnic minorities (who could well be an ethnic majority tbh) in the area for UKIP to think they're going to snatch it. In the last election the Greens pushed the Conservatives into third place.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
@Alan Cresswell: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) (and I say that as a left-of-centre LibDem who once supported the SDP!)
I once heard Corbyn speak - it was on a local issue to do with a new road. That was back in about 1989, mind you, and I have no recollection of what he said!
[ 27. February 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)
It's going to be difficult for the right wing to acclaim neo-liberalism, privatization and cuts to welfare. So I suppose they are lurking, or biting their lips, probably complaining to each other that the left are ruinous.
In the end, there is usually a kind of inbetween person, but difficult to see who at the moment. They are going to have to distinguish themselves from Blair, I guess. Well, Starmer is a kind of well-mannered functionary, yay! <sarcasm>
It's odd when you think of Attlee, who would seem hard left today, but then autres temps, autres moeurs. (Other times, different customs). Imagine how the right wing press would demonize him.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Yes, Kaufman's sad death will give rise to another by election. However, he had a majority of just over 24,000 at the last election, and I think there's far too many ethnic minorities (who could well be an ethnic majority tbh) in the area for UKIP to think they're going to snatch it. In the last election the Greens pushed the Conservatives into third place.
Indeed. Kaufman won 2/3 of the vote, and the Greens, Conservatives, and UKIP had less than 10% each. Even factoring in a lower turnout for a byelection, a new face being less popular than a seasoned and well-respected MP, and Labour's current dismal popularity, there's no way this one's changing hands.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it.
In summary - I admire his political views, and would love to see a PM from that part of the Labour Party. And, over the last couple of years I've stood by him (even though my vote would always go SNP) because I largely agree with his political position. But, it's become increasingly clear that he's a total failure as a leader because he has been unable to articulate his vision.
Alan Cresswell I think you have nailed it. Jeremy Corbyn does not create a compelling vision of any kind and nor does he lead. Those who can do both, and who support Corbyn (I'm thinking McDonnell, Abbott et al) are leading and creating a vision that Jeremy Corbyn is the saviour and have energised a lot of people behind that vision witness Momentum. But the man himself, just doesn't seem to have/do it. And the McDonnell/Abbott vision doesn't have enough behind it to sustain it.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Some blunt speaking from someone who is not a member of the Labour Party, giving his own impressions on what is less likely to at the moment to encourage him to vote for a Labour candidate, come what may, and however good they may be as a candidate. This may not be what a Labour activist wants to hear, but I suspect I'm not the only person who thinks like this. If the party faithful want to win elections, it ought to be useful to be aware how the beloved leaders are perceived among some of those whose votes activists need to win - even though, the beloved leader himself gives the impression he doesn't really care. He takes his mandate from his own claque team.
There are a lot of people out here who are not Labour faithful but are deeply, deeply dissatisfied with the present government and detest the direction it is going in.
Here goes. Jeremy Corbyn comes across to outsiders as narrow, dreary, uninspiring and dogmatic. What some seem to admire as high principle, looks to others as a cold obstinate determination not to face reality. Whatever his vision is for Britain, he doesn't communicate it effectively apart from giving the impression that his spiritual home is the old East Germany of Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honecker. That is not a vision that wins friends and influences people.
I know this next point is something that the political faithful discount, but it matters to the rest of us. He also comes across as incompetent, both politically and administratively.
If he hasn't by now won over his parliamentary party, and neither manages nor inspires them, he should bow out with as much grace as a somewhat graceless person can manage. He should not be telling them he's there until 2020.
John McDonnell gives the impression of being clever but cold, likewise dogmatic and sinister.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Fake news?
Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists. In this respect, the section of the party represented by Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband looks better capable, on the basis of election results, of hanging on to seats, than Mr Corbyn is on the basis of polling results. It will be easier for the Coming Saviour to lead Labour into the sunny uplands of socialist Utopia from a baseline of 256 or 232 seats than from 140 seats.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Fake news?
Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.
Unlikely. I think we can assume that's fake news. It would be more in Russia's interest for Nuttall to have won.
Incidentally, Mrs Arron Banks is Russian.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists.
It would be if that were the strategy that was being followed, yet neither Smith or Eagle were making that argument in the second leadership election (or seemed remotely capable of pulling it off should they be voted in). Plus the PLP aren't really putting forward anything in the vein of Brown or Milliband, the most vocal appear to think that neoliberalism with a side order of slight racism will bring them back to power.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
I have a preference for left-of-centre politics, and despise Blair for effectively compromising too far and turning Labour into Tory-lite. And, I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it. He isn't standing on his principles as moral high ground, waving the red flag and declaring "utopia is this way, follow me!", he seems incapable of expressing a clear vision for the Labour Party - either as an idealogical purist or a pragmatist. It looks like he's spent so much of his political career as a bulwark or an anchor trying to stop the Labour Party, and the nation as a whole, sliding away from the principles the Labour Party managed to enshrine in the nation (welfare state, social housing, NHS etc) that he doesn't actually know how to lead. He's spent his career campaigning against a rightward drift that he doesn't know how to campaign for something. An idealogical purist trying to achieve something impossible would be far preferable to what we have.
Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.
Corbyn was always going to be a disaster as Party Leader. He was one of the Bennites who nearly led Labour to a third place finish in the 1983 General Election. He was a supporter of the armed struggle in Ireland in the 1980s and a supporter Islamism in the noughties. He has never found an enemy of this country that he could not do business with. Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair - TAMWKWE* - he at least recognised that a Labour government could only be elected if it realised that most of the electorate are somewhere to the right of the average Labour Party member (or poster on Ship of Fools). Corbyn is well to the left of that position. The idea that he had a cat in hells chance of winning the 2020 Election was a delusion. Quite apart from his politics he had never run anything more complicated than a committee on Haringey Council and then, suddenly, he found himself as the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party with, frankly, no real support within the PLP. The consequences were predictable.
Corbyn was a long standing opponent of the European Union, like his mentor, the appalling Viscount Stansgate, he voted to leave the EU in 1975 and voted against every single European treaty that was subsequently put before the House of Commons. Predictably he made no attempt to make the case for the EU during the referendum, at one point going on holiday, and called for the immediate activation of Article 50 when the result was known. Since then his policy has been to hold Theresa May's coat whilst she goes for the hardest of Brexits.
It's perfectly legitimate to work for the Labour Party to be reduced to less than 200 seats in the House of Commons and for a Hard Brexit if one is Mr Arron Banks. But when the Leader of the Labour Party does it, one does wonder if entirely the right decision was made by the membership in 2015. I tend to regard Corbyn as a precursor of Brexit and Trump. Both Brexit and Trump happened, at least in part, because people decided to vote for the people who were offering them the moon on a stick, rather than policies which could be difficult or complicated. £350m for the NHS! Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it! Corbyn's shtick was that you could persuade a country that had voted against Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband to vote for policies to the left of those figures helmed by a man with the charisma of a third rate geography teacher. An end to austerity! Unlimited money for the NHS! Frankly I'd enjoy the irony a bit more if the country wasn't about to crash and burn with the Labour Party but I will enjoy listening to all the excuses when Corbyn leads the Labour Party into disaster by all the people who thought that he was the socialist Messiah.
*That Awful Man Who Kept Winning Elections
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Fake news?
Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.
Unlikely. I think we can assume that's fake news. It would be more in Russia's interest for Nuttall to have won.
Incidentally, Mrs Arron Banks is Russian.
I had to google Aaron Banks and found that his name appears as Andrew Fraser Aaron Banks. For a brief second I thought he was a conglomerate of two people ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My guess would be a vote of no-confidence in the government could be quickly followed by a vote calling for an early election - but since the total incompetence with which the current government have gone about things hasn't resulted in such an outcome I would consider that to be highly unlikely.
I'd consider it highly unlikely as well, for the simple reason that many Labour MPs will be too concerned about losing their seat to risk it.
Nothing is normal about current politics, but the idea that the government might support a vote of no confidence in its own ability to govern because the subsequent election would probably give them an increased majority is one of the weirder things I've heard mentioned.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It wasn't a Government - but John Major, when Prime Minister in 1995, resigned his position as party leader in order to be re-elected and so assert his position.
He won.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Yes, but he didn't assert that he had no confidence in himself!
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Following the comments up-thread about Gerald Kaufman's death and the forthcoming election here, folks might not have come across
this.
It seems there have bee nasty insider goings-on in the constituency. Is the bogey man the local party, fighting amongst itself to see who will be the new top dog - or the central party, working out who to parachute into this safe seat? We'll see...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
It seems there have bee nasty insider goings-on in the constituency. Is the bogey man the local party, fighting amongst itself to see who will be the new top dog - or the central party, working out who to parachute into this safe seat? We'll see...
It looks like it started as the former, but now that the regional Labour office has been given oversight of the candidate selection process, the odds of a parachute might have gone up.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists.
It would be if that were the strategy that was being followed, yet neither Smith or Eagle were making that argument in the second leadership election (or seemed remotely capable of pulling it off should they be voted in).
Well no, if one is pitching to lead HM Opposition one can't really stand on the basis of 'I will lose less badly than the other guy'. My point is that just because no-one can win doesn't mean it's rational to treat all the candidates as having equally low prospects.
The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Regarding an early election, the time to do that was before producing the White Paper and setting out the Article 50 legislation, because I don't see how one is possible after negotiations have begun. If our European partners are irritated at British dithering, they're hardly going to react well to the prospect of a change of government (admittedly unlikely atm) halfway through.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Elections are weird things, uncontrollable and usually the results are not what is expected months out.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.
They sound like yesterday's men to me (and women), and of course, Smith had a crack at it.
It's a bit like a nervous breakdown, things seem to be getting worse and worse, and sometimes, there is a break in the cloud, and a ray of sunshine. However, I don't know who or what that is. Probably Labour have to lose in 2020, and then go through a ritual disemboweling. Then the public may be satisfied with this, and may be willing to countenance some other leader.
[ 02. March 2017, 11:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As an unaligned person, I'm just as fed up with the identification of the good of the Labour Party with the good of the country, as I am with the way Mrs May et al identify the good of the Conservative Party with the good of the country.
If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.
Alas, that won't happen because too many of the enthusiasts would rather have none of their dream than some of it.
If you're either a Corbyn supporter, or one of those who regards Tony Blair as the great betrayal, you might like to read this. Think on't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you're either a Corbyn supporter, or one of those who regards Tony Blair as the great betrayal, you might like to read this. Think on't.
I think very few Labour supporters would say that the New Labour years in isolation weren't better than the current government.
OTOH under New Labour a particular economic model was more or less accepted, and while declining parts of the country were supported - often by stealth - they still continued to decline - so managed decline rather than development of any kind.
To answer what I think is your underlying point; I'm not sure to what extent a New Labour government would be sustainable in 2017, or for how long it could be sustained, without fairly radical rebalancing elsewhere.
[ 02. March 2017, 12:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.
I agree, and will add that I would very much prefer that opposition party not to be UKIP or similar/worse.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.
Not sure what 'this' refers to.
Of course if the events of the past two years have not convinced you of Mr Corbyn's inadequacy, it is highly unlikely that anything said by anyone in the PLP could change your mind.
If you mean that they have failed to offer a coherent political 'theory of everything' to contrast to the Tories' vision of society, I thought that, with the exception of Mr Smith, their outlook was pretty much 'same as under Mr Miliband with minor tweaks in presentation'. Now Mr Miliband's formula was not a winning one but it was at least not a formula that put Labour thirteen points behind the Tories and losing by-elections at the point in the electoral cycle that favours the Opposition.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.
I agree, and will add that I would very much prefer that opposition party not to be UKIP or similar/worse.
There is, of course, a far better option available than that ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is, of course, a far better option available than that ...
Baptist Trainfan, for much of my working life I was required to be apolitical and I've been glad to be so, but there have been an increasing number of times recently when I have felt drawn in their direction.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
