|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.
Some folks never learn.
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that is, I guess, for the best. Better than a court case, that's for sure.
Though it leaves the PLP looking a bit silly - their entire plan revolved around stopping Corbyn getting onto the ballot at the NEC.
If they want to make their case based on competence, all their actions since Corbyn was elected scream entirely the opposite.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.
It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.
(Xposted)
[ 12. July 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
chris stiles
Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.
Where I think there might be parallels with the Gang of Four is over the influence of Momentum within the constituency parties. For now, I think Angela Eagle will make her case. What will happen in the House in the meantime is anyone's guess. I don't think kiss and make up is on the agenda.
[ 12. July 2016, 20:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.
Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There are legal issues with the plan to remove right to vote from members who joined post 12th January, as the website tells you you will be able to vote.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And what was wrong with Worzel Foot? And what's the comparison?
Lest it be thought that's what I think of Michael Foot, well I did then, as a Cold War armchair warrior, I don't now.
--------------------
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 chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.
Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
I rather think they expected him to do a Cameron, see the writing on the wall. They probably hadn't realised that the new and kinder form of politics would end up reducing the role of MP to obedient cipher. Yes, I think that was where their incompetence lay. The wall had different writing on it.
[ 12. July 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
Maybe not "ego", but they were firmly in the "we know what is best for them" camp. Then again, that is the sign of a politician.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.
It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.
(Xposted)
Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Increasing numbers of like-minded doesn't increase the acceptable range of views. All parties are coalitions of people with similar principles but varying views on policies. Party unity is a pragmatic process, designed to keep these people co-operating under the same umbrella.
Because of electoral boundary changes, the Labour Party needs almost a 10% increase in its vote to get a majority of 1 in the next election. Jeremy argued with the Fabian society that something like that could be achieved by getting more young people to turn out to vote and by winning back those in the trad Labour heartlands who had stopped voting Labour. Here is the Fabian Society analysis of those ideas in August 2015.
Much though it may pain policy purists, Labour's only chance of an election win in the next election is to broaden its appeal. So. basically, it has zero chance in any snap early election and in its current messed-up state it is much more likely to lose a bucketload of seats. Currently, over 40 Labour MPs are sitting on majorities of under 3,500 and the PLP is in danger of losing all of those and a whole lot more.
Them's the political realities; no amount of enthusiasm and purist idealism will change them. The Labour Party is in deep shit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
The Labour Party is in deep shit
Yes at the moment, thanks to the PLP. But if Corbyn defeats the PLP leadership challenge I predict an enormous increase in Labour party membership.
I've never before heard so many different people talking about politics as I have during the last two weeks. People who are uncommitted and normally totally uninterested are really enjoying the drama. And most of them are saying, "Go for it, Jeremy!". This is the most entertaining parliamentary politics we've had in years.
If you're interested in politics and a member of the chattering classes, as most of us here are, you probably think that's wrong. But wrong or right, all these people have a vote. And say what you like about the British, we love an underdog.
At the beginning of this thread I predicted that Corbyn would be hard to get rid of. He ain't gone yet.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It doesn't matter WHAT Labour does for 4-9 YEARS.
J&J will age out and whoever will lead a Labour landslide like Wilson and Blair because it'll be 'time for a change'.
Elections aren't won. They're lost.
--------------------
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.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.
Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.
In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.
I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.
Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.
And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think anyone can take back the Scottish seats that Labour held unless the SNP implodes. There's just no reason for a lot of people to vote Labour rather than SNP, particularly with the insipid Dugdale as leader of the Scottish party. Up against Sturgeon and Davidson she doesn't have a chance.
Ultimately I don't think moving left or right is that important when it comes to winning elections, it's about building and selling a convincing narrative of what's wrong and how to fix it. UKIP have attracted some Labour voters by tapping into fears about immigration, even though their economic and social policies would harm working class people far more than any amount of free movement within Europe.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.
There is something to this - after all, presumably the right of the Labour party always knew that Labour itself was a broader church than just their faction. They mostly expected everyone left of them to go along with what they said, with a few semi-public rebellions at best, and continue to campaign and act for the good of the party as a whole. It seems that they don't want to do the same when the boot is on the other foot.
Coming back to the incompetence aspect; if you are trying to get rid of someone, offering two alternatives with little to choose between them would seem to do nothing more than split the anti-* vote.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@Arethosemyfeet
If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?
[ 13. July 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
The thing I find most depressing about the PLP's debacle is their failure to learn from past experience. When Ken Livingstone stood in the first election for a London Mayor the official Labour Party was against him. They commenced a series of unsuccessful manoeuvres to exclude Livingstone as a candidate and they put up their own "official" candidate. The result? They pissed off so many of the electorate that people who HATED Ken Livingstone went out and voted for him, he was duly elected and unsurprisingly didn't work well with the official party for the whole of his terms in office. Talk about an own goal.
And here they are, doing exactly the same sort of thing. Morons.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet
If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?
Scotland will be gone. The narrative MUST be massive rent to buy housing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.
Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.
In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.
I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.
Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.
And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.
You're not the only one. I'm a trade unionist and lifelong labour voter, but if mass deselections start, I will be off. To where, I don't know. I never thought I would contemplate voting Tory, but if (big if) Theresa May actually delivers on this "one nation" rhetoric, the unthinkable may be eminently thinkable. I live in a marginal constituency, so this might actually matter.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Simple. The first deselection should trigger The Gang of 172. Corleone Rules baby.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet
If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?
That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?
It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.
Is this the point where in Dad's Army Private Walker, on hearing the 11 stage plan for attacking a tank asks the immortal question:
"While we're doing all this, what's the tank going to be doing?"
Firstly, "all" Labour needs to do is beat the Tories in England. OK, you're right, problem essentially solved...
Secondly, it really wouldn't surprise me, given how many of Miliband's clothes May nicked on Monday, if the Tories don't just do a lot of what you're calling for - beginning with industrial strategy.
While parties are off in the wilderness, political reality has a habit of moving on. The Tories have come up with the one candidate for PM who can plausibly tack left in response to what Labour's doing, and has certainly made noises that she intends to do so.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The prospect of a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP was used as an election tactic to make people vote Tory in 2015 (remember those pictures of Salmond with a mini-Miliband in his breast pocket?). It's unclear to me how an election-winning tactic that helped beat Labour can suddenly become an idea to woo voters back to Labour.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?
It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.
But the fundamentals that made the tactic a success (weak Labour leader dependent on a canny Scottish political operator; possibility of government funds diverted from south-west England to Scotland to placate insatiable SNP demands, etc.) would be very much still in place.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have read elsewhere that after the vote confirmed Corbyn will be on the ballot paper, and he and supporters left the NEC meeting, a non-agenda'd item was agreed which limits the electorate so that recent joiners can't vote.
That may be a reasonable thing to agree for all sorts of reasons, but that is not a good way to do it. It's like the sort of thing the far left used to do.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That may not have been entirely as I was given to understand, as a very short version with no details may have been agenda'd. As: Freeze membership date (turned out to be in January) and fix membership fee (Ł25, which can be exercised by people who joined since January over two days).
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That has to be one of the most half-arsed coups in history. It reminds me of the Greek declaration of Enosis in 1974, leading to the Turkish invasion, and the collapse of the Greek junta.
What was particularly dazzling was the timing - just as the Tories were engaged in one of their bouts of blood-letting and massacre. A good time for Labour to be on the attack, pointing out how Cameron's gamble had led to one of the biggest crises since Suez.
But some bright sparks in the plp thought, this is it! Time to mount our coup! This will play well with the voters, surely.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals.
Yes, this is something that needs to be stressed.
If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes, then the expected behaviour of the PLP would be to suffer Damascene conversions to the new regime in the style of the Vicar of Bray. But most of them haven't done that. Could it possibly be the case that one or other of those 'if's is incorrect?
It's also very noticeable that for all the talk of a kinder, gentler politics, it's Mr Corbyn's friends who are so quick to throw accusations of bad faith against anyone who disagrees with him. It's a bit bloody difficult to have the open dialogue they claim to crave if anything one side says is instantly dismissed as a smokescreen for a secret fear of socialism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes
Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.
At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.
Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.
Exactly! So why try to make windows into men's souls and attribute to them the motives that are least likely to lead to constructive dialogue?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ricardus
I think it was a close thing. The PLP did expect Jeremy to throw in the sponge and there were certainly some signs that he was seriously considering doing that. But some of those close to him advised that he should stick it out, despite losing PLP support. That wrong-footed the PLP. which is why they have been flapping around. No Plan B; collectively, they didn't think they needed one.
Kiss and make up still doesn't look very likely to me. I suppose they could all resign the Parliamentary Whip. But no. Apparently the Whips don't support Jeremy.
What a dog's dinner! Or a pig's breakfast.
[ 13. July 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes
Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.
At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.
Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
Well, I watched Angela Eagle on Newsnight last night, and it was really a policy-free zone. I could not get any sense of what she stands for, except that she doesn't think Corbyn is competent. Rather ironic, since she is part of a really cack-handed coup now going on.
She also abstained on welfare cuts, I'm not sure what that projects into the future. More abstentions?
I suppose in any case, she is a stalking horse, not to say, a loss-leader.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Still not high enough.
However (received yesterday):
The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons.
The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP. The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.
A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
Splendid standup.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
I really don't buy he got out the youth vote. I think many instinctively felt this was about their future. Corbyn's campaign was pitiful. Very tribal and petty.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
My comments were specifically about accusations of bad faith.
As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
They weren't well coordinated, but they were clearly coordinated and there were clear links between the coup and Portland. The problem was they didn't have a plan for what to do if Corbyn refused to stand down.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
Splendid standup.
"We are the masters now. Stuff the PLP, they don't matter. Excuse me while I have a little gloat at their expense."
You call that "splendid standup"? I call it contempt myself.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith
There are no incremental steps to socialism that involve standing aside and allowing things to get worse. The only left wing factions that promote letting things get worse are those who favour revolutionary rather than parliamentary solutions.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
Don't think I mentioned Portland Communications. The cycle of resignations was clearly planned - however whatever they had in terms of tactics, they were obviously lacking on strategy.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
