|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If Corbyn - and the membership of the party - can plot a proper leftist course for the whole party, then I'll most likely switch my vote.
I don't see anything inconsistent about this approach whatsoever. I'm a swing voter, but on the left.
Ok. So you are saying (if I may paraphrase) that Mr Corbyn is indeed a vote-attractor for you, but less powerful (at the moment) than the vote-repellant forces of the rest of the PLP?
Obviously I disagree with your apportionment of blame, but I can see where you are coming from.
Pretty much this.
Politics (as has oft been noted) is the art of the possible. While I'm probably more idealistic than pragmatic - I vote Green, ffs - however much I support Corbyn's policies, I have to have some confidence that he'll be able to have them adopted into the party's manifesto, and then use that as a platform for governance.
With the state of the PLP at the moment, that's very much a fond hope. And yes, I apportion the majority of the blame for that on the behaviour of the PLP.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
There has been some indication on recent TV interviews from all 'sides' of the general tone of the conversations becoming more sober .. A good sign ...
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
that leaves me with Green - who have no real leaders.
Jonathan Bartley is good
Mr Bartley served with Nicky Morgan as a Tory Councillor in Battersea, once upon a time. Clearly the Bizarro Steve Hilton.
Caroline Lucas is good, though, unlike Corbyn she commands 100% of the support of her MPs.
Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
--------------------
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
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
As long as Corbyn is leader I shall vote Labour. If Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner or one of their ilk is leader I shall vote Labour. If one of the 171 current 'rebels' becomes leader it is highly unlikely that I shall vote Labour.
I'm not a member of the party but I've always voted Labour until now, Blair et al. notwithstanding. Now though, it's time for a change and the resigners have resorted to every nefarious means available to prevent it and to crush Corbyn and the Left.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Incidentally, that's Boogie, Doc Tor and, I think, leo who are keen on Jeremy Corbyn but not so keen that they plan to vote for him in any contest more demanding than Parliamentary Beard of the Year. Any advances?
As long as Corbyn is leader I shall vote Labour. If Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner or one of their ilk is leader I shall vote Labour. If one of the 171 current 'rebels' becomes leader it is highly unlikely that I shall vote Labour.
I'm not a member of the party but I've always voted Labour until now, Blair et al. notwithstanding. Now though, it's time for a change and the resigners have resorted to every nefarious means available to prevent it and to crush Corbyn and the Left.
So would you prefer the Tories to win a seat than you vote for one of the large number of Labour MPs - pretty damning of the Labour Party? (I'll admit I tend to vote for a party not a personality!)
ETA a number of the MPs who resigned cannot be regarded as on the right of the party. Their problem was Corbyn's competence - as it is for quite a few of us on this thread.
[ 13. September 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
What's needed now more than anything is a 'Day One' approach, ie, the day that Corbyn is returned ..
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
I think that's right (or at least I agree). Which is probably all for the best.
In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's all been about Jeremy Corby - he's probably the lightning conductor. Though that would need a lot more unpacking, and it certainly is not just about "Blairism".
[ 14. September 2016, 18:21: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
I think that's right (or at least I agree). Which is probably all for the best.
In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's all been about Jeremy Corby - he's probably the lightning conductor. Though that would need a lot more unpacking, and it certainly is not just about "Blairism".
Yes, good point. I think it never is, about one person or event, I mean. An awful lot of pent-up frustration and angst has built up in British politics recently, and this is one manifestation. You could almost say panic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
He kind of looked OK at PMQs. May looked very shaky as he laid into the grammar school initiative and that has to be a good thing from my perspective.
Some evidence of ability to develop consensus, listen to people with expertise and work in a government-in-waiting sort of way to develop policy rather than free-wheeling disorganization and I'd be sold. I have kind of been wanted to see that all year though.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
If I were a Corbynite clutching at straws I would note a number of things. Firstly, the narrative of the Labour leadership campaign is established - Corbyn will win, Owen Smith ran on a Corbyn policies plus support of the PLP ticket, which the membership appear to find unconvincing, and made a number of gaffes, there are limits to how interesting you can make that over three months. Secondly, we have a shiny new Prime Minister and it may be that the glister is coming off her reign. There is a general consensus that he handed her her arse at PMQs today, for the first time ever, over Grammar Schools, which he never looked close to doing to David Cameron. More generally some of the centre-right commentators who backed her as "the grown up" candidate, are now wondering if they haven't go the more grown up "back to the fifties" candidate. Then there is Brexit.
Those are straws, however. The polls are solid, 28% Labour, 40% Tory. There will be a spike in anti-Corbyn coverage, when the election result comes in and lots of stuff about how the moderates ought to form a new party, maybe one or two will join the Lib Dems. The question is: will Theresa May go for an early election? Let us say the Lords defy the Salisbury Convention on Grammar Schools on the grounds that it wasn't in the Conservative manifesto - does she go the country on the grounds of the Peers versus the People - in which case she looks like romping home comfortably, or does she hang on until she has a Brexit deal she can put before the country. If she takes her time there will be battles over re-selection and de-selection, which will do nothing for Labour's standing in the polls.
But, barring an unforeseen bolt from the blue, as things stand she looks like getting a Thatcher or Blair type majority at the next election, whenever that is. The question AFAICS is, will there be an electable Labour Party in 2035 or will the opposition be another party to take it's place.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He kind of looked OK at PMQs. May looked very shaky as he laid into the grammar school initiative and that has to be a good thing from my perspective.
Some evidence of ability to develop consensus, listen to people with expertise and work in a government-in-waiting sort of way to develop policy rather than free-wheeling disorganization and I'd be sold. I have kind of been wanted to see that all year though.
May is shaky. She is doing it on the hoof, and the bloody Brexit thing is lying there, like a dead relative in the parlour.
They used to say that when Thatcher looked shaky, which she did sometimes, Kinnock would inevitably fluff his lines. We shall see if Corbyn fluffs his.
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
I think the anti-Corbyn hysteria has died down. I'm not sure what this means, being resigned to a Corbyn win, some MPs hoping for a shadow job, planning to quit. Even the Guardian has toned down its shrill invective. It could also be boredom.
Or just the fact that he hasn't done anything particularly daft for a few weeks. Although Ms Thornberry seems to be doing her best to fly the flag for Team Incompetent ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just to run with the "dead relative" image for a moment-
In 2017 it will awake, zombie-like, and start crashing around. It's not immediately obvious to me who it is most likely to damage, May or Corbyn.
If the three musketeers scenario was a cunning plan by TM to give the Brexit tendency enough rope, she may survive, though it will need careful managing. Goodness only knows where it will leave us as a country though.
I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say. The risk is that the discourse will go right past him without a contribution. If so, that won't help him at all.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say.
He's still taking the 'let's do it and get it over with' line.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm really not so sure about Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't said much on the subject, and I suspect that's for political principles. I don't think there's a lot he can say.
He's still taking the 'let's do it and get it over with' line.
I'd say his comments mean that he is, intentionally or unintentionally, pushing towards a 'hard brexit', exactly what we don't need at this point. He seems to have no idea how important the type of Brexit we get, will be.
[ 14. September 2016, 22:18: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So would you prefer the Tories to win a seat than you vote for one of the large number of Labour MPs - pretty damning of the Labour Party? (I'll admit I tend to vote for a party not a personality!)
ETA a number of the MPs who resigned cannot be regarded as on the right of the party. Their problem was Corbyn's competence - as it is for quite a few of us on this thread.
I vote for policies, not personalities. If one of the 171 was leader, had a conversion and became genuinely left wing, followed by the majority of the party falling into line with Corbyn-style policies then I would vote for them. Unfortunately I do not believe Owen Smith is genuine in his claims to support Corbyn-style policies. His backers certainly don't.
I have always been soft left, but the vast majority, if not all, of the resigners are to my right. I find that odd, as my politics have not altered since Kinnock's time. He was my hero then, but no more.
I would vote Green if there was no other alternative on the Left. Labour took its grassroots for granted for too long. If I were to vote for watered-down Labour yet again I could not live with myself. More Tory-lite; more of the same. Things have to change, and a vote for the Labour right is a vote for the neoliberal status quo.
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
Yes, he has made a lot of mistakes, but no, that's not all this is about by any stretch.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
I think this is why the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not just a discourtesy. If Mr Corbyn genuinely is incompetent, to an extent that makes him unfit to lead, then what does it matter if his opponents have additional reasons for wanting him gone? Those additional reasons don't magically make him competent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
I think this is why the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not just a discourtesy. If Mr Corbyn genuinely is incompetent, to an extent that makes him unfit to lead, then what does it matter if his opponents have additional reasons for wanting him gone? Those additional reasons don't magically make him competent.
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I agree. It is very likely that there were a fair number of MPs who started thinking about ditching Corbyn from the word go. Politics is like that and it would be true in most parties and leaders at most points in their history.
The fact that the plotters can't immediately effect plan ditch new leader gives the new leader a window of opportunity to make something of the situation. To establish a record of doing things well, developing policy, getting consensus and support - the way politics is done.
That isn't how one leads a protest movement which is more to do with taking stands, pubic meetings and speaking one's mind as a personality rather than a leader of a party.
Corbyn didn't do that and so here we are again. However it seems likely he's going to get another window of opportunity. I really hope he takes it but this really doesn't help.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
I was agreeing with Ricardus in the post above. You might have a different argument (i.e. that Corbyn isn't really incompetent but just made to look that way by the PLP) but that isn't the argument Amika was making. She was implying that the motives of the PLP in responding to the incompetence were more important than the incompetence itself.
As to whether it was just the PLP making him look bad, we went through this earlier. There are many examples of failures that just cannot be ascribed to that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
Just for now his #1 advantage is that no one, on either side of the House, can bowl a straight ball at the stumps. Meanwhile the Press bowl bouncers and beamers, so it he ducks and weaves, he'll be OK.
(Cricketing analogy ends)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It's like calling offside for your own team's touchdown instead of hitting it out of the park.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I vote for policies, not personalities. If one of the 171 was leader, had a conversion and became genuinely left wing, followed by the majority of the party falling into line with Corbyn-style policies then I would vote for them. Unfortunately I do not believe Owen Smith is genuine in his claims to support Corbyn-style policies. His backers certainly don't.
I have always been soft left, but the vast majority, if not all, of the resigners are to my right. I find that odd, as my politics have not altered since Kinnock's time. He was my hero then, but no more.
I would vote Green if there was no other alternative on the Left. Labour took its grassroots for granted for too long. If I were to vote for watered-down Labour yet again I could not live with myself. More Tory-lite; more of the same. Things have to change, and a vote for the Labour right is a vote for the neoliberal status quo.
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
Yes, he has made a lot of mistakes, but no, that's not all this is about by any stretch.
A full answer to this would make it too long. So will focus on your last paragraph. Yes a fair number didn’t want him in the first place – many may well have been in my position which is that the British electorate probably won’t vote for an out and out pacifist or they might have reservations about electing a maverick to bring the party together. However, all political leaders have a minority of backbenchers who brief against them – see John Major’s bastards.
I think the PLP can be divided into:
- Those who briefed and schemed against him from day one – say about 20. This is according to Corbyn’s camp!
- Those who didn’t want him but felt he needed to be given time to fail or succeed. It was well known that he was very popular with new members so any new leadership election would probably lead to him being re-elected. Any early challenge would be a bad idea.
- Those who just wanted to get on with the job and do their best and see what turned up – no-one knew (knows?) how much of a mess the Tories would get into over EU
- Out and out Corbyn loyalists
The question is always why did the second and third groups, knowing what they did, throw in their lot with the plotters – the answer is mostly Brexit I believe. Yes - competence was a major issue for many – if you are going to depict yourself as really radical then you will need to be incredibly astute tactically in order to sell yourself to a very cautious / conservative electorate. However there are other reasons – most of which don’t plot easily on a left /right continuum.
The view of many of the PLP was that they had a massive electoral mountain to climb and Corbyn was proving to be deeply unpopular with the GB wider electorate. Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.
So both competence and the EU issue were big, big issues even for those who weren’t that far away from him in terms of most areas of policy.
Finally, the difference between him and the PLP is minimal when it comes to austerity – I don’t think a single Labour MP has endorsed the shrinking of the state which appears to be the underlying motivation for most of what George Osborne wanted to do with his austerity measures.
[ 15. September 2016, 09:00: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
In case it is not clear - I'd be one of those who felt he needed time to fail or (even better) succeed. At least two years probably three, would be my time frame.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
True levels of competence can only be tested when he is no longer being given a broken bat to open the innings (to adapt one of Geoffey Howe's parting lines, I think) ...
How many of the examples of incompetence that have been instanced in this thread can be put down to a broken bat?
How did Benn trick or coerce Corbyn into calling for Article 50 to be implemented immediately?
What of Kerry McCarthy's criticisms?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've already stated that the competence issue has been a concern, but I just don't buy that that's the whole issue for the resigners. It's ridiculous to imagine that a group of people who a) did not want Corbyn as leader in a million years b) constantly undermined, criticised, and briefed against him from the start and c) talked up a 'coup' for the whole nine months, giving detailed rundowns to the press as to how it would work would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to resign on his incompetence alone.
The entire group of rebels? All of them?
Yes, there were some MPs who were briefing against him from the beginning. And some prominent ex-MPs. But how did they win over four in every five MPs?
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The thing is that, whenever a party leader is elected there will be those who are delighted with the result, those who are disappointed and those who either feel they have a duty to make the outcome work, or who turn from the setting sun to the rising. A skilful leader will use preferment and demotion to draw the party around them. A high profile rival gets moved to a Great Office of state, another one is demoted to the back benches. Loyalists are promoted to key positions and the ambivalent are tied into posts where their stock will rise, or fall, with the new leader. Victories against the government, or the opposition, incline the disappointed to make peace with the new dispensation. Defeats incline loyalists to reconsider their position. Often a Willie Whitelaw figure will emerge - someone not obviously a supporter of the regime, or someone who might have cause to consider themselves a successor, who can persuade doubters to back the leader - Heseltine, Clarke, Prescott and Mandelson fulfilled this role for Major, Smith and Blair and Brown respectively.
Corbyn's problem has been that he is ideologically obnoxious to a large part of the Labour Party and that, in no wise, has he ever been regarded as being the rising sun. Observers of the doings of Parliament have generally speculated as to whether he would be forced out, hand over to another Corbynite in the course of the Parliament or get thumped in the 2020 General Election. So, quite simply, he has never had access to the sort of preferment a normal party leader has access to. Such access as he has had, has been squandered by alienating people who thought they had a duty to make it work. And he's never had a respected figure on another wing of the party to back him up - unless you count Mr Andy Burnham as respected. Oh, and the opinion polls have been a nightmare so he's never had the insurance policy Ed Miliband had of people having their doubts because getting on with it had the fairly strong implication that you would be in the Cabinet in the next few years.
Now you can whinge about this all you like but complaining that politicians are acting like politicians, or that the rules of political gravity are operating as usual is, frankly, a bit silly. In the event that the entirety of the PLP refuseniks stood down, and were replaced by card carrying members of Momentum; whilst they might cease to object to Corbyn's policies on ideological grounds they might think - he's not a very effective leader and he runs a rubbish comms operation - perhaps someone else might do better. And if they did better and I supported them then I might be elevated from junior spokesman for health to something more promising. "Ah, good evening Shadow Chancellor, I see another Council Election went to the Lib Dems last night and our polls are flatlining, it's a great shame that the media are focussing on that and not on your excellent economic policies which, only if they were better known, would be very popular in the country..."
--------------------
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
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.
I think his 'article 50' statement was, sadly, the deal breaker for many Labour voters/members who had, if a little equivocally, supported him. That plus the perception that he didn't campaign enough for Remain. I was desperate for Remain to win and I still hope that somehow we will not leave, but although I was horrified at his article 50 statement, I don't think much of the buck stops with Corbyn.
All we can hope for now is that he makes a better job of his likely second chance. I'm 50-50 on whether he will (or whether he will be allowed to, for that matter).
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Also making public announcements like the one where he stated that article 50 should be triggered now – no attempt to buy time, no attempt to communicate how it would be important for him to consult with his colleagues and map out a party wide response to the result. That and his poor campaigning on the referendum – I was horrified by how poor he was - led many to jump into the arms of the ‘plotters’.
I think his 'article 50' statement was, sadly, the deal breaker for many Labour voters/members who had, if a little equivocally, supported him. That plus the perception that he didn't campaign enough for Remain. I was desperate for Remain to win and I still hope that somehow we will not leave, but although I was horrified at his article 50 statement, I don't think much of the buck stops with Corbyn.
All we can hope for now is that he makes a better job of his likely second chance. I'm 50-50 on whether he will (or whether he will be allowed to, for that matter).
For me it wasn't so much that he didn't campaign enough, it was the quality of what he did. He avoided the main economic argument and on the one occasion he mentioned it, he undermined the remain position. Consequently, five economists (of the left), who are on his economic advisory team, wrote a letter making it clear just how much they felt he had let down the remain side.
Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence that his team didn't co-operate with the main campaign and at times seemed to be trying to sabotage it. What baffles me is why quite a few remainers want to defend him - it wasn't just his fault - but he was hopeless.
The argument that counters this is, Corbyn delivered more of the Labour vote than Cameron did with the Tory vote - a sign of how good his campaign was. This ignores the fact that Labour voters / members / MPs are generally a lot more pro-remain. Tory MPs were virtually split down the middle in terms of numbers. Two Tory ex-Chancellors were leavers as were most of the leave team leaders.
Corbyn's comments even this week, suggest that he really thinks Brexit will prove to be a blessing in disguise!
[ 15. September 2016, 22:36: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
I really think that too. As do many otherwise Labour-leaning people.
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
I voted remain, but that doesn't mean I can't see some advantages to not being constrained by EU rules e.g. on state aid. My major worry is that we'd also not be constrained by the working time directive and other rules that protect workers. I can see Brexit amplifying the positive effects of a socialist government and worsening the effects of a neo-liberal one. That said, if some of the reports I'm reading about trade rules post-Brexit are accurate we might well be screwed either way. Immediately after the vote I was leaning towards "respect the result and make the best of it"; now I'm starting to tilt towards "if these reports are accurate we need to row back ASAP".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I feel ambivalent about this rowing back thing. On the one hand, I think Smith's idea of a second referendum is very dangerous for Labour. I think it could produce a Scotland effect in some Labour areas, that is, Labour voters might feel extremely pissed off at the idea of overturning Brexit, and might quit Labour for good.
But then again, Corbyn is being rather mysterious about Brexit, and there are suggestions he favours it. Well, you can make that case, as I did above, we have to honour the referendum. But it's unclear what he does mean, there are even suggestions that he favours hard Brexit. This might be popular in some Labour areas, but not in others, e.g. London.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, I am wrong there. I just saw Corbyn's speech to Bloomberg, where he rejects hard Brexit, and WTO terms, and favours a Norway-type solution. Well, that's probably not gonna happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-favours-norway-model-post-brexit-a7309861.html
He can claim to reject hard Brexit but it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories - both of which seem to be instinctively anathema to him.
The less coherent the UK position, the harder the Brexit - or at least that is how it seems to me.
[ 16. September 2016, 11:20: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, again, Scotland has been a terrible lesson. Cameron was utterly toxic there, and appearing with him in Indyref, disembowelled Labour in Scotland.
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
But then again, Corbyn is being rather mysterious about Brexit, and there are suggestions he favours it. Well, you can make that case, as I did above, we have to honour the referendum. But it's unclear what he does mean, there are even suggestions that he favours hard Brexit. This might be popular in some Labour areas, but not in others, e.g. London.
I think that what we have to remember at this point is that we are in a phony war, with a popular vote and a government that says 'Brexit means Brexit', but no actual terms and conditions. So saying that hard Brexit will, or won't, be popular means very little until the consequences of Brexit start kicking in and affecting prices and jobs. ERM membership was very popular when it was first mooted in the 1980s, but it was significantly less so after the recession it caused.
Somebody recently, half-jokingly, suggested that it was most likely that Labour would come second but it was more likely that either UKIP or the Lib Dems would win than Labour, the reasoning being that if Brexit does go horribly wrong an unequivocally pro or anti EU party would be in a better position to capitalise than a divided or equivocal party. I think that there is some truth in that. We have, IMO, just signed up to commit an act of economic self-harm and when the nature and extent of that becomes apparent the political landscape will change markedly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though the UK does need to very rapidly develop a Brexit position from which to start negotiating with the EU and all the rest of our trading partners (which, IMO, is already at least six months too late - we needed that position before we voted in June - but, better late than never).
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, again, Scotland has been a terrible lesson. Cameron was utterly toxic there, and appearing with him in Indyref, disembowelled Labour in Scotland.
To pretend there is no common ground would be too timid in my view. Indeed it would be the very worst type of triangulation - 'we can't argue what we believe would be best because it might harm us'.
They should play on the fact that they are not primarily agreeing with the Tories but are agreeing with those left leaning economists that they appointed to Labour's advisory team and who have been highly critical of austerity policies. It just so happens that some Tories are agreeing with those economists on this issue - on this one issue some of the Tories are agreeing with the people who in fact are right.
I think it has got to be tried. As Callan suggests Labour need to position themselves so that they are in a position to take advantage of what is likely, in time, to be the Brexit fall out. You can't say 'we said that there would be long term economic problems' if you don't make the case and all you have banged on about is workers' rights.
[ 16. September 2016, 12:26: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop - activate Article 50 forthwith, don't activate it immediately, not wanting to be in the Single Market and then wanting to be in - whereas Smith wants to overturn the referendum* and talked about rejoining the EU, complete with Euro and Schengen agreement. Even the Lib. Dems have said that they accept the referendum result, but want membership of the Single Market and any final decision be put to the electorate. I'm not sure that looking simultaneously more Europhile and less canny than Tim Farron, at this juncture, exactly bespeaks the forensic intelligence that is going to humiliate Theresa May at the dispatch box.
*Personally, I think that this is no bad thing but I am just some dude on the interwebs, not the prospective leader of Her Majesty's Opposition who ought, at this juncture be making noises about "the best deal for Britain", "holding the Leavers to account" and "listening to the people".
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop
Aye, I'll probably agree about Corbyn struggling to find a message and stick to it. Though, he's far from unique in that.
I was mainly responding to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in. And, we can fault the Labour Party as a whole for not producing a statement of what the Opposition would be seeking (but, that's in large part a result of everyone there who has decided now is a good time to be divided), getting a coherent Opposition proposal together and beating the Government to it would send a strong "they couldn't organise a piss up in a distillary" message and give Labour a strong hand - instead Labour decided to enter the sobriety in the distillary competetion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in.
Surely, if you are going to critique the Government's position, you need to have your own position from which to critique it. Assume that The People Have Spoken and there is no going back. So what bits do you want to keep and what bits will you reluctantly get rid of? Access to the Single Market? The guarantee of rights of residence for EU nationals here and our people abroad? Free movement? Passporting? What levels of Tariffs and Non-Tariff barriers are acceptable? Und so weiter, as Frau Merkel would say. You can't just say that we will critique it, or not, as proposals arise, particularly as Mrs May (to borrow an apposite phrase from Mr Nicholas Soames) seems bent on conducting the whole thing in the spirit of a Witness Protection Scheme. The opposition, at the very least, is in a position much like C. S. Lewis in 'Surprised by Joy' when he realised that he had to take a philosophical position on certain things to critique the essays of his undergraduates. To put it another way, you can only criticise the Governments position on Brexit if you have some kind of provisional distinction between 'Good (or not completely disastrous) Brexit and Bad Brexit. And, to do that, you have to have some kind of idea what you, yourself, would do and what you, yourself, if you were in government. Particularly, if your USP, is that you are supposed to be a government in waiting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
However, we are also still a Parliamentary democracy with an Opposition as well as a Government. Therefore it's the job of the Government to produce such a policy, and for the Opposition to oppose it, to force the Government into revising (hopefully improving) the policy. That would include presenting a policy of their own. I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under the leadership of either Corbyn or Smith, should be doing anything else.
Theoretically, this is the case but in practice Corbyn has been all over the shop
Aye, I'll probably agree about Corbyn struggling to find a message and stick to it. Though, he's far from unique in that.
I was mainly responding to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
it seems to me that the only way we are going to get some sort of half decent deal is if there is a reasonable level of coherence to the UK position. This will mean compromise and quite possibly Labour finding common ground with at least some Tories
ie: it isn't the job of Labour as Opposition to develop a coherent UK position, that's the job of the Government. It's the job of the Opposition to then critique the Government position to work towards a better position. Yes, that will involve compromise on both sides, and finding common ground and forming some form of broad consensus. But, we can't fault Corbyn for not seeking that common ground at the moment when the Government position has yet to be defined. We can fault him for not putting the metaphorical boot into the Government for the slow progress in developing that position, and for the god awful mess the previous PM left things in. And, we can fault the Labour Party as a whole for not producing a statement of what the Opposition would be seeking (but, that's in large part a result of everyone there who has decided now is a good time to be divided), getting a coherent Opposition proposal together and beating the Government to it would send a strong "they couldn't organise a piss up in a distillary" message and give Labour a strong hand - instead Labour decided to enter the sobriety in the distillary competetion.
To be clear - I am not saying that he should be seeking to establish that common ground with the Tories now. I am saying he shouldn't be wary of building a coherent position that includes some of the arguments that the vast majority of remainers - including Tories - would agree with.
Of course that would actually mean him articulating some of the economic arguments he went to great lengths to avoid making in the election. And this was what so frustrated the economists who started off in his corner originally.
I largely agree with what you say, though I think the EU debate is somewhat different to normal politics and him mapping out the parameters of a strong left of centre position that many could agree with shouldn't be that hard - we all know the arguments having had the referendum.
ETA cross posted with Callan
[ 16. September 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely, if you are going to critique the Government's position, you need to have your own position from which to critique it.
Indeed. In particular, if you are going to critique the government's lack of position you need to have a position of your own.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.
I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where many equals 37% as against the 63% of Labour voters who voted to remain.
Didn't say majority.
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.
I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
Michael Heseltine took on Mrs Thatcher when the country was on the verge of going to war in the Middle East. If a member of the PCP had said, in her hearing, that it wasn't fair to expect her to keep her eye on the ball on the subject, because of a leadership election, she'd have handbagged him to death. Both candidates ought to be setting forth their response to Brexit and what the government should be looking to achieve in their negotiations, and the fact that neither has been able to do so adequately is deeply depressing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this - interested to know what others think.
Suppose last year's Labour leadership election had been won by someone who was not seen as effectively 'beyond the pale'. Say...Owen Smith.
Suppose Mr Smith then proceeded to make a series of gaffes, particularly ones that made him sound misogynistic, or that put him hot water over Brexit. For instance, instead of calling for article 50 to be initiated he might have said he didn't recognise the referendum as the vote was too close and that he wanted to make it Labour policy to reject Brexit and have another referendum.
Suppose this stance made him seem out of touch with a large section of the electorate, and his personal ratings were abysmal because the media had dubbed him gaffe-ridden and misogynistic (even though he probably wasn't the latter). Suppose Labour's polling ended up in the toilet and Smith was staggering about the studios making further Brexit and misogyny gaffes, his leadership skills were in question and everyone started to say Labour would not win an election under his leadership. Suppose also that the membership was leaving in droves and Labour was heading for financial problems again.
Do you think there would have been a 'coup', or even a vote of no confidence?
I think not because 1) Most members of the PLP agree with Owen Smith's politics and 2) Most of the media and establishment see him as 'one of them' and would not have harried him in the same way that they have harried Corbyn (and supporters). Smith's supporters would be viewed as 'normal people' so no need for the media to pounce.
I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
