|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think my proposal makes more sense.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.”
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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 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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
"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 ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/help.gif)
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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 ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
