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


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030519

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The knives are out, or rather even further out, for Jeremy Corbyn.

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

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

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

I saw much online coverage of corbyn doing stuff for remain - can anyone here rember Alan Johnson actually giving a remain speech, or Hilary Benn ? Iam sure it must have happened.

quote:
Rocinante posted:
I actually heard [Alan] Johnson doing a phone-in on Radio 4 and he was very good, giving factual and constructive answers to even the most hostile callers in his usual matey style.

I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

quote:
Doublethink posted:
There is now a claim he wasn't at the campaign launch circulating on twitter, supposedly sourced from someone working in labour communciations. Presumambly, they'd for gotten this photograph of the launch is findable through google:

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

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



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

The campaign would have functioned better if the plp were not also v obviously manourvering to oust him during the campaign.

quote:
Posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

Which also meant that no matter how well Corbyn (or anyone else) made the case for the EU based on the rights of workers etc, arguments that should appeal to the traditional Labour voter, those arguments were never going to be heard by the Labour voters he was appealing too. Which may be a result of poor press officers in his office, but it's also possible that the obsession in the press with the issues of the right and the Tory infighting would have made even the worlds greatest press team struggle to get his message reported.[/qb]
quote:
Posted by Doublethink:
Also he [Corbyn] did deliver 70% of the labour vote, realistically how much higher could that really be - if 70% of the entire country had voted either remain or leave we'd have been astonished.

(Apologies to anyone whose contribution I have overlooked.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He may indeed be a loser but right at present I do not know what a winner would look like. A Labour racist or fellow traveller is an oxymoron.

Precisely. I mean who would they have to replace him ? One of the Blairites who proved their electability by losing the leadership election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 26. June 2016, 18:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thoughts? Not just on Corbyn's performance in the referendum but in general

It seems that the Conservative Party has not only lost its leader but is also about to the lose its greatest asset for winning the next general election.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This is the out list' quoting BBC news:

quote:

Sacked: Hilary Benn, shadow foreign secretary

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



[ 26. June 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And the one that could have been is lying dead.

Since you mention her, Jo Cox had co-written a public letter in the Guardian asking Corbyn to get his act together and provide some leadership.

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

That was my point. She could have been our Nicola.

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

For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

if we believe we are.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
No she couldn't. Truly wonderful as she was. She couldn't. She was a new kid on the block. An MP for a year only. With 20 years experience, yes, loved and respected by at least one crusty Tory. But no.

Jeremy MUST reach out from his principled position.

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

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

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

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

Wow, what a rude and vindictive letter he wrote, blaming Corbyn personally for the failure of the Remain campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying it doesn't mean it is true. Under Corbyn, Labour are neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls - which hasn't happened for quite a while under different leaders - and he managed to mobilise the vast majority of labour voters and in particular young voters to back Remain.

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

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

Just saying it doesn't mean it is true. Under Corbyn, Labour are neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls - which hasn't happened for quite a while under different leaders - and he managed to mobilise the vast majority of labour voters and in particular young voters to back Remain.

This stuff which says he didn't perform and didn't turn up and didn't persuade any Labour voters is bollocks.

These are the same opinion polls which predicted that Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister and Vote Remain would win the Referendum.

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

Just to note that it's not clear that Corbyn did fail to carry the majority of his traditional supporters. The majority of Labour supporters did vote Remain. He just failed to carry enough traditional supporters.

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

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

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

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

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

1. You don't know best; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take some of the post election polling:

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

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

quote:

And, broadly speaking, you cannot claim that Corbyn did well enough if the object of the exercise was to keep us in the EU.

Assume only people who voted in the last GE voted in the referendum, in which case Corbyn would have to convince proportionally much more of his voters to vote Remain - simply because the majority of Tories were going to vote Leave by a significant margin. Of course in the event far more people were voting so there are a couple of further points to be made.

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

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

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

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

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


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

You may not like this, but until it fouled up over Iraq, Tony Blair and the administration he ran was rather a good one, and had a lot of popular acceptance.

Up to a point (and had he stayed out of Iraq he would may have retained popularity with middle England). However it wasn't because of the stance on the Iraq war that swathes of the North have now vote for Leave, is it?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doublethink, if that is Mr Corbyn's vision, the rest of us have no reason to suppose that is the case. He has signally failed to communicate it.

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


There isn't time to do this now. It's too late. We have a crisis. If he has a vision, he wants to win the public to, he should have been stating it in season and out of season since last autumn.

When there's an election, there'll be a manifesto. The reason I am saying a version of, is because politicians have been forming policy whilst we were in the eu, and expecting to remain in the eu. Every party's platform will have to be adjusted to fit brexit.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Basically Corbyn carried the voters about as well as Sturgeon carried hers.

This seems to be the case. The people Corbyn failed to carry are the working class "traditional Labour supporters" who voted UKIP in the last election.

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

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

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

Let alone so many of those sitting behind him.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Another three have resigned apparently, but the news isn't telling us who.

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

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

[ 27. June 2016, 07:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
From the beeb:

 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Legislation wise, if I were doing brexit I would aim to focus on negotiatiating the trade deals and EU relationship (which is going to be an involved nightmare in itself)

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

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

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

That's assuming that states and businesses will rush to make trade deals with us rather than wait till we've clarified our position and decided to actually leave. We're not exactly in a position of strength.

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

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

I would go along with that - with the modification 'who didn't *receive* much benefit from a New Labour government'.

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

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

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

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

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


He's not up to the job and he should piss off back to his allotment and his copies of the Collected Works Of Enver Hoxha

I'm not sure about you people, but this is exactly what I'll be doing whilst all of the idiots watch Rome/London burn.

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

quote:

I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos, you can’t play politics with people’s jobs and with people’s services or with their homes. Comrades, the voice of the people – not the people here; the voice of the real people with real needs – is louder than all the boos that can be assembled. Understand that, please, comrades. In your socialism, in your commitment to those people, understand it. The people will not, cannot, abide posturing. They cannot respect the gesture-generals or the tendency-tacticians.

The pound is at levels from the 1980s , and it seems the Labour Party is right back there too
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This is getting more than faintly ridiculous. Chris Bryant is claiming that Corbyn might have voted leave because he (Corbyn) didn't specifically tell him (Bryant) how he'd voted.

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


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

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

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

One of them might.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

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

One of them might.
No, they've both done a runner. What a time....
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
One thing we have discovered this morning is that the vast majority of the resigning MPs are unable to write a sensible and comprehensible letter.

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

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

One of them might.
No, they've both done a runner. What a time....
Ah, to lose one could be construed as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Annd he's started his reshuffle.

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

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

Bleakly amusing, that Jez decided to invoke that principle at this juncture.

Especially since he's already told Twitter he voted Remain.

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

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

quote:
Dear Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, as always, for your support.

Best wishes

Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds Central

I wish he'd stand as a candidate. He has a lot of support and he'd be a credible leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's wishful thinking. Under Corbyn Labour lost council seats, as a party of opposition, in the local elections for the first time since the miners strike and the UK have just voted to leave the EU. The idea that the nation is going to rally round him if only Hilary et. al. would have confidence in him is misplaced. If there is any chance of the EU referendum being turned around or a Labour government in the near future, he's got to go.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Alan Johnson, leader of the Labour In campaign, has shoved the boot right in. And 57 Labour candidates at the last election have signed a letter saying he should go as they don't get support for him on the doorstep.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
40 Labour resignations at the last count. Cameron is now making a statement in Parliament. The new Labour member for Tooting has just been sworn in and Cameron advised her to keep her mobile phone on because she could find herself in the shadow cabinet soon.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I have been told there is a suggestion that David Milliband might return from the US and stand for Jo Cox's seat. Has anyone else heard this?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I have been told there is a suggestion that David Milliband might return from the US and stand for Jo Cox's seat. Has anyone else heard this?

No, but I'd welcome him.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
I think if the unions hadn't been involved so much last time and David had got the top job instead of Ed, the very least there would have been was no Conservative majority in 2015. And quite possibly a Labour one. In either case, no stupid referendum....

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

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

Well I certainly agree with that.

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

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

I feel sad, as my family have been connected with Labour since the 1920s, but now the last remnants of the old gospel are being removed. Time for me to quit, I think.

The Blairites, such as they are, are largely on the back-benches. With the exception of Charlie Falconer everyone who has resigned or been sacked in the last two days is on the soft-left or the Brownite wing of the party.

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

Well I certainly agree with that.

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

They need to rebuild grass-roots support, but I'm not sure how.

I don't see how the Blairites/Brownites can do it, since they support neo-liberalism, which is the force which has decimated industry, communities, public services, and so on, and this has been going on for 40 years.

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

[ 27. June 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)

I'm sure you can find plenty of corporate sellouts that everyone hates who might manage to scrape over the line if the alternative is Donald Trump. I'd like to hope for something better in a Labour Party leader.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)

I'm not sure about Corbyn being inspiring; I just think he's one of the few Labour politicians who can forensically analyze neo-liberalism, and can also propose that the low-paid need a leg-up, and benefits should not be cut for the disabled, and so on.

Well, OK, that's not enough, but I don't see any Blairite or Brownite coming down the tracks, who can inspire anybody, or even make a few simple points. Rachel Reeves? My cat just laughed.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OK, do say Corbyn is our Sanders - inspiring to the idealistic but ultimately inadequately scheming and pliable. Who is our Hillary? (And definitely not the Benn. Backstabber.)

I'm sure you can find plenty of corporate sellouts that everyone hates who might manage to scrape over the line if the alternative is Donald Trump. I'd like to hope for something better in a Labour Party leader.
Sir Keir Starmer? He's only been an MP for a year and has just resigned as shadow Immigration Minister, however, he's well known as the former DPP. He's also very good looking.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
This is a serious situation for the Labour Party. It's likely that a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn will be carried. That the necessary 50 members will get behind another candidate and that the party will run a leadership election, which Corbyn will win again. This is because of the party's rotten to the core method of electing its leaders via the Trade Union vote. When Ed Miliband stood against his brother David, the parliamentary and constituency parties backed David, who would have been a much better candidate in every way, but Ed won because the Marxist dinosaurs who run the trade unions thought he would be redder.

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

Any party leader who doesn't have the support of his party in parliament should go. It's impossible for him to do his job in those circumstances. If Corbyn had one ounce of integrity and cared about the future of his party and his country he would see this and resign. Labour needs a leader who can represent his party in parliament and those who elect them. It should dump the union vote in electing its leaders and make the process democratic.

Mate, the Trade Union vote and the electoral college vote was nixed by Ed Miliband who changed the voting system. Basically everybody has to be nominated by a given number of MPs and then the whole thing is put to the vote of party members and registered supporters on an STV basis. Corbyn won because 35 numpties in the Parliamentary Party nominated him because they felt sorry for him or because they wanted to 'widen the debate' whereupon he promptly went and won. The point of the rule about nominations was that the candidates were supposed to have the backing of the Parliamentary Party before letting the members have a look at them. So Labour saddled themselves with someone who had no real support among MPs except on paper. The union barons would have probably supported the appalling Andy Burnham who, although bad, would not have been nearly as disastrous as Jez. So really, the object of the exercise is to ditch Corbyn. Given the parlous state the country is in at the moment I really don't think it matters whether Labour put two sane candidates up or do what the Tories did when they got rid of IDS and arrange for a coronation and a safe pair of hands. Whilst this may make purists clutch their pearls, I think we can probably live with it. Frankly, if we have learned anything from the last few days it is that voting is a seriously over-rated mechanism for decision making.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzlcoatl:
I find it incredible that with the Tories in disarray, the PLP should launch this attack right now. Well, they have probably been planning it since Corbyn was elected, and are using the referendum as a casus belli. But they are wrecking the Labour party.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80's. Veteran leftie Michael Foot was party leader and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Thatcher was Marmite. Loved by some, hated by many more. But she was never going to lose a General Election against Michael Foot. By the same token, Jeremy Corbyn, a natural successor to Foot is just as unelectible as he was, because the British public don't like extremist politicians from either side of the political spectrum. It was his election as leader, by a seriously flawed and outdated system that has wrecked the party. If they dump him they have a chance of rebuilding confidence before a General Election.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzlcoatl:
I find it incredible that with the Tories in disarray, the PLP should launch this attack right now. Well, they have probably been planning it since Corbyn was elected, and are using the referendum as a casus belli. But they are wrecking the Labour party.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80's. Veteran leftie Michael Foot was party leader and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Thatcher was Marmite. Loved by some, hated by many more. But she was never going to lose a General Election against Michael Foot. By the same token, Jeremy Corbyn, a natural successor to Foot is just as unelectible as he was, because the British public don't like extremist politicians from either side of the political spectrum. It was his election as leader, by a seriously flawed and outdated system that has wrecked the party. If they dump him they have a chance of rebuilding confidence before a General Election.
I'm old enough to remember rationing! If they dump Corbyn, that is a turn to the right, and the renewal of the love affair with neo-liberalism, which is the force which decimated industry, communities, jobs, public services, and so on.

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

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

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

I think perhaps it's more that we've been given some examples of the dangers of playing tactical games with voting.

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Liz Kendall [..] true socialists

Now, that is funny.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I still think you have to question whether an alternative would have worked.

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

Isn't Labour likely to end up as an excluded middle under the current (I.e. assuming a successful coup) trajectory?

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

However, all three would have allowed the parliamentary party to unite behind them, all three would have run a more professional comms operation, none of them would have had to explain away the business of having supported the IRA when they were murdering British troops, none of them would have had the business about would they or wouldn't they sing the National Anthem, and none of them would have spent the Brexit campaign equivocating like a motherfucker. So, yeah, Labour elected the worst possible candidate at the worst possible time. Things, as they say, can only get better.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Nobody who is in favour of keeping Citizen Corbyn in position as party leader has yet explained how the PLP can function when its leader doesn't have its support.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Which I suspect may explain why Labour is finished.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!

I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

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

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

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

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

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

Hobson's choice, I fear.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!

I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

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

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

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

Is it true that Skinner refuses to use e-mail because it puts postmen out of work?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Ironic how the plight of the Labour party seems to mirror that of the country as a whole right now, thrashing around desperately searching for a way out of a godawful mess of its own making.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Liz Kendall. [*] true socialists,

[Roll Eyes] That would be the same Liz Kendall who voted for the welfare cuts - under the Nicola Murray like strategy of 'lets find two policies from the opposition that we agree with'.

You may not like Macdonald, but his economic plan - which includes a set of strong policies around regional development is exactly the sort of thing that is needed to reverse the downward spiral of the depressed areas that have voted Leave over the long run.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I write, Jeremy Corbyn is on stage at a rally in his support. Supporting him are the odious John McDonald, the nutty Beast Of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott. That tells me all I need to know. He must go!

I can't speak for the other two, but as one of his constituents I can assure you that the Beast is most certainly no nut. He has a very clear no-nonsense view on things, although I disagreed with him (of course) on Brexit. Actually, you remind me, I intend to write to him because clearly he has a left-wing vision for a non-EU UK, and I'd like to know what it is. God knows we need an alternative to the Johnson-Farage vision.

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

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

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

Is it true that Skinner refuses to use e-mail because it puts postmen out of work?
I understand he's not keen on Email, but his reasoning there may be made half tongue in cheek. Having said that, the communication I've had from him has been paper.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
McDonnell has put in some impressive performances as shadow chancellor, after a shakey start. I'll forgive him for the little red book incident: it was a good joke but not the time or place. The problem is, I doubt the PLP would be any more accepting of him as leader.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Which I suspect may explain why Labour is finished.

Que?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
If Labour get rid of Corbyn, they have already recruited their last member. There is no appetite among the membership for a rehash of neo-liberalism.

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

Hobson's choice, I fear.

For the love of mike, what does neo-liberal even mean in this context?

We are on the verge of a national catastrophe. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not up to the job. I have no idea whether anyone else is but it would be fairly difficult to appoint someone who would be worse.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Another neo-liberal leader might save the brand, but it would kill the movement.

Perhaps it's time for a split. It happened after Foot took over the party and the Gang of Four quit. A split between social democrats and the neo totalitarianism of Corbyn's vision. I speak as someone who loathes everything Corbyn stands for. Of course last time Labour regained it's liberal social democracy and the Gang of Four were subsumed into the Liberal Party. But who knows now?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, a man can dream can't he?

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

If Labour is going to actually hold onto power and itself at the same time, it needs to remember that its power comes from serving, not from lip service, patronising and betrayal.

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

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

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

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


We are on the verge of a national catastrophe. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not up to the job. I have no idea whether anyone else is but it would be fairly difficult to appoint someone who would be worse.

Ed Milliband wasn't up to the job either. They can't afford a third mistake. It has to be someone who could win the next election and that means someone who looks and sounds like a world leader and not just a Labour party leader. I can see Keir Starmer having that kind of appeal. I happen to like Hilary Benn too.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Right, let me be a little clearer.

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

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

What we need is someone fundamentally different who, for example, is sceptical about austerity and the prioritisation of corporate interests that it represents, will not use every opportunity to make money for their little friends in public/private partnerships, and generally behaves as if they might know what society actually is.

Oh, FFS, these words all mean something. He wasn't a Thatcherite. He fought Thatcherites in three general elections and beat them handsomely. He wasn't a monetarist. It's an economic doctrine which was pursued by Sir Geoffrey Howe and then quietly abandoned after the 1983 election. He was comparatively right-wing for a Labour leader but he wasn't really a One Nation Tory, either.

Broadly speaking, if you don't like austerity, the main thing to do is to stop Incitatus and Gove in their tracks. If you don't like Public-Private Partnerships, well, I sympathise, but that's really not a priority at present. You may not like corporate interests but, trust me, at the moment the City of London are on our side and if you care about society and solidarity then, presumably, you want the racists who have emerged from under their stones in the last few days to be driven back there. The odds are against us but with a Labour Party led by someone who can appeal to a broader constituency than Momentum we might be in with a chance. But if you are going to define the political spectrum between socialist virtue incarnate in Mr Corbyn and everyone else you can watch everything burn whilst congratulating yourself on your ideological purity. Your call.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Trust me, our children cowering in the backs of lorries where they will be smuggled into Scotland to work as hop-pickers will look back on the reign of Good King Tony as a halcyon era compared to what is to come unless the Labour party is led by someone credible. Which part of this is a national emergency are people currently struggling with?

This is exactly the point. More than a decade after Blair disgraced himself over Iraq, it's easy to forget that he was one of the most popular and successful Prime Ministers of all time. Corbyn never could be, because his brand of socialism, while it may appeal to a certain group, even some represented on this thread, is fundamentally opposed to the naturally liberal tendencies of the British people. Right wing columnist Peter Hitchens often complains that there's hardly any difference between Blair and Cameron. In many ways that's what the British people want. The days of Labour or Tories getting 50% of the vote are long gone.They now get in the 20's. No political consensus will ever form around a politician like Corbyn. Labour needs an electable leader.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You are going to get competing visions of the future, Johnson and co want us to become more like America, Farage and co want us to become a protectionist state with a privileged dominant culture closer to how Australia or New Zealand operate and I think Corbyn's version would be something like Norway's social organisation.

I'd much rather we be like Australia or New Zealand than America or Norway. Way to make Farage sound like the desirable choice!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Those of us on the side of the dreamers and idealists say rather that it is our job to show that our dream is not impossible, that we can do better, and that it's worth voting for the dream because it can be achieved.

I don't object to Mr Corbyn because I think he's idealistic or impractical. I object to him because I think he's incompetent.


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

Those of us on the side of the dreamers and idealists say rather that it is our job to show that our dream is not impossible, that we can do better, and that it's worth voting for the dream because it can be achieved.

I don't object to Mr Corbyn because I think he's idealistic or impractical. I object to him because I think he's incompetent.
But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.


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

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

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

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

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

I love the way that neoliberal means Blairite.

There are a fairly large number of people who would say that the two terms have large areas of overlap.

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

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

I agree that in the present particular set of circumstances a Blair like figure is preferable to either Johnson or Gove, but there really is no one around with that combination of talent, charisma and drive. (Most of the current crop lack the first two, and the other Milliband seems to lack the last, if his subsequent movements are anything to judge by).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.

FWIW, I think his opponents in the leadership election must take some responsibility for running a joint campaign of 'Corbyn will make us unelectable', instead of 'This is why his ideas are wrong and ours are better'.
quote:
It was pretty hot on cynicism though. All that banging on about unelected bureaucrats. But I wasn't really thinking about the EU referendum here. More the general tenor of UK politics of late.
There seems to be a widespread opinion that all facts and statistics are manipulated for political purposes and that all experts have an axe to grind. Which leads to a weird mix of cynicism and idealism - no point arguing about trade figures because economists don't know what they're talking about, but we can vote out to satisfy some nebulous ideal of 'taking control'.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] But many did. Perhaps you're one of the dreamers.

FWIW, I think his opponents in the leadership election must take some responsibility for running a joint campaign of 'Corbyn will make us unelectable', instead of 'This is why his ideas are wrong and ours are better'.

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

172 votes against Jeremy Corbyn
40 in support
4 abstentions

Chief Whip and PLP Leader talking with Jeremy Corbyn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a leadership election be forced or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then they indulge in this massive tantrum - as if it had anything to do with the referendum.

Yes, the referendum is an excuse, since as I said above, Labour voters voted Remain in the same proportion as SNP.

It is ironic that the right wing should immobilize Labour, just as the Tories are in disarray. I guess they will blame Corbyn for that as well. It reminds me of those famous marital arguments, you made me hit you!
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Well then. If they pick and nominate a candidate, and Corbyn wins again, what will happen after that? Will they secede and form SDP Mark II?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well then. If they pick and nominate a candidate, and Corbyn wins again, what will happen after that? Will they secede and form SDP Mark II?

That is the ball-breaker, I guess. I think it's a ghastly historical reminder of what happens to split-away parties. They become remnants, and the Tories prosper.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Possibly, some will defect - partly because the lib dems are going to campaign for remain and partly because they'll fear deselection by the local parties if he wins. Some may say sod this and resign triggering by elections.

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

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

How can HM Opposition carry on under Jeremy Corbyn if he has insufficient MP's to fill his cabinet? If he goes to the Labour Party membership and wins - what then?
It's so stupid. He's got to go.

What is stupid is that half the shadow cabinet couldn't stand Corbyn, and were probably plotting against him from the time he was elected. Maybe they should go.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think we can cope without a shadow leader of the house for a couple of weeks.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Maybe this whole Labour crisis is a clever wheeze to get the Tories to call a snap GE.

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

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

Labour. You've fucked up again.

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

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

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

How can HM Opposition carry on under Jeremy Corbyn if he has insufficient MP's to fill his cabinet? If he goes to the Labour Party membership and wins - what then?
It's so stupid. He's got to go.

What is stupid is that half the shadow cabinet couldn't stand Corbyn, and were probably plotting against him from the time he was elected. Maybe they should go.
Well, that sure would give us a Tory government for ever.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Has a party leader ever managed to carry on after losing a no-confidence vote as badly as 172:40? Like him or not, it's a pretty overwhelming result.

But what does it change? Everyone knew that the plp didn't like Corbyn. Watch PMQs, and see the Blair/Brownites glowering behind him, or next to him.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't know about that. There is a massive political realignment going on - it is by no means clear which party will end up strongest long term.

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

Well, it's FPTP that screws it up. Otherwise, smaller parties would get a decent number of MPs, and you would get coalitions.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If someone can survive the kind of rebellion that Corbyn is currently undergoing then whose to say he doesn't possess the necessary character to lead the country through these difficult times?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If someone can survive the kind of rebellion that Corbyn is currently undergoing then whose to say he doesn't possess the necessary character to lead the country through these difficult times?

It's positively Churchillian!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What is amusing in a sort of dark way, is that some of the right-wing are complaining about chaos in the party. Yes, you've brought it on with your plotting.

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

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

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


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

Constituency MPs represent everyone in their constituencies, so they hear stuff at grass roots level, not just activist level. Maybe some are just running scared about an early election? But I'm sure that's not all of the 172. I think many of them really believe the party is in real trouble.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.

Me neither. I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about. I've written to all my local Labour Party MSPs (I know they don't have a vote) and MEPs to add another one to the pile in Corbyn's favour.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's civil war time in the Labour Party. There will be an leadership election. And this is a lot more complicated than some kind of binary New Labour v Old Labour battle.

Constituency MPs represent everyone in their constituencies, so they hear stuff at grass roots level, not just activist level. Maybe some are just running scared about an early election? But I'm sure that's not all of the 172. I think many of them really believe the party is in real trouble.

But they've been itching for a fight agin Corbs, haven't they? First, the by-election results would be bad, then the local elections would be bad, ah, here we are, the referendum results are bad. Just as the Tories completely fuck up.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about.

Ah, yes, how unlike Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'd also like to come back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There were always people who weren't voting for Labour in those 'traditional Labour heartlands', and at some point those constituencies also had about 5-10% polling for the BNP (when UKIP arrived that percentage magically disappeared). So your point actually seems to be around "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault”.

Except that Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Interestingly The Canary is reporting that the attempt to oust Corbyn is being managed by Portland Communications.

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

[ 28. June 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'd also like to come back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There were always people who weren't voting for Labour in those 'traditional Labour heartlands', and at some point those constituencies also had about 5-10% polling for the BNP (when UKIP arrived that percentage magically disappeared). So your point actually seems to be around "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault”.

Except that Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.
This really doesn't follow. What we know, is they voted out.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Canary were reporting in March that a plot was brewing in the summer. The plotters needed a casus belli, and they have found a rather feeble one, only 64% of Labour voters voted Remain. Under Dan Jarvis, that would be 65%!

[ 28. June 2016, 17:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It seems to be a link between Portland Communications & the Fabians.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Mr Corbyn's USP is supposed to be that he has something to offer these marginalised and disadvantaged comunities. The evidence of the referendum would suggest he hasn't or they're not interested.

This really doesn't follow. What we know, is they voted out.
What we know is that he didn't persuade them. It's quite likely that Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tom Watson or Angela Eagle wouldn't have perduaded them either, but none of those people are sold to us as The Only One Who Can Connect With The Disaffected And Marginalised.
quote:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either.
Constituents elect representatives, not delegates. An MP is elected because they are judged to be the best person to make decisions on behalf of their electorate. (And most of them were elected under Miliband, which prima facie implies their constituents want a Milibandish rather than a Corbynist party.)

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

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

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

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

Quite. They screwed up at the point where a bunch of the PLP decided to nominate Corbyn (a man they didn't want to be the leader) because they thought that there should be a candidate from the party's left, because it would give a better impression when their preferred candidate won.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we may see, from this referendum, are loser party ties across the house.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Could somebody who doesn't share my opinion of Jeremy Corbyn please explain something I'm not understanding. With such huge odds against him in the PLP, how does he propose to function as Leader of the Opposition? It's quite possible he could get elected again by the party's ridiculous voting methods, though I'm far from convinced he would, but until the local parties have rooted out all moderates and replaced them with Corbynistas, these are the people he needs to work with. His members. And they've made it clear they won't work with him. So why won't he resign? I suspect that he's like all extremists. Give them a whiff of power and you can never get rid of them. He's a disgrace.

I think the hope is that if he kicks the backside of their chosen challenger, the PLP might stop behaving like spoiled children and get on with doing their jobs. The members of the Labour Party elected Jeremy Corbyn and in the process rejected the "brightest and best" the so-called moderates could come up with. If the PLP can't stop being petulant little cry-babies then they can resign their seats and fight as independents and we'll see how they do without a red rosette. HINT: most of them won't make it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, in the Oldham by-election, the Labour majority went up. But Oldham voted Leave, so here we have a contradiction apparently. But I think it's quite complex, not just about immigration.

There are plenty of Corbyn supporters who voted leave - there's a strong tradition of left euro-scepticism going back to Tony Benn who see the EU as a rich man's club. I think support for Remain is pretty much orthogonal to support for Corbyn.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the hope is that if he kicks the backside of their chosen challenger, the PLP might stop behaving like spoiled children and get on with doing their jobs.

The Labour Party is in danger of collapse and fragmentation. Perhaps it's not the PLP which needs to behave, but the man who's ego is causing this problem.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
You really think this has anything to do with his ego ?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If Jeremy Corbyn is such a winner, why do you think most Tories want him to stay?

After the events of the last few days, are you seriously suggesting that the UK Tories are actually competent thinkers?
[Paranoid]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well firstly he appoints to the main cabinet posts - which he has largely done. Then they do their jobs. Whilst there are divisions in the plp, they still have a lot in common policy wise. If the tories, for example, tried to move to a health insurance model of the NHS (which the main leavers are quite pro) they will try to vote it down.

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

What we may see, from this referendum, are loser party ties across the house.

This is all getting a bit "When Gruppenfuhrer Steiner breaks through the Russian divisions in Berlin tomorrow the tide of the war will be turned".

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 28. June 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
... far too many current MPs are legacy Blairites, out of sympathy with where Corbyn has been trying to take the party. ...

It isn't just that. To lead a party in the Commons, you have to form a cabinet round you, and carry them along with you, even though you will always know that when things go wrong, one, at least, of them will stab you in the back.

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

Irrespective of ideology, if you cannot carry your party in the House and assemble a Cabinet which will serve, you will not be able to lead your party. The game is up. Being able to depends on some mysterious blend of acceptance, confidence, and even charisma - but possibly not too much of the latter. If you are reduced to saying 'you've all got to follow me because I'm the Leader', you aren't.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Cross-post]
Jeremy Corbyn's 'mandate' [..] a fudge thought up by Mr Miliband so that Mr Cameron would stop making nasty comments about his dependency on the unions.

If you remember, Mr. Corbyn won almost 60% of the total vote in the first, and therefore only, voting round. He won with large majorities amongst both the affiliates and the three quid specials, and came within a hair of winning an outright majority in the first round amongst Labour party members.

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

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

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

It's true that he doesn't enjoy much support amongst the parliamentary party. You can lay the blame for that firmly at the feet of numpties such as Harriet Harman, Emily Thornberry, Frank Field and Chi Onwurah, who nominated a person they did not want to be the leader. If people like that hadn't nominated him, he'd never have even been on the ballot.

Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.

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

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

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

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

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

Just as I did on Scottish Independence.

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

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

Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.

I don't think this is just because he's lacking in leadership. It's because the PLP isn't buying what he's selling. They have never wanted someone with his politics as leader, and they're itching to ditch him and get back to New Labour.

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

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

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

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

(I saw the leadership candidates live in the Any Questions audience last August. Corbyn came over as thoughtful and considerate, Burnham appeared to be changing what he said to adapt to the audience and as trustworthy as one of the leaders of the Leave campaign.)
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It also feels as if the popular press has done their best to bring Corbyn down. The stories that have been published ever since he was elected as Labour leader have found any reason to give him a negative spin.

There are suggestions that some of the current events are a bit astroturfy (particularly with Alistair Campbell's company). And given the clear bias shown it's hard to tell if they are conspiracy theories, or not. The Canary you'd expect to be biased the other way.

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

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

Fair comment, but he's had 9 months to marshall his Cabinet and MPs, inspire them and get them following him. He doesn't seem to have managed it. It isn't enough for to say 'they ought to follow him'. They aren't doing.

I don't think this is just because he's lacking in leadership. It's because the PLP isn't buying what he's selling. They have never wanted someone with his politics as leader, and they're itching to ditch him and get back to New Labour.

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

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

I think the bulk of the PLP thinks that Corbyn is so unelectable that he could even lose the next election...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sensible thing for the plp to do if they thought the remain campaign badly fought would have been to approach Corbyn with a plan for a much more effective press team.

I was wondering about Chilcott coming up - I would think that the Blairites are nervous about their Main Man being criticized. Further, the prospect of Corbyn condemning Blair in the Commons, isn't too cosy.

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

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

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

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

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

[ 29. June 2016, 08:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is precisely fuck all evidence they consulted either their constituents or their local parties on this either. It's not as if they don't have the contact lists, I've had several Labour Party emails since the referendum result including one from my local labour mp. Nothing asking what I think about this.

Me neither. I think a few of them spoke to their chosen chums, or were selective about what they picked out of their inbox to care about. I've written to all my local Labour Party MSPs (I know they don't have a vote) and MEPs to add another one to the pile in Corbyn's favour.
I hesitate to point this out but we have, in the space of the last couple of months, had a Local Election campaign, followed by a bloody great referendum. So it's quite possible that MPs have knocked on a few doors lately and its also not outwith the bounds of likelihood that one or two members of the demos have expressed themselves freely on the subject of Mr Corbyn and, bear with me here because this will blow your mind, it's possible that they were not entirely complimentary on the subject of his leadership. So, i'm guessing that it's possible that this might go a bit further than the conventional wisdom of the Westminster bubble.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but the Blair/Brownites really fought hard for the EU - just look at their constituencies, where tons of people voted Remain. <sarcasm>
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have never voted Labour and I probably never would, but to me the great value of Corbyn was that he really never wanted to do the job.

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

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

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

Surely if he doesn't want the bloody job, he should step down in favour of someone who does. He's Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not a bored local councillor attending a dull civic function.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely if he doesn't want the bloody job, he should step down in favour of someone who does. He's Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not a bored local councillor attending a dull civic function.

Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I suspect that the problem we have is this. The Labour party is a coalition: it has the trades union connection, a wider political movement among the non-unionised public and the parliamentary party as its major constituents. Corbyn is effective among the first two, but not among the third. Hitherto, the party has cared about the first and the third, and allowed the second to fall where it may. Corbyn has demonstrated that the party can be revived as a whole by connecting with the public outside the unions, and with the unions themselves. However, to be effective in participating in parliament, the leader needs to have the confidence of the parliamentary party. This is where Corbyn is not effective. This is part a result of timing: far too many current MPs are legacy Blairites, out of sympathy with where Corbyn has been trying to take the party. The party as a whole belongs neither to the leader nor to the PLP. The conundrum is clear; the solution isn't.

Interesting analysis. I think your point about legacy Blairites (and Brownites) is quite apt, and Corbynistas points out that many of them were parachuted in by Nu Labour.

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

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

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

Mind you, perhaps he was expecting the next election to be in 2020...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it.

Examples?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.

The second sentence is probably true, but the first sentence is I think false. Nobody puts their heart into a job they don't want to do and don't like.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If Corbyn were the decent and honourable man referred to at the beginning of this thread, he'd now do whatever is necessary to call a new election for leader of the PLP.

Your assumption of what is morally correct here is based on the result you would prefer.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director and soon afterwards three quarters of employees can't work with him/her, should that managing director step down?

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

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

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

If a new manager was appointed to your team and three quarters of your team couldn't work with them, whose problem would that be?

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

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

If a new manager was appointed to your team and three quarters of your team couldn't work with them, whose problem would that be?

Well, if the charity supporters still had enormous support for the stated aim of the leader....
In this instance the charity is out of touch with the British people, losing donations at an alarming rate, and facing an existential crisis.

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

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

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

However, she had apparently been advised by the police to avoid public places after a referendum backlash, so perhaps it's understandable in her case.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He doesn't have my PERMISSION to go.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Labour's MEPs have come out against him. So he won't get the nominations if there's a challenge. So it goes to the NEC...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Such sadness in all of this. I'm as much grieved by what is happening to the Labour Party (my lifelong political home) as I was by the referendum result.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....

Which is totally not this situation.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sometimes the best person to do a job is the one who didn't want it, doesn't like it, wouldn't choose it. And the very worst is the one who thinks he was born to do it.

I beg to disagree. When it comes to being the leader of the nation, who may have to make decisions that would likely reduce most of us to quivering, jelly-like blobs of terrified irresolution, you probably want someone in the post whose ego can stand up to this extreme pressure. I don't want to be PM or leader of the opposition. I don't for a moment believe that this qualifies me in any way for those positions.

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

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

Watson has apologised to the nation.

The Conservatives must be utterly unable to believe their luck. What an utter, utter, utter shambles.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Such sadness in all of this. I'm as much grieved by what is happening to the Labour Party (my lifelong political home) as I was by the referendum result.

Yes, I feel sad. Also angry at the MPs for producing such chaos, just as the Tories are in the shit. Why have they done it?

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

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

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

If Labour goes back to New Labour, over and out. My local Greens are more left-wing than that.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....

Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another point - everybody knew a plot was coming down the line, but why now? I think the right wing were anticipating that by-elections or local elections would trip Corbyn up, but that didn't happen, so the referendum gave them their chance. Apparently, the vote of members, who selected him, is meaningless now. They will probably elect a leader such as Eagle, and change the rules, so that members don't select the leader. Brave new world.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....

Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
If I take your examples I'd go for the choir director. The Annual Meeting and the PCC have a vision for where the church music ought to go, and have put in a choir director in tune (sorry) with that vision, but the choir don't like it. They had actually put him/her up as as sop to that POV about the church's music, but believed the person to be unappointable, and were expecting one of the more acceptable (to them) candidates to be appointed. To their shock, however, the PCC following consultation with the Annual Meeting have now appointed that person.

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that, despite the supposed benefits of a middle class upbringing and a public school education, Mr Corbyn isn't actually that bright.

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The Conservatives must be utterly unable to believe their luck. What an utter, utter, utter shambles.

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

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

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

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks.

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

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

Hang on in there. Gruppenfuhrer Steiner is definitely going to be hitting the Red Army any time soon. Now we will see how these Communist cowards deal with the might of the Waffen SS.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The longer Corbyn hangs on the more impressive he looks. He understands what his Westminster conditioned MPs do not. Namely that last week's shock result was largely a People's Revolt. A revolution that is seeking a genuine leader of people.

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

Last week's result was not a shock to any of us who spend much time in the sort of areas that voted to leave. The People who Revolted were Revolting about immigration, rightly or wrongly. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn, who doesn't want any controls at all on immigration, is the natural leader of these people is completely risible.

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

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

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.

Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

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

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

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

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.

Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

If they genuinely believed he should go, someone should have launched a leadership challenge. The process is not difficult. But instead they have indulged in this shambolic pantomime. How fucking dare they ?

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

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

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

There is evidence that this mass resignation event has been partially organised by Portland Communications which is company with links to the Blairite wing of the party.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody knows that the plp have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. They never wanted him, they were out to get him, and were hoping that there would be a bad by-election or local election, so they could nail him. It's like the fucking Mafia.

So, Corbyn is entirely blameless and everything is the fault of the 172 MPs who have no confidence in him?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Correct.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Blairites are already talking about a split - I bet they have planned this all along. Another fucking SDP, for God's sake, just when the Tories are on the ropes. Unbelievable.

[ 29. June 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody knows that the plp have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. They never wanted him, they were out to get him, and were hoping that there would be a bad by-election or local election, so they could nail him. It's like the fucking Mafia.

So, Corbyn is entirely blameless and everything is the fault of the 172 MPs who have no confidence in him?
FFS, I had bosses who were complete nutters, and others who were just bizarre, or completely different from me, but I found a way to work with them. The Blairites are running for their lives, and will even split to get their way.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doublethink

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

These aren't crocodile tears from Margaret Beckett.

Yes, it's upsetting. Have you any idea how angry we are with the plp ? We voted for this man, and the majority of them have spent his entire tenure actively trying to undermine his leadership.

If they genuinely believed he should go, someone should have launched a leadership challenge. The process is not difficult. But instead they have indulged in this shambolic pantomime. How fucking dare they ?

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

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

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

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

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

Did those volunteers know that they were campaigning for backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi at the time, and if so, why did they do it? Or have they only just turned into backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi, and, if so, what could have brought about such an astonishing plummet into moral degradation?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.

Well, without Tony Blair, the Labour Party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since 1966. I think they've probably got a better claim to be winners.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Lots of rumours about Chilcott being behind this, which I don't believe. The idea being that the right wing don't want Corbyn getting up to denounce Blair et al. Well, he's going to do that anyway, whether leader or not.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I guess I have to ask. Assume that the 170-odd MPs who voted against Mr Corbyn are backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi.

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

Did those volunteers know that they were campaigning for backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi at the time, and if so, why did they do it? Or have they only just turned into backstabbing egomaniacal mafiosi, and, if so, what could have brought about such an astonishing plummet into moral degradation?

Well, the other story going around is that some of the right wing fear deselection, if there's a quick election.

Some of the Blairites were parachuted in, I don't know about the Brownites. And some of them, believe it or not, had Leave majorities in their constituencies. Of course, that's Jeremy's fault.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzelcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.

Why not? They won middle England in 1997 for the first time since Atlee.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
I do kind of feel that the PLP has shot itself in the foot by being more anti-Corbin than concerned about opposing the current 'austerity' programme...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzelcoatl:
Do they seriously think that another New Labour is going to win back the Leave voters and the UKIP voters, and the council estates? No way.

Why not? They won middle England in 1997 for the first time since Atlee.
Well, there you are, you can vote Angela Eagle now.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
This isn't about middle England.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Doublethink:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:
There is evidence that this mass resignation event has been partially organised by Portland Communications which is company with links to the Blairite wing of the party.
Oh, FFS, the Canary is not a reputable news organisation and the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party are presumably able to use telephones and e-mail like the rest of us without some Blairite Svengali telling them what to do.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This isn't about middle England.

Oh Martin. We do this with Middle England or Boris does. We do not have time for experiments with Baroque neo-Bennery.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This isn't about middle England.

Whatever you may think of Blair, he was certainly electable, at least in 1997. After 18 years of the Tories, he swept to power bringing with him a euphoric brave new world. I was never happier with a decision of the electorate in my life. Winning middle England contributed to his landslide victory, though to be fair, he polled a million less votes than John Major did in 1993. With Labour in meltdown in Scotland, Labour has a mountain to climb to win a UK general election and Corbyn's appeal is too narrow to carry it off.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
But has anyone else got broader appeal?

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

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

At least interest in politics hasn't died out....
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If Corbyn were the decent and honourable man referred to at the beginning of this thread, he'd now do whatever is necessary to call a new election for leader of the PLP.

Your assumption of what is morally correct here is based on the result you would prefer.
Well of course I have no dog in this fight. But Corbyn was as clearly unelectable as so many Labor leaders here. Take for example Bill Hayden - a lovely man, decent, honourable and a loyal deputy. A hard worker who was popular with his department, and on top of his material. Respected by the general public. But totally unelectable as leader of the country.

I don't know how many of these qualities Corbyn has, but what he does have is the image of Michael Foot revived. If you want to get the Tories out, you need someone else.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally supported by Gee D:
I don't know how many of these qualities Corbyn has, but what he does have is the image of Michael Foot revived. If you want to get the Tories out, you need someone else.

This is the very point. When Michael Foot was leader of the Labour Party, he and it were unelectable. There was a split involving the "Gang of Four." This was when Thatcher was in power and we had 3 million unemployed! Despite this, she was never likely to lose to Foot. Neil Kinnock began to rebuild the party. When John Smith became leader, for the fist time in 15 years, the party began to look like a credible opposition. Blair's massive win in 1997 was the result of that long process.

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

At least interest in politics hasn't died out....

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

Corbyn could be our generation's Atlee.

Has donned optimist hat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ed. of

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

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

Oooh and RIGID fishing limits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Stop Press, further to the exciting report that the Eagle has landed! Now, there has been a slight delay, and we would like to report that the Eagle is stranded! Web-cams are available now, to see how she takes off again.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But most of the MPs were very unhappy about it because he's considered very left wing. (Though from a historical perspective he's fairly moderate.)

I'd like to come back to this because it's been bugging me for a few days. On the one hand, Mr Corbyn is the only hope of the socialist left and a standard-bearer in the fight against neo-liberalism - and on the other hand, he's not all that radical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.

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

Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. The Momentum activist who attacked her verbally at that event needs to be given their marching orders.

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

But you lied. End of.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Steady q. Callan has a disposition with some facets that are more amusing than others.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If he can't make a simple point about anti-semitism without upsetting the Chief Rabbi, he's bloody incompetent. End of. For those of you who skipped history there is a reason that Jews tend to be a bit touchy about this sort of thing and it isn't because they are all admirers of Tony Blair.

But you lied. End of.
OK, this is the quote, via the Guardian. Originally posted by Jeremy Corbyn:

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

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

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

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

I think that neither is the case but I await your detailed apologetic with eager anticipation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, there you go. Prepared remarks. He sat down, wrote this down, shared it with his comms team. They presumably said, good stuff Jeremy, that will knock them dead. Now you can say, if you want, that this is obviously not anti-semitic. As one Gentile to another, you may be right. We don't blame Muslims for Al Qaeda, or IS, or Saudi Arabia or Iran any more than we blame Jews for the actions of Israel or the Likud Party. But, do you know, most Jews (and generally the majority of reasonable Gentiles) don't think that the actions of Israel, in most cases, and the actions of the Likud Party in a lot of cases are entirely comparable to the actions of Al Qaeda IS, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Nobody said they were. If you bothered to read the speech rather than the knee-jerk responses to it, you'll see that he was saying that nobody should be judged on-bloc. If you have a problem with Israel, don't take it out on Jews. If your stomach is turned by IS, don't try having a pop at the nearest Muslim.

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

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


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

It appears that an activist suggested that Ms Smeeth was somehow beholden to the right-wing press. Ms Smeeth said that this was an example of anti-semitism.

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

quote:
I can only assume that the Chief Rabbi hasn't actually read the speech. Which is fair enough when nobody else has either.

I think, call me dangerously radical, that it must be possible to give a speech about anti-semitism which does not lead to the Chief Rabbi of the UK getting a bit upset. If we could find such a person they might make a reasonably good Leader of the Opposition. Let's face it we have an annual Holocaust Memorial Day upon which plenty of Civic non-entities manage to suggest that anti-Semitism is a bad thing without annoying the Chief Rabbi. I'm somewhat boggled that Corbyn managed to fuck it up.

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

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

Yeah, funny how everything he is saying is being twisted and misquoted today, isn't it. I can't imagine why that could be.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


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

It appears that an activist suggested that Ms Smeeth was somehow beholden to the right-wing press. Ms Smeeth said that this was an example of anti-semitism.

Explain to me how this is Corbyn's responsibility even if it is proved to be an anti-Semitic incident.

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

The problem with this comparison is that it's rather like invoking the Third Reich as a comparison in a discussion. Just don't do it, even if the trains did run on time.

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

[ 30. June 2016, 21:06: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Well it was a Momentum activist at a Press Conference organised by Corbyn. Going out on a limb here but if I was to give a Press Conference on the evils of anti-semitism and one of my congregation had a go at a Jew in the vicinity, I'd probably feel that I'd let the side down if I didn't tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up.

Sorry, a critic of Corbyn was accused by a Momentum activist of being beholden to the right-wing press. Now, that might not be correct, but there is clearly a view that Labour parliamentarians and the press are out to destroy Corbyn.

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

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

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

It wasn't like that. Read the damn speech.

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

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

Right, OK he has denied being a Momentum activist. He was an activist.

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

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

Yeah, funny how everything he is saying is being twisted and misquoted today, isn't it. I can't imagine why that could be.
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?

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

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

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

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

I think that neither is the case but I await your detailed apologetic with eager anticipation.

What treatment mate? She'd sold out to the Torygraph. No? Wadsworth DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS JEWISH. And IS NOT A MEMBER OF MOMENTUM. No that either matter.

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

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

Incidentally, does anyone want to address my point about competence. IF THERE WAS A CREDIBLE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!

What antisemitic abuse? What incompetence? It's all in the eye mate.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I would tentatively venture to suggest that if you make a comment that gives non-vicarious offence, then by definition that comment is offensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then later in the article we read this

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

A later tweet from Ruth Smeeth says this

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

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

I've read the damn speech.

quote:

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations. Nor should Muslims be regarded as sexist, antisemitic or otherwise suspect, as has become an ugly Islamophobic norm. We judge people on their individual values and actions, not en masse.”

Like I said, he is technically correct. If you analyse his speech as a series of logical propositions, you will discover that he never compares Israel to IS.

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

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

Just don't do it.

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

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

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

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

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

@ Martin60. Thanks, Shipmate.

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

I've read the damn speech.

quote:

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations. Nor should Muslims be regarded as sexist, antisemitic or otherwise suspect, as has become an ugly Islamophobic norm. We judge people on their individual values and actions, not en masse.”

Like I said, he is technically correct. If you analyse his speech as a series of logical propositions, you will discover that he never compares Israel to IS.

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

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

Just don't do it.

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

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

I rather think the same applies to IS. They aren't a "normal" evil state - they're in a category all of their own.

No they are not. Standard revolutionary, insurrectionary, anti-imperial warfare. Can you imagine being in the British Resistance under NAZI occupation. I can. Viscerally. My favourite novel of all time is Len Deighton's SS GB.

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

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

Anyway, you can imagine my excitement when this article appeared in my facebook feed and it seemed to reflect what I was thinking about these people in the labour party who can no longer manage their careers by running closed numbers games. As an added bonus, I got to see a photo of Dianne Abbott! web page
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?

Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Shami Chakrabati this morning

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

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

She also said this

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

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

Arethosemyfeet

Two questions.

Do you include Ruth Smeeth in your blanket statement?

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

After all she is a member of the Jewish Community.

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

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

So, yes, I think Corbyn should have been more careful.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?

Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
Yeah, but come on, if you want to support privatization and benefit cuts with a healthy conscience, you'll be able to vote for the Blairites, and all will be well (for them).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Leorning Cniht's analysis looks spot on to me. An obvious implication, which reasonable people could make and enemies could latch onto.

To me too. Way obvious.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Israel and SCIS and Russia and Syria and Saudi and Iran and Yemen and Iraq and Turkey and the Kurds and the US and the UK ARE comparably bad.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.

It's a bit of a farce, isn't it? It's like they expected Corbyn to just roll over when they demanded it and are now kind of flummoxed that he's willing to stand up to them. Time for them to put up or shut up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, the plp can't even manage a half-decent coup. They're behaving bizarrely like the Brexit campaign, no plan, no leader, lots of hot air, false starts, cul de sacs. For you, the war is over.

It's a bit of a farce, isn't it? It's like they expected Corbyn to just roll over when they demanded it and are now kind of flummoxed that he's willing to stand up to them. Time for them to put up or shut up.
There we were, expecting a fierce onslaught from the Eagle, shades of where Eagles dare, and so on, and at the moment, it's where Eagles daren't.

Rumour has it that some are just a teeny little nervous about their support for the war in Iraq, what with Chilcott coming up, and no doubt, copious denunciations of Blair.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Really, are you seriously saying that it is impossible for someone to get up and say that Anti-Semitism is a bad thing without being misquoted?

Pretty much for Corbyn at the moment. The PLP and the media (and, frankly, a chunk of that section of the Jewish community that views criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic) are gunning for him and will find a way to twist anything he says into a way to attack him. And that will be the same for anyone on the left, because the majority of the PLP hate anything that resembles socialism touching their cosy club.
FFS, deploring Anti-Semitism ought to have nothing to do with one's views on the state of Israel. It's entirely possible to legitimately criticise Israel but there is a time and a place. That wasn't it. This isn't difficult. There have been plenty of Leaders of the Opposition in recent years who have been shown as to not being up to being Prime Minister - Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard and Miliband. I think that if any of them had turned up at that press conference they would have smashed it out of the park. Turn up, make your points, look serious, get out. Leave a discussion as to your views on Israeli foreign policy for another occasion.

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

Or you have just acted like a lot of different opposition leaders around the world and got the nuance wrong.

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

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

When the Tories are equally shooting themselves?

****

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

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

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

[ 02. July 2016, 01:03: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the trustees of a charity appoint a managing director ....

Which is totally not this situation.
OK. In what other circumstance could someone be appointed to work with a bunch of people, and prove unable to work with them, without their appointment being regarded as a mistake?
He wasn't appointed by trustees.

He was elected in a party membership contest.

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

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


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


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

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

Thus went Scotland.


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

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

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

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

quote:
Posted by Callan:
I don't think Father Dougal intended for that funeral to end with the hearse on fire and we are talking broadly equivalent levels of clusterfuck.

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

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

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

As regards the latest anti-semitism row, I suggest you read Sharmi Chakrabarhti's comments on the subject.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives

Are these initiatives that failed because of Labour opposition or are they initiatives that were launched, proved unpopular with the public (and, incidentally, the Labour Party) and were then ditched?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is notable that there are tweets doing the rounds that purport to show that Angela Eagle set up the domain name Angrla4leader before the referendum vote.

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

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

As regards the latest anti-semitism row, I suggest you read Sharmi Chakrabarhti's comments on the subject.

Correction, registered before her resignation:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-angela-eagle-labour-leadership-prepared-for-challenge-two-days-be fore-she-resigned-a7113071.html
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, because under Corbyn, in opposition, the Labour Party has seen the reverse of a number of Tory policy initiatives

Are these initiatives that failed because of Labour opposition or are they initiatives that were launched, proved unpopular with the public (and, incidentally, the Labour Party) and were then ditched?
The way opposition works, because you don't have a majority, is that you have to convince the public, and thereby some MPs from other parties, that the idea is a mistake. Corbyn was making that argument, and succeeding in convincing enough people.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The way opposition works, because you don't have a majority, is that you have to convince the public, and thereby some MPs from other parties, that the idea is a mistake. Corbyn was making that argument, and succeeding in convincing enough people.

Or were the public convinced quite independently of what Jeremy Corbyn was thinking and saying?

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

This plays into the narrative that this coup has been planned for a long time.

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

I'm not convinced that he's made any kind of impact on public opinion.

Quite. Correlation is not causation.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In the absence of a randomised controlled trial, that's all we'll ever have. Either corbyn's agenda is magically furthered by a series of co-incidences, or his political actions had something to do with it. How many co-incidences in a row before we believe in a connection?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Is it in fact for the plp to flick a collective v sign at the mass grassroots campaign we do have, because they are afraid of a Tory victory http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is it in fact for the plp to flick a collective v sign at the mass grassroots campaign we do have, because they are afraid of a Tory victory http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912

Woah, that MP is delusional. He still thinks you generate more tax revenue by cutting taxes.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Haflon knows Harlow, which used to be solidly Labour under Bill Rammell but lost the Labour vote in 2010. This is a new town with inner city levels of deprivation, enough to qualify it for Excellence in City grants and where one of the local schools has set up a local charity, No Child Without, when the school found it had such need that it was feeding and clothing the children they were trying to educate.

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

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

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

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

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

As Andy Burnham is pledging in Manchester.

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

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

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

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

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

How does giving support to Tories guard against Tories?

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

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

As Andy Burnham is pledging in Manchester.

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

I sometimes feel I will get done for this under C8 (crusading) but it is such an obvious step to take that I can't understand why central and local governments don't use the provisions that do exist far more. Maybe they don't want to upset their friends (and political donors) in the housebuilding industry. [Disappointed]

JFDI, find a way, make it work for people in bad times (80%: no credit history, zero hours contracts, benefits) and good (20%: decent full time work).

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

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

Aye, there's the rub. This is the dilemma faced by anyone whose views are towards a political extreme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel the referendum has rather lowered the tone of political debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.

Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

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

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

Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.

Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.

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

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

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

The thing is, this isn't really true. The Labour manifesto 2015 was not as radical as I think it should have been but it was far more Keynesian that it was made out to be.

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

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

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

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

[ 03. July 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.

You mean the party led by the guy who couldn't mention IDS's resignation? I'm sure the Tories were quivering in their boots.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Labour could profitably spend this time attacking Tory chaos and infighting, but I guess some genius decided that this was the perfect time to attack the leader, thus diverting attention from the Tory mess. You've got to hand it to Labour, never knowingly canny.

You mean the party led by the guy who couldn't mention IDS's resignation? I'm sure the Tories were quivering in their boots.
No, I'm talking about the plp, who with perfect timing, chose to attack the Labour leader, just as the Tories had gone into meltdown. As I said, that's genius.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think there is no way Corbyn will go pre-Chilcot.

What is your instinct about what might happen after?

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.

Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.

You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?

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

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

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

You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?

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

quote:

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

The same MPs currently kicking off about Corbyn would kick off over any left wing candidate (and Angela Eagle is hardly that) - and they were kicking off long before they even knew how Corbyn might function, purely on the basis of his politics.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think there is no way Corbyn will go pre-Chilcot.

What is your instinct about what might happen after?

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Compromise is how to get good things done in a world where people don't see things the same way.

Up to a point - but part of the reason the UK voted Leave was because people were sick of compromises, and didn't see any real alternative.

Being Tory but only slightly less so, only works to a degree.

You think “We don't like compromises” was a main reason for people voting leave?

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

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

We need Labour in a fit shape to challenge the Tories when they start on the most vulnerable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just going to put this here now.

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

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

Personally, I think a resurrection of the Blair bill of goods c1997 is for the birds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
I think the first part of this is undoubtedly correct, but the calculation was that they thought that he ought to be given a 'fair' chance, or more accurately, at least they ought to give the impression they were giving him a 'fair' chance before activating Operation Corbyncide. With Remain losing the prospect of a snap election suddenly loomed before them and the need for a coup concentrated minds. The other effect of the Leave vote was the rage and grief it generated. A Europhile Leader of the Opposition who had campaigned like her life depended on it would have probably been in trouble at this juncture. Given Mr Corbyn's lifelong hostility to Europe and the 'Europe, Meh, s'pose"nature of his pronouncements, such as they were, and the general lack of a sense of urgency in his campaigning, it was always likely that he was going to get it in the neck from Remainers if things went horribly Pete Tong.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

I think the PLP had assumed that the vote would be narrowly remain, and had planned the resignations and the like accordingly; in the event the vote didn't go the way it did, but they went ahead with bits of their plan anyway. With the problem that the leadership was suddenly a much more poisoned chalice than before.
Another problem being that the Tories went into meltdown, which you'd think might give Labour opportunities to attack. I suppose that couldn't be allowed to interrupt the poorly planned coup of the plp.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

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

I'm just going to put this here now.

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

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

Right on Chilcott of course and no, Corbyn stepping down isn't going to happen in that context, he should have been nominated, should have been elected, has been a resounding success for the country and the Labour Party and I bet he's loved it. 1/6
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

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

I'm just going to put this here now.

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

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

Right on Chilcott of course and no, Corbyn stepping down isn't going to happen in that context, he should have been nominated, should have been elected, has been a resounding success for the country and the Labour Party and I bet he's loved it. 1/6
Dear Admins,

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

Many thanks,

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

The problem with this analysis is that you assume the 172 are all Blairites. They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Sarah G's post above covered off all of those points.

Personally, I don't blame Corbyn when it rains but I do blame him for being the person who decided the Labour Party was ideologically wrong to possess an umbrella and only needed to believe strongly enough in Hawaiian shirts for the sun to shine.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?

Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.

If the earth were ever threatened by alien invasion, some Labour MPs would write really cutting resignation letters.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?

Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
I'm not a Blairite and if you think that the Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 172 Blairites and 40 True Believers then I have this really cool bridge, going dead cheap.

I presume the correct position on these matters then is that none of the Labour Party's problems are the fault of Mr Corbyn and all can be laid at the feet of the Blairites and the right-wing media. Oh, and Portland Communications. Let us not forget Portland Communications.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sorry, you're blaming Corbyn because poll numbers are down after the Blairites started a fucking civil war?! Do you blame Corbyn when it rains, too?

Well, you're off base here. You have to grasp the basic Blairite position: if something bad happens, this is Corbyn's fault, as he is the leader. If something good happens, this is in spite of him. If you apply this rule, you won't go far wrong. Glad to help.
I'm not a Blairite and if you think that the Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 172 Blairites and 40 True Believers then I have this really cool bridge, going dead cheap.

I presume the correct position on these matters then is that none of the Labour Party's problems are the fault of Mr Corbyn and all can be laid at the feet of the Blairites and the right-wing media. Oh, and Portland Communications. Let us not forget Portland Communications.

I think that that would be another false dichotomy, wouldn't it? I accept that these are fun, but maybe there is another way forward.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Whether or no the current travails of the Labour Party can be laid at the door of Mr Corbyn is only of interest to those who think he gives a damn about the party as a whole rather than just the particular wing where he seems to find most comfort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I buy that line of argument but only if he's never called on any other Labour leader to resign (for whom the same reasoning would presumably have held good). Has he?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
He has been elected Labour Leader by his party. Therefore he believes he has a DUTY to serve in that role.

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

I buy that line of argument but only if he's never called on any other Labour leader to resign (for whom the same reasoning would presumably have held good). Has he?
Not sure the same reasoning would hold, because Corbyn's thinking if correctly described above would allow for him to be challenged and defeated.

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

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

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

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

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

You're talking about a period when the Labour party abandoned its principles. Corbyn and McDonnell were among the few who stuck with them. Look at the topics of those rebellions and tell me which they were wrong about: the invasion of Iraq? Top-up fees (breaking a manifesto pledge I might add)? Academies? Foundation hospitals?

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


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).

Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Yes, he supported Tony Benn's leadership bid in 1988.

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

[x-posted, obvs.]

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


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).

Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
Yeah, it's a shame that didn't work out. The obvious conclusion, with hindsight, is that after being roundly thumped by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987 and Mr Major getting comfortably over the finishing line in 1992 despite the obvious de-merits of the Tories having introduced the Poll Tax is that what the British public were really calling for was a sentimental quasi-Marxist aristocrat leading a party somewhere to the left of Mr Michael Foot.

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

[ 05. July 2016, 13:08: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?

Apparently, at one point, when John Smith was in charge, the rules were changed, and it was suggested that there ought to be an explicit provision that said that if a Party Leader lost the confidence of the Parliamentary Party he had to go. Apparently Smith, who had clearly had a long day at the office and wanted to bugger off home, thought it unnecessary to put in an explicit provision to that effect and, so, technically, it is entirely possible to be Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party despite a no confidence vote from one's MPs.

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

The only way round it is a formal leadership challenge which the MPs are keen to avoid because there has recently been an influx into the party of enthusiastic young people who think that the best way to convince the British people of the merits of a Labour government is to elect a revolutionary socialist with a dodgy backstory. This is currently going as well as you might expect it to.

I tend to disagree - a lot of the ostensibly pro-corbyn/momentum camp aren't as tied to him as an individual so much as they are tied to a particular way in which the party should be run - at least part of what attracted them to join to start with was the thought that they could have an impact.

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

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

I'm no fan of Norman Tebbit, but he once described Labour as "comrades united in fraternal detestation of each other's guts," which seems very apt at the moment.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?

They simply have to come up with a credible opponent and get them 50 nominations from MPs and MEPs. The fact that they keep threatening to do it and haven't yet indicates that they're well aware that the potential candidates are no more credible than the ones they tried to push last year.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Trouble is it isn't likely to matter how 'credible' or otherwise anyone is: Momentum haven't been idle since last year's leadership election and have converted many of the £3 "supporters" to full members of the party, so any supposedly credible candidate, however well-backed by MPs, is likely to face a drubbing if Mr Corbyn stands to retain the leadership.

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

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

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

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

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com

[ 05. July 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.

I have heard good things about Paul Flynn. I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

[ 05. July 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How is momentum institutionally different from progress ?

According to its website, Progress is funded by Labour Party members. Can the same be said for Momentum?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.

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

Conversely, I am a full member of the Labour Party,and have been for most of my adult life, I have also been out leafleting with momentum - but I am not a member of momentum. I suspect it cuts both ways.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.

Peter Mandelson probably found it behind his sofa.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

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

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

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

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

On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

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

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

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.

Ah, you're probably right, and that's probably why Corbyn hasn't done it. Would be fun to watch though.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

Technically it's Progress that broke the law, as they should have returned the improper donations, rather than Sainsbury (though Sainsbury should have known better too).

OK. That's good call.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

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

I'm just going to put this here now.

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

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

1/2 - so you were surprised.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
One out of three, actually, Martin.

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

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

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

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

As for Jeremy, he continues to represent me perfectly.

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

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

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

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

While strictly true, you've missed out the bit where the British government lies to the people, so that the people think they're voting for Utopia, instead of Hell on Earth.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

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

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

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

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

* Is knocked over by a passing feather *

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

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

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
I'd add that once the war started many of those who supported the war were actually doing so to support our armed forces, who were once again sent abroad to do the unpleasant, dangerous and dirty work.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Fascinating. Approval ratings keep bouncing back until May 2004.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

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

Still, to return to the subject of the thread, it clearly demonstrates that those of us who do not sign up to the Jeremy Corbyn bill of goods are not necessarily Red Tories and Blairites.

OTOH, not everyone who isn't a Red Tory or Blairite is necessarily signing up to Jeremy Corbyn in totality. I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I could have respected them if they had followed Blair's example and defiantly said they stood by what they said at the time. But to vilify Blair's enemies in 2003 and then to vilify Blair in 2016 was contemptible.

Then there's a certain symmetry with the West's vilification of Iraq's enemies throughout the Iran/Iraq war to the point of turning a blind eye to chemical weapon use (albeit not such a blind eye via satellite pictures to identify Iranian targets that were passed to the Baathists) and then subsequent vilification of Saddam in 2003 on the basis that he might have weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

Plenty of variation with different methodologies and questions. Nothing clear about it.

Judging by your second link there was a clear swing to war in the run up to the invasion, but the data is sufficiently ambiguous that I must concede the point.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.

I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.

Not quite; any of the MPs could launch a leadership challenge if they had sufficient support from their fellow MPs. Their names would be put on the ballot along with Corbyn's (as current leader) and it would be put to the vote of the entire party.

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

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

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

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

It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.

Quite right. Hence the very emphatic backlashes against the treatment of Michael Foot, John Major, and Ed Miliband, who all went on to win conclusive election victories in 1983, 1997 and 2015. The penchant for electorates in choosing likeable Eddie the Eagle figures whose haplessness and good heart make up for any actual discernible talent for the job of Prime Minister is notorious and has stymied the careers of more conventionally able political figures like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron.

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

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

If you think the Parliamentary Labour Party are unsympathetic, wait until Corbyn gets to put his credentials to the electorate. Let's just say that The Strange Death Of Liberal England is supposed to be an awful warning, not an instruction manual.

The lesson I took from studying that period of history was that if you cosy up to the tories and make it clear there's no difference between them and you then you will get killed by the electorate who will switch their allegiance to someone genuinely left wing. This is also the lesson of the lib dems in coalition, from the last time the right of the Labour Party threw their toys out the pram.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What they should be doing is promoting the people they want to replace him. Tell the members, and the rest of us, why Ms Eagle, Mr Ummuna, Mr Burnham, or whoever, would be an excellent choice.

I think part of this is because they have decided more generally that they can't win elections on an actual Labour ticket and have therefore got to achieve this via an oblique set of policies with enough dog whistles to dislodge centre-right voters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguably, standing as independents might make more sense.

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

http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/#coverage
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.

Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

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


Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.

That would be most of the pre-June 23rd Conservative Party, and it wouldn't be "centrist" by any means. Any party that puts business ahead of man is right-wing.

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


Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.

That would be most of the pre-June 23rd Conservative Party, and it wouldn't be "centrist" by any means. Any party that puts business ahead of man is right-wing.
Doesn't that show that everything has been shifted to the right? Right-wing views are called centrist, and social democracy is called hard left. I suppose Attlee would be called Bolshevik.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.

Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.

I think you mean the Very Real Concerns of Hard-Working Families.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although the dog whistles had turned to overt ones, hadn't they? I mean, that the right-wing (of Labour) were openly supporting privatization and benefit cuts and immigration control.

Well, yes and no. These aren't actual policies after all - and you get the feeling that some of these MPs don't want to be freighted by anything so old-fashioned as actual policies, they just want to have a certain media profile, plus an aura of being able to listen to people's Very Real Concerns.

Take for example talk of a new centrist party that is 'business friendly' and 'pro-european' - most of whose backers seem to think that you can create a political party from a few MPs with a will to power hiring the right PR agency.

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is complicated by the fact that the major post-we-just-lost-the-election policy reviews are incomplete - as they were due to report to conference.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think anyone's claiming that Corbyn doesn't need the support of MPs, it's just that we disagree about how to deal with the fact that he currently doesn't. The PLP think the solution is that they get to pick the leader and screw what the members think. A lot of members think that if the MPs aren't prepared to stand with their elected leader then it might be time to consider replacing them with ones who will.

So, basically, what you are saying is that the Labour Party ought to spend the time between now and 2020 getting rid of 172 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party and replacing them with members of Momentum, as opposed, to say, offering some kind of credible opposition to the Conservative government, stopping or mitigating our exit from the EU, or winning the next General Election. Because, the Labour Party consists of people who have a finite amount of time and energy at their disposal and they can either spend it trying to get rid of the majority of their MPs or trying to get rid of the Tories. Apparently, you think the former ought to be the priority. Well, knock yourself out if you feel so moved but don't blame the rest of us for concluding that the Labour Party has ceased to be a serious party of opposition.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think my proposal makes more sense.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.

I'm not sure it will. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, after all, not a junior civil servant, struggling to find his feet in his first job. A successful Leader of the Opposition has to be bloody good at it, which, let's face it, no-one is saying that Corbyn is. So if the PLP back off now, it's likely that they'll be back in a years time. IIRC, Corbyn did say that he was in favour of annual elections of the Labour Leader, when he was running for the gig. I have a horrible feeling that he might just get his wish.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.

To an extent, especially as the alternative appears to be for the person who came fourth in the election for the Deputy Leader
to launch a challenge for Leader

[ 10. July 2016, 20:27: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think my proposal makes more sense.

I'm not sure it will. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, after all, not a junior civil servant, struggling to find his feet in his first job. A successful Leader of the Opposition has to be bloody good at it, which, let's face it, no-one is saying that Corbyn is. So if the PLP back off now, it's likely that they'll be back in a years time. IIRC, Corbyn did say that he was in favour of annual elections of the Labour Leader, when he was running for the gig. I have a horrible feeling that he might just get his wish.
I do think that continuous attempts to undermine him are the main problem. Like many people, I don't choose which party I vote for primarily on whether they make heavily laboured jokes at pmqs. The policy platform is important to me and many others.

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

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

I do think that the team around him are quite incompetent - and often get basic mechanics wrong. I'm not always sure that that is the reason the PLP have been getting at him.

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

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

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

Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Corbyn, Durham Miners' Gala, 9/7/16
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?

Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.

Well, those 172 MPs know better than the rest of us how they have been led, in practice, by Jeremy.

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

There are specific criticisms in that article.

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

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

 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, you think that he is competent but that the PLP are pretending that he isn't to get rid of him?

Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.


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

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

Not without a HUGE rent to buy building program.

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

In the mean time it's May with her Trident ...
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm MORE than happy with a leader of principle forever in opposition. A true prophet. Like Old King Log Claudius, he has made ALL the poison visible.

Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Apparently, Labour's press office has sent out two releases, six minutes apart, demanding a snap General Election and announcing that the Labour Party is going to have a Leadership Contest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure there's a collective sigh of relief, even amongst us lefties [Smile]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm MORE than happy with a leader of principle forever in opposition. A true prophet. Like Old King Log Claudius, he has made ALL the poison visible.

Still not a wind up and an honest question: why would you be happy with someone with principles forever in opposition? If you're in opposition you can't change anything. Even if, as you say, principles in opposition "make poison visible" who is going to do anything about getting rid of the poison?
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

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

[ 11. July 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?

This has always been Labour's dilemma. But Thatcher lite was the LAST thing we needed in 1997, as history has proved.

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

[Frown]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?

I think we could go round in circles like this for ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a democracy, that's a feature not a bug.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's the point of them moving so far left that they become unelectable?

They aren't moving to the far left, the current set of policies are generally fairly centrist as far as historical Labour are concerned.

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

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

I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

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

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

I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the question keeps coming up in different forms so I'll give my answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As it is the future prime minister is tacking left. Given that, barring an election they are unlikely to call, they will be in government for the next four years - that is an important gain to our future.

That's very optimistic. May is apparently tacking left, but she also has to please the Brexit people, maybe with deregulation, immigration controls, etc.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I'm not claiming Theresa May is left wing - but she has managed to sound it today, to sound, in fact, radically so compared to the PLP.

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

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

I'm not impressed by Corbyn, but he appears to have a certain dogged self-consistency. And he's still there.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
They aren't moving to the far left, the current set of policies are generally fairly centrist as far as historical Labour are concerned.

If Mr Corbyn's policies are in fact centrist would that not serve to confirm that the argument is about competence rather than policies???

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

As it stands Mr Corbyn is a kind of anti-Cameron. By taking the progressive side on a number of flashpoint issues such as gay marriage, Mr Cameron managed to present himself as a centrist despite being somewhere to the right of Mr Duncan Smith. Conversely Mr Corbyn makes himself look like a hardline leftwing radical by adopting far-left positions on Sinn Féin and Hamas and 'singing' The Red Flag without actually having much in the way of ideas of how to bring about a left-wing state.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think if the labour party membership had not ballooned during Corbyn's leadership campaign and subsequent months - the Tories' response to Brexit would have been to jump right rather than left.

I disagree. Ms May has a majority of 17. UKIP has precisely one seat and any other UKIP/Tory marginals (if there are any) are already held by the Tories. The number of Labour marginals that can be pinched off Labour is far greater.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
What frightens me is that if you stop saying failed asylum seekers are human beings, if you stop saying that children growing up in poverty deserve the very best, if you stop saying that the sick and the dying are worth caring for, if you stop saying that we can treat everybody with humanity and we can overcome those influences that harm society, then we gradually stop believing it, and eventually it stops being true.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Hatless:

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

Essentially, yes. I have not seen them actually produce any evidence to support their position.


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

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

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

Now economic stimulus is mainstream.

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

If Mr Corbyn's policies are in fact centrist would that not serve to confirm that the argument is about competence rather than policies???

They aren't centrist in an absolutist sense, they are centrist insofar as policies in the Labour party are concerned (see Hattersley as a reference point). In absolute terms they amount to mild social-democracy.

Why do you assume that he aims at a socialist utopia or necessarily aims to get there in a single leap? Did you also believe the press when they told you that 'Red Ed' was a communist firebrand?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn did not lose the referendum for Remain, he got the labour vote out.

I think that what the MPs who were critical of Corbyn were hoping for is that he'd get some of the Labour vote that had defected to UKIP back. He didn't.

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

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

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

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

May vs (Corbyn vs PLP). Hmmm.

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

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

I assume he aims at a socialist utopia, at least as an end-point, because he describes himself as a socialist.

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

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


* For the record let me acknowledge that I've no idea what Ms Eagle's proposed steps are either.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Corbyn nice, Blair nasty)

(Corbyn consistently against ill-advised rush to war, Blair very keen to the point of utter recklessness to go to war)

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

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

(Corbyn consistently against ill-advised rush to war, Blair very keen to the point of utter recklessness to go to war)

Actually, not so misguided after all.

Blair, brought peace to Northern Ireland Corbyn, opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement and supported IRA when they were murdering civilians and British soldiers. So, who is nice and who is nasty in this context.

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

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

Cos your presentation is not biased in any way [Roll Eyes]

There is no such thing as an unbiased presentation in these matters. Still, it is a matter of fact that Jeremy Corbyn opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is also a matter of fact that he invited Sinn Fein to address a meeting at the House of Commons, shortly after they had attempted to blow up the British cabinet and your own link demonstrates that he was unable to say that he condemned the IRA bombing campaign without engaging in his usual disingenuous "All Lives Matter" rhetoric. The whole "Jeremy supported the peace process before it was fashionable" line is a load of betty swollocks, frankly. Jeremy supported the IRA when he thought that they were going to win and then spun it as support for the peace process, when it was clear that they had lost and were going to the British government to negotiate their surrender. Given the horrors of the Troubles we can live with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness living on comfortable sinecures, as a price to be paid for children growing up without the risk of being blown up by some Semtex happy nationalist. I see no reason to consider Mr Corbyn's continuation as Leader of the Opposition in quite the same light.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well, quite. Callan, I think your position on Corbyn's past activities needs a little recalibrating.

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

...

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


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

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

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

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

At the moment they are indulging in a kind of mutually assured destruction. Though notably, Corbyn is not yelling the plp are crap to everyone who will listen. Those around him are suggesting they are disloyal rather than incompetent.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the 'armed struggle' of Messrs Kneecap O'Goon and Seamus McSemtex in this context.

Very entertaining writing for a certain section of the population I'm sure but comes across as a little off to me. You must think me very humourless but it doesn't seem like a great joke for an Englander.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So for example, if I were running, I would produce a proposed election manifesto + Brexit negotiating position. Running with that level of detail would attract much more support. (I might also include a draft leader's job plan about how I planned to use my time, and engage with other labour MPs.)
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(I might also include a draft leader's job plan about how I planned to use my time, and engage with other labour MPs.)

that in itself is a symbol of quite how much of a mess the party is in. It just shouldn't be necessary to do that, because pretty near every leader in every party ever (in the UK) has been able to assume that their MPs would take that bit on trust.* The way the Labour party is currently operating (and I use the term charitably) is genuinely uncharted water in UK politics.

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

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

Our fact is that.

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

Heart.

Soul.

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

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

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

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

The party can win with a different group of MPs (you'd probably only need to replace the ringleaders of the chickencoup, a lot of the 172 have no confidence because there's a minority who can't bring themselves to stop undermining the leadership, and that's not a situation that can continue), I'm not sure it can find a different membership and it can't win without the members. What needs to happen is that, when Corbyn wins, the PLP need to take a deep breath, stand in fron of a mirror and recite the words "the commitment and drive that Jeremy Corbyn has shown in these last weeks and months has convinced me that he does in fact have the metal to be Labour leader and Prime Minister. I've been involved in a number of discussions with him and we are now certain we can work together towards the Labour government this country desperately needs" until they can say it convincingly in public, and then they need to get to work for a Labour victory when the next election comes, including helping Corbyn avoid making too many unforced errors. Yes, that means Corbyn getting them to vet speeches for things that people will twist to attack him (assuming they can demonstrate they'll do so without leaking), and helping him refine his tactics at PMQs.
I appreciate that you won't agree with me, and I'm not a Labour supporter, but I'm feeling increasingly sorry for the PLP.

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

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

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

Political movement or political party looks like their choice.

Time to make it.

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

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

Seems to be open season on female Labour MPs this summer. *depressed*
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
From what we know of Theresa May she's pragmatic and deceptively ruthless. For all the public denials of a snap election, she must surely be considering it. The disarray on the opposition benches is too good a chance to pass up.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A party at war with itself never looks good, and the chickencoupers have only become more open in their warfare in the last 2 weeks. Frankly I think it's a good sign that Labour's holding at 30 given the total mess it's in right now. May will get a bounce while this nonsense continues, but once Eagle is given her marching orders things will settle down and we'll have to start dealing with the fact that the tories have no damn clue what they're doing with regard to Brexit negotiations, no economic plan, and are going to have to face up to either crashing the economy completely, admitting they screwed up and trying to back-out of Brexit, or following all the EU rules and paying the same amount in but not having any MEPs or commissioners or any say at all as members of the EFTA. I think you're underestimating how screwing the entire country will impact on the tories' electoral chances.

And what plans does Corbyn have, what plans has he articulated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent over.

M.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first and that the PLP is relying on a vague "intention" (which is hard to prove either way at this distance) rather than a legal interpretation which would clarify things for all concerned.

But this is the problem with this whole debate (and I'm not getting at you specifically here, Barnabas - I promse!!): things are said against Corbyn without them being followed up with very much in the way of evidence:
* He's "unelectable"; then when he wins an election (eg the leadership election) or the party does under him (eg the Oldham byelection) the voters are either unreperesentative (how?) or it's nothing to do with him.
* He should've campaigned more in the Euro referendum, been more enthusiastic, got more Labour voters to vote Remain. How? Angela Eagle praised him during the campaign for the amount of campaigning he was doing. What if his campaigning actually upped the Labour Remain vote - we don't know, no one's produced any evidence either way.
* Ricardus' post above about the stupid, idiotic threats against Angela Eagle. How is Corbyn supposed to be personally responsible for the behaviour of every single one of his supporters? No human being can do that. Especially as Corbyn has spoken repeatedly of the need for the party to pull together and to unite.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
(With apologies for the double post...)
And let's be clear: this present crisis is a crisis for which the PLP bears a huge responsibility. They complained about a "lack of effective opposition", yet passed up the chance to be that effective opposition by choosing to start their own leadership crisis when the Tories were entering into one of their own. I'd have thought the thing to do, politically, when your opponenets are in turmoil is to go after them, not to start turmoil of your own. It was a stupid, stupid time to start all of this. And now the Tories have come through their (immediate) crisis and Labour are still in the midst of theirs. Who's going to do better in the polls in the aftermath of all this? Who's going to be setting the agenda? Clue: Not Labour.

Then they had no plan, no idea of what to do next. They had no candidate to put up against Corbyn, no one they could present as a suitable alternative. Eventually, Angela Eagle announced she might stand, but even then it took the best part of a fortnight for her to finally announce she was actually going to do it. A fortnight when the whole party has been in limbo when they could've have been getting with being this "effective opposition" they claimed they wanted to be.
At least when the Tories get the knives out against their leader, they get on with it quickly and make a clean job of it. The PLP's looked ridiculous and inept.

They've done nothing to address the gap between themselves and the wider membership. They've never once asked why so many ordinary members voted for Corbyn, or even attempted to find a candidate who might address those concerns. They haven't listened or thought or asked "do we need to change? Is it us? Is Corbyn's election pointing to something wrong with us in Parliament"? And their actions in provoking this leadership crisis have only made things worse to the point that a split looks almost inevitable. But apparently, it's Corbyn who's out of touch with ordinary members. Really?

[ 12. July 2016, 13:19: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Great headline from the BBC website: "Eagle tries to carry off Australian boy".

Nothing to do with the Labour Party though.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first
He's just made that clear! We're arguing about whether the words made that clear, rather than what the reformers intended. These things need to be resolved within the party, not in the courts. It's perfectly reasonable to ask Ray Collins what he meant. And it's perfectly reasonable for Ray Collins to provide that clarification.

Let's see what the NEC make of this now.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
<snip>

They've done nothing to address the gap between themselves and the wider membership. They've never once asked why so many ordinary members voted for Corbyn, or even attempted to find a candidate who might address those concerns. They haven't listened or thought or asked "do we need to change? Is it us? Is Corbyn's election pointing to something wrong with us in Parliament"? And their actions in provoking this leadership crisis have only made things worse to the point that a split looks almost inevitable. But apparently, it's Corbyn who's out of touch with ordinary members. Really?

I don't recall seeing anything that explained where all the much vaunted "new" "£3" members who flocked to vote for Corbyn lived. Which matters, because if he's rejuvenated the membership in the Welsh valleys or other Labour hearlands of old, it won't make much difference in an election.

If Corbyn has been racking up new Labour supporters in swing seats, then they might well end up winning an election because of that - assuming those people stay engaged.

It's not a question of who's in touch the ordinary Labour party members , it's a question of who's in touch with potential Labour voters .

I can't remember if anybody already linked to this, but Neil Kinnock certainly thinks Corbyn is a bogey man for the latter group.

Kinnock speech to Labour MPs
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

Why not? You could argue that Ray Collins should've ensured that it was made clear that the challengers and the incumbent needed to get the PLP nominations first
He's just made that clear! We're arguing about whether the words made that clear, rather than what the reformers intended. These things need to be resolved within the party, not in the courts. It's perfectly reasonable to ask Ray Collins what he meant. And it's perfectly reasonable for Ray Collins to provide that clarification.

Let's see what the NEC make of this now.

Apologies: I meant the words weren't clear enough, not what Ray Collins said today...

I wasn't clear enough in my words. The irony... [Hot and Hormonal]
I'll get me coat...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Meanwhile, Angela Eagle is forced to cancel an engagement in Luton after the hotel whereat she would have stayed received death threats, a brick id chucked through the window of her constituency office, and her staff have stopped answering the phone due to the level of abuse. But, of course, Mr Corbyn's leadership skills shouldn't be taken to imply leadership of his own supporters.

Corbyn himself has received death threats and thugs from the right of the party have been attacking his supporters in Brighton:
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d9b4-Labour-right-thugs-threaten-own-side

Suffice to say I don't think you can blame Corbyn for morons attacking his opponents any more than you can blame those same opponents for attacks on him and his supporters.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ray Collins who chaired the review of election rules, made it clear in the WATO today that the intention of the rules was that all candidates (and the sitting leader becomes a potential candidate once there is a challenge) needed to get the threshold PLP support before their name could go forward. He claimed the rule was unambiguous about this (personally I disagree), but observed that there was no intention to take away the traditional and initial PLP role in selection of candidates.

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

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

It's amazing how, even without duplicity, past memory can be gradually elided to fit with current beliefs. My guess is that nobody considered it an issue, because they never conceived of a leader getting elected in the first place who was so at odds with the parliamentary party, and likewise never conceived that the PLP would be so terrified of their leader winning that they'd try to keep them off the ballot. It's an utterly bizarre situation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The reality is that the Labour Leader does not think he can get 51 MP and MEP votes, otherwise why should he bother to declare, in advance, that he will challenge an NEC decision which means he has to get them?

The reality is that this is a car crash which will injure the Labour Party for years.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Suffice to say I don't think you can blame Corbyn for morons attacking his opponents any more than you can blame those same opponents for attacks on him and his supporters.

You're right, the implication in my post does go a bit too far.

However, I do think it's relevant because one of Mr Corbyn's virtues is supposed to be that he has re-energised the grassroots and brought new members into the fold. If those new members contain a percentage of self-righteous hooligans then one might question how far this is a good thing. I do not remember brick-throwing thugs campaigning on behalf of Ms Cooper, Mr Burnham, or Ms Kendall.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
We don't even know if the brick throwing was from a Corbyn supporter, actually. Plus, when you motivate over a quarter million people it's likely that there will be a percentage of all manner of dispositions, particularly is you motivate mostly people who have, thus far, felt disenfranchised by the political process. Besides, we don't know which of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall the thugs in Brighton supported, so don't go making that claim so quickly either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Have a look at Angela Eagle's Facebook page and ask what happened to treating Labour Party members with dignity and respect.

Of course we don't know yet who threw the brick. There are plenty around throwing brickbats.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
don't know if anyone else is following the shenanigans at the NEC meeting on twitter but it's riveting...

that and bleakly hilarious.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hells bells. Michael Crick must be wearing the Potter invisibility cloak.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The reality is that the Labour Leader does not think he can get 51 MP and MEP votes, otherwise why should he bother to declare, in advance, that he will challenge an NEC decision which means he has to get them?

I think it's quite consistent with Corbyn's character, actually. He has principles, and his own sense of what is right and wrong. He has fairly consistently acted in accordance with his principles, even when it seems counter-productive. If Corbyn thinks that it is wrong that an elected leader should be required to produce enough MP's nominations to allow the party membership to vote on his leadership, it is entirely consistent with his historical behaviour that he would stand up for that regardless of whether he thinks it would personally affect him.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's fine. I agree that on the basis of his history you might expect him to behave in accordance with his beliefs.

But in which case why did he not recuse himself from the NEC meeting? That would have been normal in view of the fact that he had an interest in the outcome. Apparently his decision to attend came very late.

And why were attempts made to exclude Jon Ashworth from his role as Shadow Cabinet rep on the NEC? Apparently he received an email or msg in the middle of the night. It took a Shadow Cabinet meeting this morning to stop that attempt.

Source.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
As if the NEC earthquakes weren't enough. See entry timed at 18.41.

What the Hell is going in the Party?

[ 12. July 2016, 17:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I don't think Michael Foot is remotely relevant at this stage, at least not to me.

I am hugely, hugely disappointed, and not a little angry. Only a massively toxic combination of un-harnessed, freewheeling political ambition, coupled with/up against a self-regard that is impenetrable to the demands of a truly exceptional situation, could manage to make this situation about Labour's internal problems when the Tories have fucked up so badly.

The whole PLP should be considering their positions. The depth of fuck-up they have created is absolutely heartbreaking.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And what was wrong with Worzel Foot? And what's the comparison?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Corbyn's on the ballot.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And that is, I guess, for the best. Better than a court case, that's for sure.

Presumably there will be some kind of public statement?

(ETA - just seen it; any other candidate needs to make the threshold of support. Looks like a precedent has been set.)

[ 12. July 2016, 19:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Good.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The Eagle is stranded.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The Eagle is stranded.

Or possibly hoist....
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.

Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that is, I guess, for the best. Better than a court case, that's for sure.

Though it leaves the PLP looking a bit silly - their entire plan revolved around stopping Corbyn getting onto the ballot at the NEC.

If they want to make their case based on competence, all their actions since Corbyn was elected scream entirely the opposite.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.

It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.

(Xposted)

[ 12. July 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
chris stiles

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.

Where I think there might be parallels with the Gang of Four is over the influence of Momentum within the constituency parties. For now, I think Angela Eagle will make her case. What will happen in the House in the meantime is anyone's guess. I don't think kiss and make up is on the agenda.

[ 12. July 2016, 20:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.


Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There are legal issues with the plan to remove right to vote from members who joined post 12th January, as the website tells you you will be able to vote.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.

I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And what was wrong with Worzel Foot? And what's the comparison?

Lest it be thought that's what I think of Michael Foot, well I did then, as a Cold War armchair warrior, I don't now.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Dunno. I think they expected him to resign. The NEC was a final throw rather than the whole plan.


Not sure 'didn't know what to do when plan didn't survive contact with reality' is much better than plain incompetence.
I rather think they expected him to do a Cameron, see the writing on the wall. They probably hadn't realised that the new and kinder form of politics would end up reducing the role of MP to obedient cipher. Yes, I think that was where their incompetence lay. The wall had different writing on it.

[ 12. July 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.

I can believe that of David Owen and I know nothing of Bill Rodgers. But I have never heard it said of either Shirley Williams or Roy Jenkins that they made decisions on the basis of ego.
Maybe not "ego", but they were firmly in the "we know what is best for them" camp. Then again, that is the sign of a politician.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The split was over unilateral nuclear disarmament and anti-EEC policies. There are always egos involved but in this case the Gang of Four and others who joined them left the Labour Party because of those changes of policy made in 1981. A secondary reason was concern about Trotskyite infiltration at local party level.

It was best that they left. The policy disagreements were fundamental and irreconcilable. People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals. These sort of things happen when you narrow a broad church.

(Xposted)

Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Increasing numbers of like-minded doesn't increase the acceptable range of views. All parties are coalitions of people with similar principles but varying views on policies. Party unity is a pragmatic process, designed to keep these people co-operating under the same umbrella.

Because of electoral boundary changes, the Labour Party needs almost a 10% increase in its vote to get a majority of 1 in the next election. Jeremy argued with the Fabian society that something like that could be achieved by getting more young people to turn out to vote and by winning back those in the trad Labour heartlands who had stopped voting Labour. Here is the Fabian Society analysis of those ideas in August 2015.

Much though it may pain policy purists, Labour's only chance of an election win in the next election is to broaden its appeal. So. basically, it has zero chance in any snap early election and in its current messed-up state it is much more likely to lose a bucketload of seats. Currently, over 40 Labour MPs are sitting on majorities of under 3,500 and the PLP is in danger of losing all of those and a whole lot more.

Them's the political realities; no amount of enthusiasm and purist idealism will change them. The Labour Party is in deep shit.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The Labour Party is in deep shit
Yes at the moment, thanks to the PLP. But if Corbyn defeats the PLP leadership challenge I predict an enormous increase in Labour party membership.

I've never before heard so many different people talking about politics as I have during the last two weeks. People who are uncommitted and normally totally uninterested are really enjoying the drama. And most of them are saying, "Go for it, Jeremy!". This is the most entertaining parliamentary politics we've had in years.

If you're interested in politics and a member of the chattering classes, as most of us here are, you probably think that's wrong. But wrong or right, all these people have a vote. And say what you like about the British, we love an underdog.

At the beginning of this thread I predicted that Corbyn would be hard to get rid of. He ain't gone yet.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It doesn't matter WHAT Labour does for 4-9 YEARS.

J&J will age out and whoever will lead a Labour landslide like Wilson and Blair because it'll be 'time for a change'.

Elections aren't won. They're lost.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.

I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.

Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.

In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.

I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.

Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.

And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't think anyone can take back the Scottish seats that Labour held unless the SNP implodes. There's just no reason for a lot of people to vote Labour rather than SNP, particularly with the insipid Dugdale as leader of the Scottish party. Up against Sturgeon and Davidson she doesn't have a chance.

Ultimately I don't think moving left or right is that important when it comes to winning elections, it's about building and selling a convincing narrative of what's wrong and how to fix it. UKIP have attracted some Labour voters by tapping into fears about immigration, even though their economic and social policies would harm working class people far more than any amount of free movement within Europe.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why does bringing more people into the party, and changing policy count as "narrowing". The right just have a strop every time they're not in charge, that's what it amounts to. When the left aren't in charge, their MPs stay in the party and campaign on the issues and fight (within the rules, I might add, rather than trying to dodge around them) to win back control.

There is something to this - after all, presumably the right of the Labour party always knew that Labour itself was a broader church than just their faction. They mostly expected everyone left of them to go along with what they said, with a few semi-public rebellions at best, and continue to campaign and act for the good of the party as a whole. It seems that they don't want to do the same when the boot is on the other foot.

Coming back to the incompetence aspect; if you are trying to get rid of someone, offering two alternatives with little to choose between them would seem to do nothing more than split the anti-* vote.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?

[ 13. July 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
The thing I find most depressing about the PLP's debacle is their failure to learn from past experience. When Ken Livingstone stood in the first election for a London Mayor the official Labour Party was against him. They commenced a series of unsuccessful manoeuvres to exclude Livingstone as a candidate and they put up their own "official" candidate. The result? They pissed off so many of the electorate that people who HATED Ken Livingstone went out and voted for him, he was duly elected and unsurprisingly didn't work well with the official party for the whole of his terms in office. Talk about an own goal.

And here they are, doing exactly the same sort of thing. Morons.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?

Scotland will be gone. The narrative MUST be massive rent to buy housing.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.

I think that 62% refers to the referendum, where there was concerted encouragement from all Remainers. Doubt whether that is typical. I'd expect the Jeremy factor to get the young voter % up from 43% provided he doesn't lose appeal. It might bridge that 10% gap a bit.

Did you note the drop in support from older voters in the Fabian 2015 survey - and four out of five of us did turn out to vote. I've voted Labour in all the elections where I've had the vote. But I'm in a decreasing minority amongst the elderly. I don't think the Brexit evidence shows much sign of that trendline being reversed.

In 2015, the Fabian Society argued that the only way for Labour to win was to attract, in large numbers, voters who had voted Conservative, or UKIP, or SNP. I appreciate the current distaste for anything that sounds at all like Blairite New Labour, but it doesn't get round the need to broaden the appeal somehow.

I guess I belong to the "Establishment Left". I'm very wary of democracy being reinterpreted away from representative democracy. I heard a young Hull Labour Councillor, a Corbynite, argue freely that the real threat to unity was the 172 Labour MPs, who should simply be deselected if they didn't do the Corbyn kow-tow.

Frankly, talking so lightly about wholesale deselection (and Paul Davis from Wallasey was saying pretty much the same) scares the hell out of me. It seems totally weird to me that folks who support the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time should think so lightly of using deselection as a way of choking off dissent. There is some kind of disconnect going on there.

And I think anything which looks like Trotskyite infiltration will not just put off potentially floating voters. Personally, I'm just about hanging on to my lifetime support at present. I doubt whether I'm the only one.

You're not the only one. I'm a trade unionist and lifelong labour voter, but if mass deselections start, I will be off. To where, I don't know. I never thought I would contemplate voting Tory, but if (big if) Theresa May actually delivers on this "one nation" rhetoric, the unthinkable may be eminently thinkable. I live in a marginal constituency, so this might actually matter.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Simple. The first deselection should trigger The Gang of 172. Corleone Rules baby.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@Arethosemyfeet

If you write off Scotland, then the Labour Party needs over 11% more votes than it got in 2015 in the rest of the UK. That would be a greater % than in 1997. That would require a massively convincing narrative, both to get the centre and kill the UKIP narrative. What would such a narrative look like?

That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.

Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?

It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That's assuming aiming for a outright majority. Given EVEL, and given that the SNP aren't going to vote with the tories on economic or welfare matters and neither are Plaid, all that's required is to beat the tories in England and arrange confidence and supply with the SNP. I think the narrative will need to focus on industrial policy, and possibly a reform of welfare to introduce a much higher (short term) rate of JSA for people who lose their job (rather than never had one), to combat the "scroungers" narrative but make sure that being out of work isn't an immediate catastrophe. A massive public house building programme, along with guaranteed apprenticeship and subsequent employment in building trades for anyone unemployed for more than 1 year. A lot of this is already in the area McDonnell and Corbyn are talking about, it just needs firming up into a coherent plan and to have the whole party singing form the same hymn sheet.

Is this the point where in Dad's Army Private Walker, on hearing the 11 stage plan for attacking a tank asks the immortal question:

"While we're doing all this, what's the tank going to be doing?"

Firstly, "all" Labour needs to do is beat the Tories in England. OK, you're right, problem essentially solved...

Secondly, it really wouldn't surprise me, given how many of Miliband's clothes May nicked on Monday, if the Tories don't just do a lot of what you're calling for - beginning with industrial strategy.

While parties are off in the wilderness, political reality has a habit of moving on. The Tories have come up with the one candidate for PM who can plausibly tack left in response to what Labour's doing, and has certainly made noises that she intends to do so.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The prospect of a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP was used as an election tactic to make people vote Tory in 2015 (remember those pictures of Salmond with a mini-Miliband in his breast pocket?). It's unclear to me how an election-winning tactic that helped beat Labour can suddenly become an idea to woo voters back to Labour.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
However, a against received political wisdom, he got out a large proportion of the youth vote in the election - turnout was thought to be 62% amongst the part of the electorate.

Doublethink - can you clarify which election you refer to?

It can't have been the Brexit referendum, as there was a systemic non-turnout (IYSWIM) by the younger portion of the electorate, so far as can be ascertained. (Reference here). Depending on what you are referring to, this may be indicative of something in itself.

That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Sturgeon's a lot more popular than she used to be across the UK, and it appears that the rest of the UK is no longer that worried about Scottish independence.

But the fundamentals that made the tactic a success (weak Labour leader dependent on a canny Scottish political operator; possibility of government funds diverted from south-west England to Scotland to placate insatiable SNP demands, etc.) would be very much still in place.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have read elsewhere that after the vote confirmed Corbyn will be on the ballot paper, and he and supporters left the NEC meeting, a non-agenda'd item was agreed which limits the electorate so that recent joiners can't vote.

That may be a reasonable thing to agree for all sorts of reasons, but that is not a good way to do it. It's like the sort of thing the far left used to do.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That may not have been entirely as I was given to understand, as a very short version with no details may have been agenda'd. As: Freeze membership date (turned out to be in January) and fix membership fee (£25, which can be exercised by people who joined since January over two days).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That has to be one of the most half-arsed coups in history. It reminds me of the Greek declaration of Enosis in 1974, leading to the Turkish invasion, and the collapse of the Greek junta.

What was particularly dazzling was the timing - just as the Tories were engaged in one of their bouts of blood-letting and massacre. A good time for Labour to be on the attack, pointing out how Cameron's gamble had led to one of the biggest crises since Suez.

But some bright sparks in the plp thought, this is it! Time to mount our coup! This will play well with the voters, surely.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People other than Mr Corbyn may also have principles and ideals.

Yes, this is something that needs to be stressed.

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes, then the expected behaviour of the PLP would be to suffer Damascene conversions to the new regime in the style of the Vicar of Bray. But most of them haven't done that. Could it possibly be the case that one or other of those 'if's is incorrect?

It's also very noticeable that for all the talk of a kinder, gentler politics, it's Mr Corbyn's friends who are so quick to throw accusations of bad faith against anyone who disagrees with him. It's a bit bloody difficult to have the open dialogue they claim to crave if anything one side says is instantly dismissed as a smokescreen for a secret fear of socialism.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes

Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.

Exactly! So why try to make windows into men's souls and attribute to them the motives that are least likely to lead to constructive dialogue?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

Still not high enough.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ricardus

I think it was a close thing. The PLP did expect Jeremy to throw in the sponge and there were certainly some signs that he was seriously considering doing that. But some of those close to him advised that he should stick it out, despite losing PLP support. That wrong-footed the PLP. which is why they have been flapping around. No Plan B; collectively, they didn't think they needed one.

Kiss and make up still doesn't look very likely to me. I suppose they could all resign the Parliamentary Whip. But no. Apparently the Whips don't support Jeremy.

What a dog's dinner! Or a pig's breakfast.

[ 13. July 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If the PLP really consists of careerist unprincipled apparatchiks, and if Mr Corbyn is really the electoral hot potatoes

Or they have a misguided opinion of their own electoral appeal, or they think it's in their better interests to capital on side by winning on a right wing ticket, or .. there are tens of different explanations for their behavior.

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.

Well, I watched Angela Eagle on Newsnight last night, and it was really a policy-free zone. I could not get any sense of what she stands for, except that she doesn't think Corbyn is competent. Rather ironic, since she is part of a really cack-handed coup now going on.

She also abstained on welfare cuts, I'm not sure what that projects into the future. More abstentions?

I suppose in any case, she is a stalking horse, not to say, a loss-leader.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

Still not high enough.
However (received yesterday):

The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons.

The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP. The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.

 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

At the moment they seem to be flapping about rather ineffectually, so I'm not sure that you can even assume that they have a coherent reason for doing what they do.

And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.

Splendid standup.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I really don't buy he got out the youth vote. I think many instinctively felt this was about their future. Corbyn's campaign was pitiful. Very tribal and petty.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Following Harman's lead in abstaining on the welfare bill in order to show that they were 'listening' blows away the idea that they put principles before electability in any case.

My comments were specifically about accusations of bad faith.

As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...

They weren't well coordinated, but they were clearly coordinated and there were clear links between the coup and Portland. The problem was they didn't have a plan for what to do if Corbyn refused to stand down.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Doublethink wrote:
quote:
That information has now been updated: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Thanks for this Doublethink. I had somehow missed that being published. The methodology does look to be more sound. However, pollsters are struggling on all fronts in trying to ensure representative subsampling these days, so I guess an enhanced level of scepticism over all these findings remains in order.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then, of course, there was John McDonnell's graceful contribution.

Splendid standup.
"We are the masters now. Stuff the PLP, they don't matter. Excuse me while I have a little gloat at their expense."

You call that "splendid standup"? I call it contempt myself.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

As I said upthread, any attempt to bring in socialism by incremental steps will require compromises. You may well argue that the abstention on the welfare bill was a compromise too far, and I may well agree with you, but it does not follow that those who made that compromise were acting in bad faith

There are no incremental steps to socialism that involve standing aside and allowing things to get worse. The only left wing factions that promote letting things get worse are those who favour revolutionary rather than parliamentary solutions.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And yet only a week or so ago their actions were so well-coordinated that they could only be a conspiracy engineered by Portland Communications ...

Don't think I mentioned Portland Communications. The cycle of resignations was clearly planned - however whatever they had in terms of tactics, they were obviously lacking on strategy.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the Labour Party leadership campaign is going to be a bit of a sideshow for a while. The news cycle will be firmly in the hands of the Tories "under new management". That might not be such a bad thing.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There are no incremental steps to socialism that involve standing aside and allowing things to get worse. The only left wing factions that promote letting things get worse are those who favour revolutionary rather than parliamentary solutions.

There is no Parliamentary route to socialism that doesn't involve winning elections.

AIUI the Cunning Plan was to let the bill get to the second reading and then try to force amendments. Whether or not they voted against or abstained was of purely symbolic importance since the Government had enough seats to get it passed. Again, one may say that this was a rather poorly executed Cunning Plan and even that it proves that Mr Corbyn isn't the only Labour leader in recent times to lack leadership skills, but all of this is a distraction from my main point, which is about imputing bad faith as a means of poisoning debate.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the 'armed struggle' of Messrs Kneecap O'Goon and Seamus McSemtex in this context.

Very entertaining writing for a certain section of the population I'm sure but comes across as a little off to me. You must think me very humourless but it doesn't seem like a great joke for an Englander.
I'm sure I meant to say "the gallant gentlemen of the Irish Republican Army", pardon my French.

quote:
(And by the way it wasn't Satre's choice for Blair. One choice was illegal war with 150k direct deaths and many more indirect deaths, ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis and a general destablization of the Middle-East and Islamic world. The other choice of leaving bad-guy Saddam in charge would have done Blair's legacy as much harm as leaving Assad, Khatami and Kim Jong-il in charge.)
The obvious retort to that is that a number of the 150k deaths were the work of the Iraqi Resistance whose activities Mr Corbyn and his colleagues in Stop The War believed should be endorsed and supported. "By any means necessary" was the mot juste, if memory serves.

The less obvious retort, but one which ought to be made anyway, is that there are costs for both action and inaction. The case against action is always that the consequences of action are unpredictable. Supporters of intervention, quite properly, pointed out that the alternative to the invasion was the status quo whereby an allied blockade enforced sanctions and a no fly zone, the continued rule of Saddam and the de facto partition of the country. Responsible opponents of the war - The Cook/ Kennedy/ Clarke axis, if you will - pointed out that going to war with a dubious case for war and no real plan had the distinct possibility for making things worse. Clearly, Chilcot and events (not necessarily in that order of importance) have vindicated the CKC position. If Blair had done a Harold Wilson his reputation would, deservedly, be higher but the most he could have achieved would have been to keep the UK out of the war, not to stop it entirely. But the position prior to the Iraq war was hardly satisfactory and its continuation indefinitely wouldn't have done much for the Iraqi people. Much the same can be said of the situation in Syria. I was opposed to military intervention in 2013 but there were and are costs to leaving Assad in place which continue to be borne by the Syrian people.

A similar point can be made about Blair's successful interventions - Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The UK could have said that the affairs of people in far away countries are not our business. But the costs of non-intervention would have been borne by the Kosovars and the Sierra Leoneans. Just as the costs of Major's policy of non-intervention was borne by the Bosnians.

Which is, I think, the question at issue at the heart of this thread. Some of us think that government is a difficult business, every gain, somewhere, represents a loss. Sometimes you have a choice of evils and it is not entirely clear which is the lesser of the two. Often the best possible outcome is a largely unsatisfactory compromise. And the conditions under which you campaign and govern are very much not of your making. The extent to which one acknowledges this, I suspect, correlates in an inverse degree to one's admiration for Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
So "unelectable" they have to ban members from voting to stand a chance. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its not that Corbyn is unelectable by people who support Labour, it is that he is unelectable in a General Election - so if Corbyn remains leader then Labour lose the next GE.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.

If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
They are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, there are major disagreements within the Tory party but they are reacting to them very differently.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So "unelectable" they have to ban members from voting to stand a chance. [Roll Eyes]

Like Michael Foot, and others here, he may be elected by at least a sizeable proportion of those who vote Labour ( although there must be some doubt the extent to the 3 pound voters who put Corbyn in represent Labour voters as a whole). He would not attract the extra voters needed from the electorate at large to put Labour into office. I'd not be surprised if Momentum repells the middle ground just as much as the Militant Tendency did in the 80s.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I don't think that who and what is electable is quite as obvious these days.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.

[ 16. July 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.

Technically, the railways never stopped being nationalised - it's the operations that are franchised that need to be nationalised. Some will run out fairly soon (South Western is due in about 6 years I think), others longer, but they may have break clauses in their contracts. In any event, non-performing franchisees such as Southern may be even quicker. And no big hit on public expenditure if done in orderly fashion.

Something, however, would have to be done in the longer term about the rolling-stock rental companies, which is where I think most profit is taken (and taken outside the UK tax system in many cases).
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.

People don't vote for policies. They vote for people. They vote for the people they read about in the Daily Mail and on Facebook. That may not be big and it may not be clever, but it's how our democracy works. Policies only count once you're in power.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Policies or not, people vote for politicians they perceive to be competent. They are right to do so. Wonks and other enthusiasts may argue that it should be policies not people, but it isn't. This may be a home truth that many committed ideologues don't want to hear, but if a politician can't make the system work, he or she should not be let anywhere near the reigns of power.

Any leader of any organisation who reaches the position where all they can say is some version of 'because I'm the boss, you've got to obey me' is no longer leading. It's the equivalent of a clergy person saying you must do as I say not because you agree or because I inspire you, but because I've got apostolic succession and you haven't.

So sorry and all that, but by it has already become abundantly clear that Mr Corbyn has failed to win or keep the support and confidence of his shadow cabinet and most of his MPs. The fact that he obstinately persists in self denial of this is not a mark of determination and tenacity. It's further demonstration that however inspirational some may find his ideology, he is not the person to lead a political party. If he had the slightest modicum of leadership quality, he would have realised this by now, and gone.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.

If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Something, however, would have to be done in the longer term about the rolling-stock rental companies, which is where I think most profit is taken (and taken outside the UK tax system in many cases).

[Indulging in another tangent]
It is particularly scandalous as these companies were essentially given the rolling-stock at a fraction of their cost. Obviously most of the rolling stock in use now is not that which was used in the early 90s but it was a major kick-start for these companies who have a business model with virtually no risk and high returns. (The free market at work...)

There are some interesting little sub-plots to this. The Pendolino tilting trains that Virgin use are made by Fiat Ferroviaria in Italy who bought the patents for tilting technology from British Rail after the PR failings of the now infamous APT project. The Pendolinos are sold in at least 13 countries.

My soon-to-be brother-in-law works for Network Rail as an engineer. He's far too young to have worked there during the BR years but he told me that the old-hands have a standing joke whenever someone is talking about any part of the engineering or maintenance that's contracted out...
"I can remember when we did this in house" says one
"No!" replies another "You mean to tell me, we used to do this ourselves, no way!"
Apparently this is a daily conversation.

British Rail was far from perfect but actually the research and development work and the engineering was pretty good. Privatisation of BR was very much a triumph of ideology over facts and we all pay the price (quite literally).

So yeah, I reckon renationalizing our railways is a good idea.
[/Indulging in another tangent]

AFZ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[crosspost replying to Gee D]

You say this, but surveys that actually ask the public about proposed policies find quite high support - e.g. many Brits support the re-nationalisation of the railways.

I can understand that, but that does not mean that sufficient people in the right places will vote for a party led by Corbyn. They'll say that they like any number of the policies he espouses, but his image is of a man of little practical experience, strong on his principles but not the person to lead the country; come the real test at the ballot box, he won't do any better than Michael Foot.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.

If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.

If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected. They don't have a mandate to seek to undermine said duly elected leader, or to try to tear up the constitution as decided by the conference.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if the party would pull together we could make the argument to the country.

If the people who didn't support Corbyn would drop all their objections and support him?
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground. Is it so unreasonable to expect the PLP to support the one and do their darnedest to make it work? Isn't that the democratic option?
Shades of the speaker at a Corbyn rally who, in all seriousness, pointed at the House of Commons and said: "Nobody voted for them!" Members of Parliament have a democratic mandate, as well.
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected. They don't have a mandate to seek to undermine said duly elected leader, or to try to tear up the constitution as decided by the conference.
Good point. So, for example, given that they were elected on a platform of renewing Trident, they should vote to renew Trident? And, in general, they should consider themselves elected to work towards a soft-left prospectus, as set forward during the last election?

Out of interest, on the whole undermining the elected leader bit, I can assume that you were aghast, simply aghast, when the Conservative Party decided to defenestrate Iain Duncan Smith in 2003?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
They have a mandate to work with the duly elected leader of the Labour party to seek to implement the policies in the manifesto on which they were elected.

Indeed, the lines 'I voted duly at my party's call/ and never thought of thinking for myself at all' could have been written with Mr Corbyn in mind. But it's nice to know the left of the party have dropped their objection to parachuting PPE graduates into safe seats in order to implement the leadership's policies.

Snark aside, how do you define the 'mandate' of an MP given that they are elected on a ballot which simply asks which of a list of people you want to represent your area? People vote for one candidate over another for all sorts of reasons.

(Not to mention that the manifesto on which MPs were elected was Mr Miliband's manifesto, which said nothing IIRC about Trident or nationalising the railways.)

[ 17. July 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:


Out of interest, on the whole undermining the elected leader bit, I can assume that you were aghast, simply aghast, when the Conservative Party decided to defenestrate Iain Duncan Smith in 2003?

Nobody expects democratic principles from the tories. The PLP would do well to remember that when IDS was knifed his replacement, Michael "something of the night about him" Howard hardly set the world alight.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
With regard to IDS, I'm not overly bothered what the internal machinations of the Tory party are, as I'm not a Tory, but if I were a supporter or member of that august organisation, then, yes, I wouldn't be best pleased if the PCP sought to set aside the results of a duly constituted election.

As for Trident, the point is pretty moot, as I guess there will be a free vote, but there really is a difference between an organisation changing its mind on an issue following an open democratic process (such as a resolution in Conference) and an undemocratic covert undermining of leader who still, in all likelihood, commands the support of an overwhelming majority of his party's membership.

By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.

Well, his policies are presumably significantly to the left of Mr Miliband's policies, on which Labour MPs were elected, otherwise the comments about how Labour MPs are scared of anything that hints at real socialism would be mere rhetoric.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Indeed, the lines 'I voted duly at my party's call/ and never thought of thinking for myself at all' could have been written with Mr Corbyn in mind.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - I thought one of the objections the PLP have to Corbyn is that he never toed the line.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Sorry, I was favouring sarcasm over clarity. My point is that if MPs don't have a mandate to act according to their consciences against the wishes of their party leadership, then Mr Corbyn had no business acting the way he acted when he was a backbench MP.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Sorry, I was favouring sarcasm over clarity. My point is that if MPs don't have a mandate to act according to their consciences against the wishes of their party leadership, then Mr Corbyn had no business acting the way he acted when he was a backbench MP.

There is a difference between defying the whip on an issue of conscience (or indeed where the leadership has betrayed the manifesto on which it was elected to government, as with tuition fees at the 2001 election) and actively attacking the leader. I have no doubt the Tony Blair was not Corbyn's preferred choice for leader, but he did not call for him to resign until Blair had been in office for 10 years and was suspected of war crimes, and for all Corbyn's disagreements with the views of both Brown and Miliband I'm not aware of him calling for either of them to be replaced. You can respect the mandate of a leader while still respecting your own conscience.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'm not convinced there is a qualitative difference but if there is, Mr Corbyn is on the wrong side of it, having supported Mr Benn's attempt to depose Mr Kinnock.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to IDS, I'm not overly bothered what the internal machinations of the Tory party are, as I'm not a Tory, but if I were a supporter or member of that august organisation, then, yes, I wouldn't be best pleased if the PCP sought to set aside the results of a duly constituted election.

The thing is that neither IDS nor Corbyn were/ are merely the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties in the way that Farage was the leader of UKIP or even that Charles Kennedy or Nicola Sturgeon led/ leads the Lb Dems or the SNP. The point is that IDS and Corbyn were/ are the leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition and, as such, need(ed) to be able to say that they commanded the confidence of the second largest bloc in the House of Commons. If you can't say that you can't be Leader of the Opposition. The official position of the Labour Party is currently that the British Constitution is all very well but that it is subordinate to a mandate derived, at least in part, by members of the WRP coughing up £3 a pop to put someone manifestly inadequate in that position. I don't think that this can end well.

quote:
As for Trident, the point is pretty moot, as I guess there will be a free vote, but there really is a difference between an organisation changing its mind on an issue following an open democratic process (such as a resolution in Conference) and an undemocratic covert undermining of leader who still, in all likelihood, commands the support of an overwhelming majority of his party's membership.
Well, thus far there hasn't been a vote at conference, so you currently have the position of the leader of the Labour Party voting against his own parties policies. Again, not a good look. Particularly as the reason that it hasn't gone to conference is that the unions who are, by and large, pro-Corbyn are also, by and large, anti-mass redundancies in the defence sector.

quote:
By the way, how are Corbyn's policies a)other than soft left and b) wrong? Answers should make reference to peace talks in Northern Ireland and the war in Iraq.
Ah. With regard to the particular positions you reference the soft left were in favour of a settlement in Northern Ireland and opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Mr Corbyn was in favour of the Irish Republican Army and the Iraqi Resistance.
 
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
an undemocratic covert undermining of leader

There is nothing undemocratic or covert about a vote of confidence is there? There was a vote of confidence in Corbyn and he lost.

This isn't a choice between democracy or not democracy. It's a choice between electorates. You value the electorate which delivers what you support - you support Jeremy Corbyn - so do Labour Party members. The public does not support Jeremy Corbyn - nor do Labour MPs. Those two things are related: many of those who voted no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn are happy with his political position on the left, but they don't think he's any good at winning support from the electorate and they want a leader who has the basic competence required to take the fight to the Tories and actually, you know, win a democratic election. Like Ed Miliband didn't. Like Tony Blair did.

The only Labour Party leaders who have ever won General Elections are Ramsay MacDonald. Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. You might not like that list. But you can't argue it's undemocratic.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7

That's not up to date, and there's a huge problem with that poll, anyway. Reference for both that, and the up to date results showing a 10% Tory lead here.


And if the reader scrolls down to the commentary on the result, the section finishes with “you need to look at the figures that account for how likely people actually are to vote, not take false solace from figures that don’t take turnout into account.”

Very worrying is that the UKIP vote is about half the Labour one in the two most recent adjusted polls. If Labour continues to value ideological purity above electability, those anti-government votes won't be going to Labour, and could see UKIP established as a viable parliamentary party.

I find the writers commentary on polls fascinating. And who wouldn't?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground.

Sometimes people who work closely with someone see them in a different light to people who don't.

Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone has any comments on this?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So in the middle of this clusterfuck, the party is polling only 1 per cent behind the tories:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-trails-conservatives-in-ipsos-mori-poll-2016-7

That's not up to date, and there's a huge problem with that poll, anyway. Reference for both that, and the up to date results showing a 10% Tory lead here.


And if the reader scrolls down to the commentary on the result, the section finishes with “you need to look at the figures that account for how likely people actually are to vote, not take false solace from figures that don’t take turnout into account.”

Very worrying is that the UKIP vote is about half the Labour one in the two most recent adjusted polls. If Labour continues to value ideological purity above electability, those anti-government votes won't be going to Labour, and could see UKIP established as a viable parliamentary party.

I find the writers commentary on polls fascinating. And who wouldn't?

More recent doesn't mean a change - just different companies. You also fail to note that both challengers to Corbyn do even worse. They fail to win any new supporters and put off some that Corbyn gained.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, he is the guy with a genuine democratic mandate from the party on the ground.

Sometimes people who work closely with someone see them in a different light to people who don't.

Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone has any comments on this?

On the face of it, that is indeed a mess, but I would be interested to hear from anyone else involved. I would also be interested to know if this is usual or unusual - given the apparently unsually 'clinical' reshuffle by Mrs May still produced at least one sacked / unsacked minister.

However, it goes to what I said earlier in the thread - start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The Independent carry this story - with this:

quote:

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told The Independent: "There was some miscommunication over Thangam's appointment as shadow minister for the arts, but at no point was she sacked."


 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The Independent carry this story - with this:

quote:

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told The Independent: "There was some miscommunication over Thangam's appointment as shadow minister for the arts, but at no point was she sacked."


Mm. Start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen. [Biased]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?

Yes, in that Jeremy Hunt is still the Minister for Health.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?

No. What's that got to do with Corbyn?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
bad man ... This isn't a choice between democracy or not democracy. It's a choice between electorates. You value the electorate which delivers what you support - you support Jeremy Corbyn - so do Labour Party members. The public does not support Jeremy Corbyn - nor do Labour MPs. Those two things are related: many of those who voted no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn are happy with his political position on the left, but they don't think he's any good at winning support from the electorate and they want a leader who has the basic competence required to take the fight to the Tories and actually, you know, win a democratic election.

FWIW I have been a Labour voter for yonks (even stood as a local Labour Councillor once) but voted LibDem as I did not like Blair et al or their policies. I didn't like the coalition with the Tories but, there you go, we didn't get a vote on that. Returned to Labour after the LibDems messed up. I would describe my philosophy as quite a bit left of centre. I like Corbyn's policies, I would be very happy if we had a Labour Government with those policies. But Corbyn is only going to give us more of the present Tory policies as he has been unelectable (in my view) for months.

So, I am Jo Public. I will choose who gets my vote when the time comes. If Corbyn is still there I'll probably vote Green. Pity, but I suspect I am typical of the bulk of the public who want anything bar the Tories (well, not anything!).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yup, do you think Mrs May is incompetent on the grounds of the Jeremy Hunt thing ?

Only if she fully intended to sack him and then bottled out for some reason. She's not responsible for rumours flying around on reshuffle day.

The reshuffle cock-up is a British constitutional tradition. Sir Ivan Lawrence gleefully recounts in his memoirs the story of how he was offered a job at the Home Office, only to discover that John Major had offered it to two MPs, so Sir Ivan was offered a Knighthood as a quid pro quo. Less amusingly, one of Tony Blair's ex-ministers was wont to point out that he supported Blair despite Blair sacking him by text.

I think the thing is with Corbyn is that he is notoriously bad at Shadow Cabinet composition. His first Shadow Cabinet appointments were overshadowed by the fact that the press managed to eavesdrop on them and that he had signally failed to appoint a woman to one of the great offices of state. His reshuffle was notorious for taking absolutely forever. Then, of course, his entire Shadow front bench resigned largely en masse. The business with Thangam Debbonaire reinforces two narratives, firstly that he cannot manage his front bench - which strikes me as being entirely fair and accurate - and secondly that underneath the facade of being a kind old lefty he is, actually, a bit of a shit. IMV the second is overstated (on a personal level, that is, his political judgement is howlingly bad, IMO.)
Now the thing is that everytime a party leader rearranges their troops they sacrifice a degree of support. Every politician sent to the backbencher is someone who is not going to over exert themselves when a crisis materialises. A lot of the commentary about Mrs May's reshuffle has been along the lines of "is it wise to sack that many ministers given the size of her majority?" which is fair comment. Given the number of Labour front benchers who refused to serve under Corbyn, one would have thought that a certain amount of caution and discretion would have been in order in dealing with the rest of them. In dealing with Thangam Debbonaire, a competent leader would have made sure that she felt valued, particularly given her health issues. Corbyn, IMO, isn't a competent leader. As it is one of the doctrines of the cult that the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party is unnecessary for the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose this doesn't matter. But a Leader of the Opposition who could find his arse with both hands would have handled the matter differently. I don't think that this reflects on Corbyn's niceness, because I think that he is clearly out of his depth. A competent and unkind leader would have contrived to look kind. Corbyn is incompetent and therefore looks unkind but probably didn't intend the outcome that happened.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn, IMO, isn't a competent leader.

Excellent, in which case all the PLP needs to do is to put up a moderately competent leader who can persuade the membership at large.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.

Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.

Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I will be a member of Labour, and will vote Labour, whoever is in charge. At the last leadership election I voted for Burnham, with Kendall as 2nd preference.
Those who are optimistic about Corbyn see him as the 'next Atlee'. Those who are pessimistic about Corbyn see him as the 'next Foot'. I say the jury is still out on that.
The vote of no confidence was conducted democratically, but had no constitutional validity. If people want to look at amending the constitution to 'correct' that, then this would be something to be considered...
In terms of timing, it was disastrous - no good was ever going to come out of it.
It was said that England's football team failed in the Euros because they weren't really a team at all, but just a collection of fevered egos. It gives me no pleasure to say that history is going to judge those 'rebel MP's' in much the same way.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It gives me no pleasure to say that history is going to judge those 'rebel MP's' in much the same way.

My view is that history is probably going to judge Corbyn and those loyal to him that way, and (ironically given the name has been adopted by Corbyn supporters) the 140-odd Labour rebels as the choking canaries down the gaseous mine...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.

Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.

Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Because that number didn't support him in the first place, largely because he is left wing, and Thangham is the first individual to attempt to put forward any specific evidence re competence - and that evidence amounts to: reshuffle is confusing, I got a great job I loved and I think I did well, and other people said he was crap (not that I saw anything else first hand).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
start to present actual evidence and I will start to listen.

Why does the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who work with him NOT count as evidence?
Doublethink may not be persuaded, but I am.
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.
Out of interest, have you seen the Vice News profile of Jeremy Corbyn?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because that number didn't support him in the first place, largely because he is left wing,

Bulverism. Shall I respond by saying that Momentum's criticism of the PLP is worthless because they don't like the PLP because it's right-wing?
quote:
and Thangham is the first individual to attempt to put forward any specific evidence re competence
My experience of incompetent people is that their incompetence is usually manifest in a series of little screwups, each of which would be venial in itself. But the allegations which I am seeing in different bits of the Press include:

1. Going on holiday at the crucial point of the referendum campaign
2. Attacking austerity without having any specific anti-austerity policies (see earlier comments about people's quantitative easing)
3. Going silent at moments of crisis, creating a McDonnell-shaped void
4. Not discussing decisions outside the clique of people who agree with him
5. Not meeting deadlines for press releases
6. Sitting on policy decisions
7. Allowing Mr McDonnell to run his own parallel health policy without reference to the Shadow Health Secretary
8. Blocking access to facilities for Labour Remain campaigners
9. I think you will find Ms Debbonaire's complaints are rather more serious than your summary of them
10. Thinking that having Trident submarines without Trident missiles is a sensible policy
11. Appointing Seamas Milne as press officer
12. Having to apologise to the Israeli ambassador and the Chief Rabbi after welcoming the results of a review of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

I'm not posting links because I'm too lazy, but what would be the point? If Labour MPs are lying about his competence they could be lying about all of the above as well.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
13. People on doorsteps say Mr Corbyn is not a convincing leader
14. Mr McDonnell's strange shenanigans with the Fiscal Compact
15. If he can't negotiate with the PLP, how will he negotiate with Mr Putin?
16. Rewriting of history regarding IRA support
17. Rewriting of history regarding attempt to undermine Mr Kinnock.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
18. Not having anything resembling an economic policy.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Frankly Mr Dear
quote:
I will be a member of Labour, and will vote Labour, whoever is in charge.
That is the attitude which has contributed to the situation the party is in now with Mr Corbyn.

If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.

This unthinking, knee-jerk reaction is what has contributed to the vicious struggle now being played out for the edification of the general public. True, other parties may have their own unthinking ballot-box sheep, but only Labour has such a vast majority who'll sleep-walk their way to the ballot box regardless. They do the party no favours with their mindless behaviour - all it does is encourage takeovers by people on the margins to come into the party and turn it into what they want, because by-and-large if they created their own party to reflect their views they'd have no chance of success, so they use Labour sheep instead.

Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.
I grew up in Totnes which, between 1955 and 2010 was represented by Mr Ray Mawby and Sir Anthony Steen. Which suggests, rather strongly, that this may not, entirely, be a Labour issue. The whole phenomenon of safe seats is rather a testament to the tendency of a large proportion of the British electorate being willing to vote for the proverbial donkey, as long as it wears a rosette bearing the appropriate logo and colour scheme. The idea that this sort of tribalism is confined to one half of the Labour-Conservative duopoly is for the birds, frankly
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Pish and tush l'Organist. I can assure you that "My party right or wrong" is in no way limited to just Labour. There are plenty of folks where I live who will hold their noses at anything and vote Conservative rather than abstain, spoil a paper, or heaven forfend actually vote for a party/candidate who more closely represents their views.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

If a paid-up, life-long Conservative disagrees with the party leader and policies espoused by them, then at General Election time they either vote for someone else or they stay at home. In stark contrast for decades we've had the situation where there is a large rump of Labour members who'll vote for anyone and anything just so long as someone has remembered to stick a Labour rosette on it.

That's patently untrue. It's widely thought that the tories can count on maybe 30% of the vote, pretty much regardless of leader or policies, while Labour can count on maybe 25%. There are plenty of seats where a bonobo with a blue rosette pinned to its arse would get elected. You only have to look at the turnout in safe Labour seats to see how their vote has been hollowed out in recent years.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Lilian Greenwood has explained in detail why she resigned as Shadow Transport Secretary.

It's worth reading in full and it provides at least one new addition to the list:

19. When Mr Corbyn does finally agree a policy with his Shadow Cabinet, he lets them work hard on it and then announces something completely different to national media.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I just don't believe the resignations weren't planned. The staged timing throughout the day alone is sufficient to make that deeply suspicious. As for the rest of it, Corbyn is clearly used to speaking his mind when asked, and the transition from backbench to leader was always going to be rocky. What Corbyn needs to do when he is re-elected is to read the specific criticisms arising from his inexperience and get some people in his office who can help him with that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Meanwhile the NEC has covered itself in glory by gerrymandering the leadership vote (new members can't vote); raising the supporters' fee to £25 (expensive for people in poverty), and stopping branches from meeting.

They've been reading too much Brecht, I think, if you don't like your membership, deselect them.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Lilian Greenwood has explained in detail why she resigned as Shadow Transport Secretary.

It's worth reading in full and it provides at least one new addition to the list:

19. When Mr Corbyn does finally agree a policy with his Shadow Cabinet, he lets them work hard on it and then announces something completely different to national media.

This might be a 19A or a 20, but this afternoon Mr Corbyn announced that he's going to vote against the government in today's Trident debate, having just argued against formally-adopted Labour Party policy. He also appears to be voting against his own views as the motion before the Commons concerns renewal of the submarines and he had previously argued that they should be (even if the warheads shouldn't).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Meanwhile the NEC has covered itself in glory by gerrymandering the leadership vote (new members can't vote); raising the supporters' fee to £25 (expensive for people in poverty), and stopping branches from meeting.

They've been reading too much Brecht, I think, if you don't like your membership, deselect them.

If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. Labour voters who didn't. Lib Dems who wanted a realignment of the left and thought a split in the Labour Party was the way to go. Lib Dems who thought an effective opposition would be in their interests. Tories who wanted an unelectable Labour leader. Tories who thought that an effective opposition was best for the country. UKIP. The SWP. Workers Liberty. The Sparts. The Tankies. The Krankies. The Muslim Brotherhood. The Strict and Particular Baptists. The Order of Dagon. The Royal Order of Antediluvian Buffaloes. The RSPCA. The Elusive Brethren. You name it, they have a view, and for three quid they get to share it with the rest of us.

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level. Nor do they have a list of every single member of an alternative political party or Trot grouping. I'm guessing that this was less about gerrymandering the outcome, which, as I said, they could have done quickly and effectively by ruling that Corbyn was obliged to demonstrate that he had sufficient support within the Parliamentary Party (hardly an unreasonable request), and more to do with keeping the election manageable. Of course, if Jeremy had hung around for the rest of the meeting and not buggered off to have his selfie taken with members of The Cult, things might have been different. But Jeremy, is a competent man. So, so are they all competent men...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Author of "A Very British Coup" calls for "A Very British Coup".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt you were persuaded, in that I don't believe you ever thought Corbyn had a viable policy platform or was a viable political leader.

I accept that I've never been a supporter of his. I've said so on these boards back when he was appointed leader. However, the point we're discussing at the moment is a different one. It is how he has revealed himself to be a hopeless politician, unable to win over and carry his own shadow cabinet and MPs

If he can't do that, do you really think the party is likely to be able to persuade floating voters to vote for its candidates while he is in charge?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I wasn't surprised by Lilian Greenwood's explanation. Particularly this summary, following her description of her experiences.

quote:
Jeremy has a new Shadow Cabinet but it’s clear to me that he doesn’t understand collective responsibility and that he can't lead a team, so I'm afraid the same problems will eventually emerge in the new front bench. This is not about policy or ideology, it is about competence.
Popularity does not guarantee competence. It's been too easy to demonise the PLP as a "lynch mob". But it's just not true.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. .....

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level.

The problem with this line of argument is that in removing the vote from people who were members (of which there are 100k plus who have joined since the deadline), they have disenfranchised people who might have paid a lot more than £25 quid (those who signed up for a whole year). Yet £25 quid is deemed as a hurdle sufficient to deter the frivolous.

The idea that the SWP/TUSC would have 100k members who would be willing to join Labour as a form of mass entryism is barmy quite frankly - though this is the line that has been pushed heavily by people like the ever charming John McTernan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McTernan#Later_career) on twitter.

Which makes them cack-handed, or they were attempting to shut Corbyn out of the election which doesn't lead to a particularly better conclusion.

[Incidentally, it would appear that this issue was off the agenda, and was floated after Corbyn left the room - so the most you can definitively say is that he was rather naive].

Finally, if someone wants to replace Corbyn, they should absolutely go for it, put up a credible candidate and make an actual case for why they think they would make a better leader. All I see you doing - in common with a lot of the PLP - is making an oblique argument that Corbyn should disappear from existence because he represents some kind of violation of natural order.

[ 18. July 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If the NEC had wanted to nobble Corbyn, there was a surer and more certain method.

One estimate is that something like 10% of the population would have signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election. 10% Labour voters who supported Corbyn. .....

The Labour Party simply does not have the resources to decide which of these people are on the level.

The problem with this line of argument is that in removing the vote from people who were members (of which there are 100k plus who have joined since the deadline), they have disenfranchised people who might have paid a lot more than £25 quid (those who signed up for a whole year). Yet £25 quid is deemed as a hurdle sufficient to deter the frivolous.

The idea that the SWP/TUSC would have 100k members who would be willing to join Labour as a form of mass entryism is barmy quite frankly - though this is the line that has been pushed heavily by people like the ever charming John McTernan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McTernan#Later_career) on twitter.

Which makes them cack-handed, or they were attempting to shut Corbyn out of the election which doesn't lead to a particularly better conclusion.

[Incidentally, it would appear that this issue was off the agenda, and was floated after Corbyn left the room - so the most you can definitively say is that he was rather naive].

Finally, if someone wants to replace Corbyn, they should absolutely go for it, put up a credible candidate and make an actual case for why they think they would make a better leader. All I see you doing - in common with a lot of the PLP - is making an oblique argument that Corbyn should disappear from existence because he represents some kind of violation of natural order.

I think the problem is that it is not only the question as to whether or not the SWP, or whoever, would sign up en masse it's that the world and his wife would sign up en masse.

My more general feeling is that, whilst there is a perfectly good case that the Leader of the Opposition ought to have the support of the majority of the Opposition MPs, there is going to be a scrap and it might as well happen now. Who knows? It might be that the Labour Party in the country decide that having a competent Leader of the Opposition is reasonably important. It might be the case that they vote for Corbyn. If the latter is the case we will, undoubtedly, see the Labour Party burn. The whole thing will make the 1983 General Election look like a walk in the park. If that is what Labour members want, by all means, let them knock themselves out, but don't expect the rest of us to vote for them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It might be that the Labour Party in the country decide that having a competent Leader of the Opposition is reasonably important.

You'd think they would. I hope they will. And what the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
It is noticeable that despite his notional commitment to grassroots democracy, Mr McCluskey has done nothing to find out if his own members are still in favour of his enthusiastic support for Mr Corbyn.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It is noticeable that despite his notional commitment to grassroots democracy, Mr McCluskey has done nothing to find out if his own members are still in favour of his enthusiastic support for Mr Corbyn.

His members get their own vote, both for leader of Unite and leader of the Labour Party.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.

The "us" you refer to is not the same as "Party members". It is a subset, albeit a substantial one. Moreover, the evidence is in a poll, and we have seen how inaccurate these can be.

FWIW another election is essential, but while there is a consensus that Corbyn is doing a poor job none of the alternatives are going to worry Mrs May.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am one of his members.

The majority of us no longer support Mr Corbyn. You would think our beloved politburo might want to consider this, given that Mr Corbyn's own argument is based on continuing support from Party members, but apparently the membership's opinions only count if they're yours.

Except that poll says that most Unite members want Corbyn to stay for the time being, despite the spin the Mirror has put on it. And the poll was taken before it became clear who the alternatives were.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Eagle has pulled out, so apparently it's not time for a female leader at all.....
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Thank goodness there will be only one standing against him. Perhaps Smith will win. [Smile]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Thank goodness there will be only one standing against him. Perhaps Smith will win. [Smile]

Nope. Not a chance.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Then we're doomed ... doomed I say.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
I was beginning to feel sorry for Eagle. In every interview, she looked like she was holding back tears. As a former chess champion, she would have known that, whilst a pawn can sometimes get to the other side of the board and be made into a powerful piece; more often it is simply moved forward to be a sacrifice. I wonder if and when she realised the latter was the case, in her case.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
As a former chess champion, she would have known that, whilst a pawn can sometimes get to the other side of the board and be made into a powerful piece; more often it is simply moved forward to be a sacrifice. I wonder if and when she realised the latter was the case, in her case.

It should have been indicative that none of the previous set of candidates showed an interest in challenging.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it will be an ugly campaign. Owen Smith's line is to build, relentlessly, with further witnesses, on Lilian Greenwood's "this is what Jeremy is like to work with and for". The only issue for anyone from the PLP will be Jeremy's competence to lead.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

[ 20. July 2016, 01:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

I understand why people might not like Corbyn, but that is the most ridiculous comparison possible. There is only one current comparison to Trump and that is Boris Johnson. And, as much as it pains me to say, that is even an insult to Boris.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

I would say he's more our Bernie. Idealistic, inspiring - but just not the skill set for the job.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Members will have differing points of view, fine. The important thing is that everyone be gracious enough to get behind whoever the winner is, this time. Actually, we need to 'expand' our thinking on this, and also be willing, come the General Election, to withdraw Labour candidates from a few places in the country; where they stand no chance and so are only really splitting the anti-Tory vote .... But I'm aware that this would require some serious 'pride-swallowing'! ....
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
I think quite a few "anyone but a Tory" voters have voted LibDem in the past, in constituencies where Labour stood no chance. After Nick Clegg rewarded them with the coalition with the Tories they won't be doing that again in a hurry.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That is true. However the LibDems will do better if they distance themselves from Cleggism. There are some signs that they are recovering.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it will be an ugly campaign. Owen Smith's line is to build, relentlessly, with further witnesses, on Lilian Greenwood's "this is what Jeremy is like to work with and for". The only issue for anyone from the PLP will be Jeremy's competence to lead.

If that is the case, I will sadly vote for Jeremy again. I had hoped for a better candidate - I'm sure there could be candidates better than Jeremy in so many ways - but the one essential is that it should be someone with policies that offer an alternative to the government.

What I would really like is someone interested in politics. Someone who can articulate the ideas and forces at work in society. Someone who can analyse what is happening and show how things could be different. Someone who has a feel for the sort of people we are and might be in the various futures we can choose.

Teresa May's great speech did this when she directly addressed those who are just getting by. It had the flavour of a new teacher who is concerned about those who got low marks in the last test, patronising and ultimately depressing because we know there will be no real help, but making the connection nonetheless.

It appears there is no one left in the Labour Party who can do this. Not even Corbyn, who only sounds refreshing because he is stuck in a 1970s Socialist time loop, but I don't think he is interested by ideas or alternative futures any more, he just wants to keep the pure faith.

I suspect there's no one like this left in the Consevative Party either, and that May's speech was written by a script writer or a novelist or a poet.

It's a difficult task, to marry credible policy with a language and a set of ideas that fit with people, but Farage managed it (stupid policies, but credible) for a minority of people, an angry and highly motivated minority. Benn managed it after he had stopped being an active politician. It's what they are supposed to do, politicians.

The very good ones are dangerous because it is such a powerful skill, but the safe, dull, elected bureaucrats we have now are turning us all against the whole process, and that is disastrous.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I should say that it's not just an alternative to our government. I think this is much bigger. What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

The first bit of big news of our generation is the economic growth of China, India, etc. And it's very good news. But the second big issue is climate change, and that's quite a problem.

The new politics will be internationalist to an extent that makes the EU look like a side show, and it will address people and issues across continents. When I start to see how my future is entangled with that if people in, say, the Philippines, perhaps politics will feel important again.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
hatless

It's fine to articulate the good ends. But what about willing the means? Doesn't that require competence and determination?

I think you might be right that, deep down, Jeremy wants to keep the "pure faith". More important than gaining power, making friends etc.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Yes, let's have competence, but attached to something.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

I would say he's more our Bernie. Idealistic, inspiring - but just not the skill set for the job.

 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In many ways, Corbyn is your Trump.

In one way.
I don't think anyone has ever accused Trump of sticking stubbornly to his convictions at the expense of winning over doubters.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, Corbyn is like Trump because he has the support of the rank and file of Labour but the party elite abandoned him. Corbyn is like Trump because Labour is like the Republican Party. What the party elite believes no longer inspires the base and they can't draw enough votes away from the other party. Both Trump and Corbyn likely represent extreme versions of the way their parties must go to eventually return to power but neither has much chance of becoming president or prime minister due to their weaknesses as politicians. Republican members of congress would treat President Trump the same way Labour MP's are treating Corbyn. Democratic members of congress would have treated President Sanders with more respect.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, Corbyn is like Trump because he has the support of the rank and file of Labour but the party elite abandoned him. Corbyn is like Trump because Labour is like the Republican Party. What the party elite believes no longer inspires the base and they can't draw enough votes away from the other party. Both Trump and Corbyn likely represent extreme versions of the way their parties must go to eventually return to power but neither has much chance of becoming president or prime minister due to their weaknesses as politicians. Republican members of congress would treat President Trump the same way Labour MP's are treating Corbyn. Democratic members of congress would have treated President Sanders with more respect.

The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. The only person who Trump has an interest in is himself.
You seriously think that Trump's vision is the way the Republicans should go? Racism, xenophobia, narcissism and the attention span of a gnat with ADHD?

ETA: The rank and file republicans, excluding the racism and xenophobia for the moment, support Trump because he isn't establishment. And that is not a good enough reason.

[ 20. July 2016, 18:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.


That's undoubtedly what thou the person wanteth (sorry to use such archaic forms but that's the best way I know to make it clear I am speaking to asingle "you"). No doubt you are not alone. But I'd love to know how you know that any significant group -- much less "we, the people" -- wants that.

I'm aware of all sorts of dissatisfaction for all sorts of reasons all over the developed world. I'm not aware that in any but tiny pockets there is agreement with your description of what we have now, much less any agreement with your broad statement as to a desire for an alternative. I might ask what alternative?, because I don't see anything on offer just at the moment, either in your country, or mine, or in any of the dozens and dozens of very different systems and countries that comprise the "developed world".

John
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I should say that it's not just an alternative to our government. I think this is much bigger. What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.

The first bit of big news of our generation is the economic growth of China, India, etc. And it's very good news. But the second big issue is climate change, and that's quite a problem.

The new politics will be internationalist to an extent that makes the EU look like a side show, and it will address people and issues across continents. When I start to see how my future is entangled with that if people in, say, the Philippines, perhaps politics will feel important again.

I think your first para is spot on. I feel rather despairing, as it's difficult to see how an alternative to globalization and neo-liberalism will be found. I think Corbyn is expounding classical social democracy, or what used to be called a mixed economy, but whether this is possible, dunno. There has been such a big shift to the right. Well, also a shift to the left, but it's the right-wing who have wealth and power. I laughed when I saw May say that austerity means living within our means - I wonder how she does that? Baked beans on toast tonight for the May family?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by libuddha:
The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. The only person who Trump has an interest in is himself.
You seriously think that Trump's vision is the way the Republicans should go? Racism, xenophobia, narcissism and the attention span of a gnat with ADHD?

Economic nationalism, restrictions on border enforcement, less interventionist foreign policy, and rejection of politics based on intersectionality is totally the way the Republican Party should go.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Economic nationalism,

AKA no fucking clue on how economy works.
quote:

restrictions on border enforcement,

My family stole this land, fair and square/snuck in earlier, now piss off.
quote:

less interventionist foreign policy,

We've done fucked the world, now let's hide an hope it goes away. Except the oil, don't fuck with the oil. Oh, and give us our crap cheap.
quote:

and rejection of politics based on intersectionality is totally the way the Republican Party should go.

AKA, fuck off faggots.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I laughed when I saw May say that austerity means living within our means - I wonder how she does that?

She means exactly that. Rich people live within rich people's means and everyone else can bugger off and make do.

[ 20. July 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What we the people want, at a visceral level, is an alternative to the supine, neo-liberal, hopelessly national governments we have all over the 'developed' world.


That's undoubtedly what thou the person wanteth (sorry to use such archaic forms but that's the best way I know to make it clear I am speaking to asingle "you"). No doubt you are not alone. But I'd love to know how you know that any significant group -- much less "we, the people" -- wants that.

I'm aware of all sorts of dissatisfaction for all sorts of reasons all over the developed world. I'm not aware that in any but tiny pockets there is agreement with your description of what we have now, much less any agreement with your broad statement as to a desire for an alternative. I might ask what alternative?, because I don't see anything on offer just at the moment, either in your country, or mine, or in any of the dozens and dozens of very different systems and countries that comprise the "developed world".

John

If you come across 'we the people' again, and it's not in some self-consciously foundational Eighteenth Century document, it's likely to be a sign of someone with their tongue in their cheek, or enjoying the absurdity of the gigantically broad and crude brush with which they are painting, or, as in my case, someone entirely without contact with reality or anything resembling a realistic opinion of themself.

It seems to me that strange things are going on. UK politics has forgotten which way is up. There is not just a disconnection but a mighty canyon between voters and professional politicians (into which populists like Trump and Farage have stepped). The EU is uncertain. There is a new sort of terrorism that has everyone rattled. There are unresolved tensions between cultures. Not all of it entirely new, of course, but this picture seems to be the permanent outlook now. It's like facing a wall.

I'm guessing it's a crisis of the nation state. Most of our problems are international, so no government can begin to address them. We don't know how to do politics at a higher level, hence the neutered UN and the Masonic Lodge vibe of the EU.

It's a guess, but I'm inclined to offer my guesses like a mighty prophet's oracle and see how they go down. Perhaps they'll click with others. Maybe saying it will make it true, who knows?

And the alternative to neo-liberalism? No one knows yet, or even where it will come from. The first step is always finding a good question. The answer will come along.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It seems to me that strange things are going on. UK politics has forgotten which way is up. There is not just a disconnection but a mighty canyon between voters and professional politicians (into which populists like Trump and Farage have stepped).

I think some of the malaise in both the UK and US is due to the FPTP system. The result of this has been that the major parties are these huge and fairly unwieldly coalitions of interests - in europe pressure has been relieved by alternate voting systems allowing new parties to form.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think some of the malaise in both the UK and US is due to the FPTP system. The result of this has been that the major parties are these huge and fairly unwieldly coalitions of interests - in europe pressure has been relieved by alternate voting systems allowing new parties to form.

This is, I think, a very good point.

In recent history, Cameron wouldn't have had to hold the Tories together with the promise of a referendum, the SNP wouldn't have had such a clean sweep of Westminster seats, both the Greens and UKIP would have had a sizeable parliamentary presence (a mixed blessing there...) and the in-fighting of the Labour party would be much easier solved.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...

Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...

Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... The major difference being that Corbyn actually has the interests of the people in his efforts. ...

Does he? I don't see any evidence that he has much interest in anyone or anything except himself, his pet ideas and his claque group.
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.
Those are the issues for the poor, not people.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.

With the exception of the last, those are aspirations, not ideas. They, including the last, almost everybody claims to aspire to, even including Mrs May.

Of those aspirations, his 'idea' for 'increasing democracy' is that power should rest in his claque, not the people or the electorate, just one of many reasons why I detest everything he stands for.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!

That's the main reason I'm voting for a change of leader, having supported Corbyn last year.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

No logic can get through to them that suggests the picture may be a little bit more complicated. That actually he may not be perfect. He might have, whisper it, weaknesses!

That's the main reason I'm voting for a change of leader, having supported Corbyn last year.
Certainly it is for me the main reason I have moved from defending him more often than not to feeling there is something deeply toxic at work here.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It isn't Jeremy that I find scary but his fans. Many seem to have a belief in him that is almost messianic. Every single one of PLP who voted against him can be dismissed as evil, apparently. The view that the 80% of the PLP are 100% wrong with immoral motivation is alarming.

A lot of folks have invested hope in him. And much of that was a proper and understandable reaction to the game which politics has become. Jeremy is different. It is hard to see hope disappointed. It is hard to believe the messengers of bad news who tell you that he just isn't up to the job. It is easier to believe the fault lies with them, that they must have base motives for their criticism.

It's a difficult pill to swallow. I get that. But where does the truth lie?

But I think there is more than just a loyalty, even an idolatrous loyalty, at work here. I think part of his support is indeed disingenuous, or at least subject to mixed motivations, coming from more extremist socialist movements who see a means of increasing their own power and influence. I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions. I hope he is not tempted to go in that direction. He is worth a lot more than that.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.

FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.

FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
Corbyn is presumably a cipher? The hard left have waited decades to get to the top of the Labour Party. If Corbyn falls, they (and their decades of work) fail too. I can hardly see them letting him go in a hurry.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Barnabus - maybe that is why I find so much of the current stuff on places like 'The Canary' so disturbing - also known as 'Corbyn Or Death'. Yes I get that they think Jeremy was different, unique even, a total one off, if you really push it.

However, much of my defence of him was based on, if (a big 'if' I know) he gets voted in it won't be Armageddon. The scare stories in the Mail are just that. He will have to compromise and there is considerable inertia in the UK system therefore what he will achieve (positive and negative) in his first term will be limited.

I guess I never had any illusions so I don't feel they have been thwarted.

I think you are right about some other more dubious characters / influences being at work here.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I've only recently discovered The Canary. I encourage people to read the incredibly pretentious writer bios. They're hilarious.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I'm not sure if it belongs here or on the Trident thread, but it seems that Corbyn's position on Trident shows there is a fundamental flaw in the democratic process of the Labour party.

He was elected as leader on an anti-Trident ticket. It wasn't a secret that he opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction; it's something he's held to consistently throughout his career.

Yet at the same time the official Labour position was to renew Trident.

Both Jeremy and Labour's position on nuclear weapons were voted for by a majority of members. Yet the two are incompatible.

So when Labour members voted for Jeremy, were they voting for a leader or for a blank slate who would wear whatever policies were voted for at the party conference?

It seems to me that the membership is simply caught in two minds and that one of the root causes of their current problems is this cognitive dissonance about what constitutes a leader in a democratic movement.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Part of the cognitive dissonance is because of the left/right split. This has always existed in Labour, but Blair began a trek to the right, and I suppose some recent members are objecting to that, and want to reclaim what they see as foundational Labour values. This is called 'hard left' by some, but strikes me as classic social democracy.

So now you have a left-leaning membership and a right-leaning plp.

I guess that one of them has to give in the end, and there is a split.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think there is more than just a loyalty, even an idolatrous loyalty, at work here. I think part of his support is indeed disingenuous, or at least subject to mixed motivations, coming from more extremist socialist movements who see a means of increasing their own power and influence. I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.

I haven't wanted to say that but that's how it's seemed to me for a while now. Corbyn is coming across as in the pocket of forces he has little or no control over. And I agree about some of his fans. The intimidation and threats have been disturbing to read about in recent weeks.

[ 21. July 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I hope he does not become a prisoner of such factions.

FWIW gossip in the Westminster pubs is that he already is. The story goes that he's been wanting to step down for weeks if not months as he knows he's no good at it and more importantly is hating every minute of it all. The inner circle are refusing to let him go. Allegedly.
Sorry folks, but surely Mr Corbyn has a spine! He just has to tell them he is finished. I voted for Yvette Cooper in the leadership election and was horrified when Corbyn was chosen. I somehow knew he wouldn't stay leader for long. First, he is too old and second, he does not have that particular quality of leadership which is surely necessary. He says many things that I agree with (Trident for e.g.) but I fear he is destined for the back benches once more. Just an interesting aside, why on earth couldn't any of the failed challengers from last year stick their heads above the parapet? Owen Smith - who is he?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"his pet ideas" seem to be about tackling inequality and discrimination, increasing democracy, promoting peace, improving pay and conditions for working people, making sure we continue to have an effective health service free at the point of use etc etc.

With the exception of the last, those are aspirations, not ideas. They, including the last, almost everybody claims to aspire to, even including Mrs May.

Of those aspirations, his 'idea' for 'increasing democracy' is that power should rest in his claque, not the people or the electorate, just one of many reasons why I detest everything he stands for.

Does that destestation extend to those aspirations listed above. If not, then you can't detest everything he stands for, since he stands for those things.

You see, this is what I don't understand. I can understand you (generic) disliking his style. I can understand you (generic) disagreeing with him on policies (though they seem to me to be the sort of policies which you could reasonably expect from a moderate left of centre politician), but this visceral almost hatred I really can't understand. He seems to me to be in every way a moderate, polite, honourable man, with an exemplary record of public service, perhaps even being on the fringe of boring. Not really a candidate for anyone's hatred, I would have thought.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Jolly Jape, even from 20,000km away, and really having no direct interest in the outcome, I hope that Corbyn for once in his political lifetime behaves in the honourable manner you attribute to him, announces he will not be a candidate for election, and sticks to that.

Over his long career, he has shown very little loyalty to the party in whose name he nominally stood. He must have hit some sort of record in voting against the policies the party espoused. I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well. Add to this the stories now emerging of his inability to manage his private office and to consult with his own front bench. Electorally he's going to be a disaster.

What's the problem with his hard left politics? They are appealing to a group of voters. In the 80s, this was the Militant Tendency, a group which attempted to gain by industrial action what could not be obtained at the ballot box. The result? Years of Thatcher and the divisive politics on which she thrived. Years of whittling away at social welfare reforms which until then had had largely bi-partisan support since the Attlee years. Years of backward financial changes.

Now there's Corbyn. Should he remain leader, he'll continue to appeal to Momentum, which seems from here to have many similarities with the Militant Tendency. The consequences will be much the same, with government handed on a silver platter to the Tories until at least 2025 and more likely 2030 with no effective opposition. That's why he should step down now with minimal further disruption to his party.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And I agree about some of his fans. The intimidation and threats have been disturbing to read about in recent weeks.

Corbyn has been receiving death threats. Who do you think those have been coming from? Of course the media focusses on dubious claims that threats made to other MPs are from Corbyn supporters, but many of those have turned out to be false (e.g. Luciana Berger had death threats from a neo-Nazi which some people - not her, to her credit - attributed to Corbyn supporters), likewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't) and implied that Corbyn supporters were responsible (no evidence of that at all).

Most of the alleged "threats and intimidation" from Corbyn supporters have turned out to be emails asking someone to vote a particular way. The quantity is likely unnerving, yes, if you're an NEC member who doesn't usually get a lot of correspondence from party members, but it's not intimidation.

As for Smith's little dance he did where he claimed some people were saying that Corbyn was encouraging abuse but then refused to make the claim himself, I thought that was a despicable little bit of cowardice. Either make the accusation and be prepared to support it or keep your mouth shut.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Strong rumours going around that if Corbyn wins again, that most MPs will not split but will hang on, even Blairites. I would think that one factor may be the awful lesson of Polly Toynbee and the SDP, and also, if there is an election before 2020, and Labour lose, they would anticipate a new leader.

Only rumours though.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well.

Would that be the condemnation of violence by all sides, and the belief that, as that well known hard leftist Winston Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war? Yes, he has a record of voting against his own party, but he can make a pretty good case that he was the one in the right, and that time has demonstrated that.

As for his "hard left" political stance, there is nothing in his political programme that could not have been said by Hugh Gateskill or RAB Butler, Harold Wilson or Ted Heath, or, indeed, any mainstream politician prior to Margaret Thatcher.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[L]ikewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't)

But that brick did go through her office window, right?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[L]ikewise the nonsense where Eagle claimed her office had been attacked (it wasn't)

But that brick did go through her office window, right?
No.

The brick went through a ground floor window into a stairwell, in a building shared by six organisations.

Eagle's office windows (also ground floor) were entirely untouched.

Now, if I shared a building with five other flats and the common stairwell window was broken, I'd probably be over-reaching if I said my flat had been broken into, given that none of my windows nor the front door to my flat had been attacked in any way.

YMMV
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
On the other hand, if there was the only person/ organisation in the block that had been getting hate-mail and threats of violence (including death threats), most people would think it reasonable to assume that they were the intended recipient of the brick. (The Clapham Omnibus test is entirely proved.)
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Just an interesting aside, why on earth couldn't any of the failed challengers from last year stick their heads above the parapet? Owen Smith - who is he?

I've wondered that too - I'm guessing it's because they thought someone entirely fresh who'd not stood before would be more likely to win and be easier for Corbyn supporters to defect to.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It's known to be a very rough area. Random vandalism is a more likely explanation. Even if Eagle was being targeted, after recent events the more likely candidates are far right nutjobs with a history of this sort of thing.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Does that destestation extend to those aspirations listed above. If not, then you can't detest everything he stands for, since he stands for those things.

You see, this is what I don't understand. I can understand you (generic) disliking his style. I can understand you (generic) disagreeing with him on policies (though they seem to me to be the sort of policies which you could reasonably expect from a moderate left of centre politician), but this visceral almost hatred I really can't understand. He seems to me to be in every way a moderate, polite, honourable man, with an exemplary record of public service, perhaps even being on the fringe of boring. Not really a candidate for anyone's hatred, I would have thought.

Jolly Jape, I would have replied but even from 20,000 km away, Gee D has said everything I would have wanted to say better than I could.

[ 21. July 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
On the other hand, if there was the only person/ organisation in the block that had been getting hate-mail and threats of violence (including death threats), most people would think it reasonable to assume that they were the intended recipient of the brick. (The Clapham Omnibus test is entirely proved.)

Eagle's office windows have Labour party stickers. Pretty easy to identify.

And the same address is home to a lot of property management companies too. Disgruntled tenants? Who knows? You certainly don't.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, I find it hard to describe his politics as being moderate left. Even in UK terms they are well to the left. Over the years he has floated around all sorts of extreme positions, most notoriously in relation to the IRA, but a myriad of others as well.

Would that be the condemnation of violence by all sides, and the belief that, as that well known hard leftist Winston Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war? Yes, he has a record of voting against his own party, but he can make a pretty good case that he was the one in the right, and that time has demonstrated that.

As for his "hard left" political stance, there is nothing in his political programme that could not have been said by Hugh Gateskill or RAB Butler, Harold Wilson or Ted Heath, or, indeed, any mainstream politician prior to Margaret Thatcher.

I don't like - really don't like what he inspires in his followers. As to violence - well we know that no matter what is reported it won't be accepted by his followers. The confirmation bias is turned up to 10!

I agree with almost all his programme but the violence that comes with this 'purer than thou' ideology stinks. I don't necessarily mean physical violence.

Anyone who is against Corbyn is morally bankrupt Anyone who disagrees with him is a Blairite (which I have learnt goes with scum implicitly or explicitly). The motivation of most of the PLP is known just by how they voted! The conspiracy theories that proliferate. He may be a pacifist but boy are his followers giving the press an awful lot of ammunition and most of it will stick. I have seen some of it first hand.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I'd agree with Jolly Jape that Corbyn most definitely is a moderate, the trouble is that very few ever listen to what he actually says. It's been documented that he is consistently misreported.

But as Luigi points out, it is some of his followers that are the problem. They also don't listen to him. It's not Jeremy Corbyn that they like. It's the idea of Jeremy Corbyn that gets them excited.

It's groups like the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) see Corbyn as a kind of infiltrator, as though his 33 years in parliament as a Labour MP has been some kind of ruse to worm his way to power and herald a smashing of capitalism, in spite of him being very supporting of the tech businesses that thrive in his own constituency.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to ...landlords [who] have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

With all this Blairite scum around, surely a build up was bound to cause problems sooner or later?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

Yes, the very people I would have anticipated knowing where their MP's ground floor office was... [Roll Eyes]

Let's face it, you've jumped to a conclusion, and you're sticking to it. May be you're right, may be you're wrong. But you don't actually care.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, Sipech, that helps me to understand the use of 'hard left' by some people as a description of Corbyn. That suggests to me the smashing of capitalism, or some such phrase, whereas for me Corbyn stands as a classic social democrat, mixed economy and so on.

Mind you, in today's climate, social democracy seems to be considered a fearful danger to the neoliberal position.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
My goodness, I hope I'm never unfortunate enough to be wrongfully arrested and come up against some of you in the jury. Apparently, lack of evidence doesn't stop some folks from pronouncing the accused guilty. It's just "the usual suspects". We know that people like him are wrong 'und, so we'll just dispence with small difficulties like a total lack of evidence.

Of course there are some nasty people out there, and they are confined neither to the left or the right. I think that Corbyn has had his share of death threats against him. Do (generic) you have the same visceral dislike of Eagle or Smith because of the wicked actions of some of their unwelcome followers.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Confirmation bias is a fearful thing, and at the moment seems to rule on all sides. There are various paranoid narratives in Labour at the moment, but there seems to be a lack of skepticism towards one's own, or shall we say, a lack of postmodern distancing. As Brecht said ... oh fuck off, Brecht.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

Yes, the very people I would have anticipated knowing where their MP's ground floor office was... [Roll Eyes]

Let's face it, you've jumped to a conclusion, and you're sticking to it. May be you're right, may be you're wrong. But you don't actually care.

So what have we got so far: 1/ There has been a brick through the window of the building in which Angela Eagle's constituency office is based. 2/ When she was in the running to stand for the Labour leadership she had to be given police protection 3/ Her Constituency Labour Party has been suspended by the national party for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at her. Oh, and 4/ It has just been reported that she has been advised by Plod not to do her constituency surgeries for her own safety. In the circumstances, Watson, it is hardly unreasonable to surmise that there is clearly an element among Corbyn's support who are not entirely signed up to this kinder, gentler, politics malarkey. And whilst I have never met an 'out' member of the brick throwing community, my general impression is that they do not really have much of a grasp of very much, beyond the impact of certain types of masonry against glass windows and it does not strike me that they would be punctilious about putting a brick through exactly the 'correct' window. [Roll Eyes]

Now it may transpire to be the case that the brick was thrown by someone else, the Wallasey fuzz are gentle unworldly souls who mistake fraternal disagreement for intimidation, and that Labour Party central have got entirely the wrong end of the stick with regards to the state of play in the Wallasey constituency party. But, as things stand, there is a fairly solid prima facie case for expressing a certain amount of concern at the situation.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I don't like - really don't like what he inspires in his followers. As to violence - well we know that no matter what is reported it won't be accepted by his followers. The confirmation bias is turned up to 10!

I agree with almost all his programme but the violence that comes with this 'purer than thou' ideology stinks. I don't necessarily mean physical violence.

Anyone who is against Corbyn is morally bankrupt Anyone who disagrees with him is a Blairite (which I have learnt goes with scum implicitly or explicitly).

Thanks - that's really helped me understand what it is that's winding me up about this whole thing. It's the holier than thou attitude and the fact that dissent is treated as heresy. Really annoys me.

Oh and Anglican't - the Blairite scum/blocked bogs joke - really cheered me up.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Sipech, that helps me to understand the use of 'hard left' by some people as a description of Corbyn. That suggests to me the smashing of capitalism, or some such phrase, whereas for me Corbyn stands as a classic social democrat, mixed economy and so on.

Mind you, in today's climate, social democracy seems to be considered a fearful danger to the neoliberal position.

True enough. There is nothing resembling the Trotskyist Militant Tendency in the Labour Party nor any MPs like Terry Fields and Dave Nellist. It would be useful to have them to remind everyone of the real position of Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Confirmation bias is a fearful thing, and at the moment seems to rule on all sides. There are various paranoid narratives in Labour at the moment, but there seems to be a lack of skepticism towards one's own, or shall we say, a lack of postmodern distancing. As Brecht said ... oh fuck off, Brecht.

It does seem to be running in both directions, but not with equal vigour. For instance I've not seen anyone from the "anti-Corbyn" camp refuse to take his word for it when Jeremy Corbyn says he has received death threats and abuse. However, many of the "pro-Corbyn" camp do seem to dispute Angela Eagle's statement that she has been threatened. This is despite the fact that Jeremy Corbyn himself clearly takes what she says at face value since he has (rightly) condemned those responsible. As indeed do the police, who have investigated those threats and arrested someone on suspicion of making them, and who have apparently now advised her not to hold surgeries for the moment.

The window might turn out to have been broken by someone from the Royal Oak opposite, taking a shortcut down the path at the side of the Sherlock House at closing time. It's not THAT rough an area that windows are being broken all the time, and Wallasey Police Station is only about 200 yards down the street, but that's possible. It's certainly a coincidence that the damage occurred the very day she announced she would stand against Jeremy Corbyn, but coincidences do happen. But even if it wasn't broken by someone wanting to send Angela Eagle a message though, given that timing and the immediate history of threats and abuse, you can quite understand why she might suspect that it was.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My goodness, I hope I'm never unfortunate enough to be wrongfully arrested and come up against some of you in the jury. Apparently, lack of evidence doesn't stop some folks from pronouncing the accused guilty. It's just "the usual suspects". We know that people like him are wrong 'und, so we'll just dispence with small difficulties like a total lack of evidence.

Of course there are some nasty people out there, and they are confined neither to the left or the right. I think that Corbyn has had his share of death threats against him. Do (generic) you have the same visceral dislike of Eagle or Smith because of the wicked actions of some of their unwelcome followers.

I can only go on the evidence that I have seen first hand. I don't know which side has been more guilty in terms of threats of physical violence. All I know is that whenever the actions of the PLP are discussed by some of my acquaintances, people I have always found to be considerate and pleasant in the past, suddenly they adopt this zealot type attitude where any one who dares to suggest that there might have been wrong on both sides - that the PLP have a duty to those who had directly elected them as well as the party members who gave JC a mandate - is aggressively called a plotter or a traitor.

By coincidence I met a momentum just over a week ago who again had been pleasant enough previously - I didn't know at the beginning of the conversation that he was in the Labour party. When I mentioned that I knew a certain MP. He almost jumped down my throat pointing out that the MP had nominated Liz Kendall, he said with relish about how soon the MP would be deselected.

The Blairite scum (or wanker) coupling I have come across many times. Sometimes from friends - not aimed at me but when talking of all the PLP - who I have always found to be reasonable, considerate. It is the way this belief in JC affects people that bothers me.

I've only come across this problem in the past few weeks. However, the more people come across this aggression the more traction these ideas will get.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.

To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks. You appear blissfully unaware of the realignment in British politics that has seen the Labour left of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and, say, Eric Heffer relabelled as Communism and J Enoch Powell brought into the political centre.

[ 21. July 2016, 17:37: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Sorry should make clear. When I say:

"I've only come across this problem in the past few weeks. However, the more people come across this aggression the more traction these ideas will get."

I mean the more people come across this aggression the more traction the idea that the idealistic left is dominated by a bunch of thugs, will get. Which I think would be shame.

[ 21. July 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.

To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks.
You mean Corbyn isn't backed by Momentum and doesn't have support from neo-communist/militant groups? And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
So, basically, your position is that the whole business of abuse is a fabrication by Angela Eagle to avoid deselection and that the National Labour Party and the Wallasey Police are over reacting? Okeydoke, let's see how that thesis pans out over the next few months.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The sooner Corbyn is out the better.

He is backed by Momentum and neo-communist grouping wich tolerates no opposition.

He threatens his MPs with deselection then proffers words of reconciliation. Hypocrite.

The man is a born loser. The sooner out the better

Since most of the Ship seems to be Corbynistas I will refrain from further comment and wait to see the reaction in 6 months time.

To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks.
You mean Corbyn isn't backed by Momentum and doesn't have support from neo-communist/militant groups? And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.

Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Thanks - that's really helped me understand what it is that's winding me up about this whole thing. It's the holier than thou attitude and the fact that dissent is treated as heresy. Really annoys me.

Plus the way any criticism of Mr Corbyn is instantly dismissed on the grounds that the speaker is right-wing. Perhaps could follow that line of argument to its logical conclusion, dismiss his supporters' defence of him on the grounds that they are social democrats, and decide the whole issue by throwing Messrs Corbyn and Smith into the Mersey and seeing which one floats.

[ 21. July 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.

Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
To be fair, Corbyn is the conclusion of Benn and Heffer, by other means, as it were. Not a communist as such but certainly further to the left than most of the British electorate. My recollection is that Peter Shore was on the right of the Labour Party but he was opposed to the EEC, as it was then, and would have undoubtedly have been in favour of the Leave campaign, although, to be fair he would have been honest about this.

I was mildly surprised when Jolly Jape contended that Corbyn's policies were indistinguishable from those of Hugh Gaitskell (hated by Labour's left), Harold Wilson (ditto), Ted Heath IA pro-EU Tory) and RA Butler (WTF?). Given Corbyn's general position on the defence of the realm, his work for Press TV and Russia Today, and his somewhat complicated relationship with the Jewish Community there was a gag that immediately occurred to me but as a discreet friend of Butler's memory I will let the occasion pass.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.

Well that sort of inaccuracy actually.

I happened to see JC's campaign launch this lunchtime.

One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.

Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.

Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?

Labour's current rules state that if a new constituency encompasses at least 40% of an old constituency's territory, the MP for the old constituency may seek selection as a matter of right. Mr McDonnell stated last year that this rule would not change.

It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?

You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
Well, there is this. I heard a member of that group who was at the meeting state in a TV interview, quite specifically, that Angela Eagle's sexuality had indeed been denigrated by homophobic remarks as a part of the "heated meeting". No doubt these complaints have formed a part of the evidence provided which led to this.

Now of course these are allegations. But they must have carried enough weight to justify an investigation. And no doubt they have been supported by evidence from Angela Eagle.

I heard other interviews in the TV programme with others in the CLP whose hostility to Angela Eagle was quite open. The contents were disquieting. There is a case to answer here.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.

I have to assume you know how candidates are selected to stand for parliamentary seats, and are engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Where did the other 60% of new constituency come from? Narnia? Or might there have been a standing candidate for that too? Given that there are significant boundary changes and 50 fewer constituencies, might you possibly consider that there would be a democratic contest for the PPC in that case?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
As I understand the current rules (based on this site), if you have a situation where (for example) four MPs' constituencies are folded into three, then at least one constituency could see a selection battle between two MPs, but the selection would not automatically be open to anyone other than those two MPs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It seems from what I've just read to be a 'gentlemen's agreement' that there'll be no trigger ballot. Not that a trigger ballot can't happen, and that said trigger ballot is outwith the party's higher apparatus to invalidate.

There may be a lot of constituencies which will hold trigger ballots in the event of a Corbyn win. Obviously, what Corbyn says will influence the members one way or another, but if you give people the power to do something, it seems (certainly in the current climate) unwise to reel it back in in case they exercise that power.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks. You appear blissfully unaware of the realignment in British politics that has seen the Labour left of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and, say, Eric Heffer relabelled as Communism and J Enoch Powell brought into the political centre.

Sorry, but if you don't mind my saying this, that is rhetorical twaddle. I'm in my late 60s and have followed UK politics as an interested spectator since my mid teens. Tony Benn swung noticeably to the left during the seventies, about the time he shortened his name. Thereafter he regarded as being on the extreme end of the Parliamentary left by almost everybody, including his own supporters. Enoch Powell was regarded as a dangerous right winger and, to use the phrase from those times, racialist, from the mid-sixties and has been so regarded ever since.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The real realignment was over the 'grotesque spectacle' of Militant Tendency. New Labour was the child of that realignment. The underlying shift was all about electability and getting floating voters from the centre. Received wisdom was that the Old Labour agenda just made the Party unelectable.

BTW that is still received wisdom. Certainly Theresa May believes it which is why she hoped to see Jeremy 'for many years' over the Despatch Box in the House of Commons.

While I admire those who who believe in the electability of Jeremy Corbyn and essentially Old Labour agenda, and the persuasive power of that agenda, I think you are whistling in the dark to keep your spirits up. The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary. I think it scares sufficient people to make more moderate centre right or centre left mixed economy policies the way to go to defeat such shit.

Which is why the suspension of CLPs because of abuse allegations is so dangerous. It just adds to the impression that something akin to Militant Tendency is screwing up the Labour Party again. Which will screw up electability for several years to come.

That's what the majority of the PLP think. Sure, moves can be made to deselect them, replace them with True Believers. The replacements will learn that getting into government in the UK is a pragmatic process. And the wheel will turn again. Meanwhile we'll get a further '13 years of Tory misrule'.

Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Two words: John Smith
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
John Smith's death was a tragedy for Labour in many ways. But he was a reformer too, just a tad more cautious than Blair or Brown about how far reforms had to go in order to get elected.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary.

It is fear, fear moves people rightward. Conservatives have always played the minor chords well.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.

I know you are claiming that Corbyn didn't threaten the MPs with deselection. OK - that is a credible reading of what he said, from my limited knowledge. But that isn't the question for me - clearly some of his supporters are very happy to look for revenge. The atmosphere within the Labour party is toxic at the moment.

I got the distinct impression that some Momentum supporters would really like to deselect their MPs. Is this not possible? The few I have spoken to would love to have that hanging over the heads of the MPs, at the very least. Even if the threat can only be realised in 2020.

Surely that is a viable threat?
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
If the proposed boundary changes go through, then I believe there will have to be a selection process for most constituencies.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Of course Jeremy was just stating the rules. No sitting MP has the absolute right to be chosen as the party's election candidate. Nor is there anything to stop a local CLP passing a vote of no confidence in a sitting member. The sitting member can remain as an MP whether or not they have lost the confidence of their local party, since the local party doesn't elect them.

But of course the rules are not the story. The story is "who will rid me of these rebellious 'priests'". Is that Jeremy's position? Can it be read into anything he says?

Modern politicians have to live and work with modern media. So the wise ones choose their words with care.

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

I wonder what Seamas Milne's advice was. Maybe there was none, maybe that was just Jeremy? Who knows? But either way, I'm not impressed with Seamas Milne. If he wasn't savvy enough to see it himself (and in my book he should have been) somebody should have warned Jeremy about that bloody silly open-goal job insecurity PMQ. And somebody should have warned him about reselection hypotheticals.

Being media savvy is part of the leader's job.

[ 22. July 2016, 08:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
I think "he always answers questions honestly" is a bit of a myth. He frequently avoids answering questions directly. And so he should do to!

Any halfway competent politician knows that some questions are traps and to answer them straightforwardly will give a hostage to fortune and possibly even more importantly a misleading impression. You want to give accurate impressions not inaccurate ones so you answer a slightly different question to the one you were asked. For example, when you are given a binary choice that is absurdly simplistic.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."

It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?

Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.

The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."

It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?

Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.

Yep - exactly! On a more general level being diplomatic is incredibly important when dealing with many competing positions. Sadly it is a skill that he appears to be somewhat lacking in.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You turn reselection questions around.... It's a necessary political craft.

Exactly. I think Corbyn is being treated incredibly unfairly by the press. The Independent had some data which appeared to be compiled by an outside group without a particular axe to grind that suggested he was regularly misquoted, not quoted when a right of reply would be usual, and caricatured in the press. But he isn't helping himself by being so credulous.

If, in the setting of a toxic parliamentary party split, a journalist asks you a question about deselection it isn't because they are giving you a helpful pointer to clarify technical details of the parties functioning, it's because they want a story. And the story is obviously "Corbyn talks about deselection".

"I don't think it's helpful to talk about that, my focus isn't on deselection of anyone and I'm not changing any rules. My focus is on bringing us together" would be an answer to the question that isn't slippery but isn't as crass as wading into a long discussion.

If a Doctor is asked "Am I dying?" then a technical answer on the ways in which one might be dying ending with the conclusion that we are all dying in one way or another is technically correct but is in (small p) political terms missing the point. And unfortunately so was Corbyn (big P too).

[ 22. July 2016, 10:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Arethosemyfeet re homophobic remarks at a CLP meeting.

Here is another Liverpool Echo link.

It contains this quote which applies to wider issues as well.

quote:
The MP (Angela Eagle) had earlier welcomed the investigation by party bosses and today said: “I can’t anticipate what will happen, that’s a matter for the party’s compliance department – but the party does have strict rule about threats misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings and they need to be properly respected.”

She said there are signed letters from “about 17 or 19 people who were at that meeting and saw what was going on”.

If your primary aim is to let bygones be bygones, then perhaps it would be a good idea to remind CLP members of the strict rules re "threats, misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings" rather than take the bait on reselection. That would seem to be a matter of much more immediate concern, given the increasing number of complaints from MPs over various forms of harrassment.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
He doesn't have the political and diplomatic nous needed in a potential prime minister. Neither does he have the necessary charisma.
He comes across to me as bumbling, he dithers and stutters, he's even disengaged when he should be engaged.

Just heard him on the BBC morning news: he talked about the attack on Angela Eagle's office (so he accepts it happened unlike some people, it seems) and he said that he had 'APOLOGISED for' .... stutter .... 'he was sorry'. A simple and silly mistake which he should not have made. (I don't think he was behind the attack BTW.)

He's been in the game for many years, he's had time to learn how to answer awkward questions and not get trapped by journalists.

The man isn't suitable prime ministerial material and should have the humility to accept that he does not command the support of his MPs and therefore needs to go. If he won't go, then Labour Party members must have the sense to vote for another leader.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.

This is beginning to remind me of Archbishop Rowan Williams who would give very good, well thought out and honest answers to questions without having thought through how the journalist would use what he said.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.

Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.

Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal]

I have just reread the report and I accept that the question was indeed about boundary changes. I would still draw attention to the word 'every' in Mr Corbyn's response, plus the implication that it would be an open contest rather than a battle between the two amalgamated MPs.

[ 22. July 2016, 11:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.

Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.

Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.

That's not my recollection of what he said, but I don't have a transcript. I'll search on iPlayer. The actual questions weren't caught on mic, but I certainly don't remember JC referring to "all constituencies'
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
All of of the above may (or may not) be very true.
But i for one would rather like a non-point-scoring leader of the Labour Party for a while. Someone who is not all smarmy or out-talking others. Some of us Like the steady approach

And isn't the Labour party supposed to be opposing the Tory party? Right now, the alternative leaders are sounding all too similar to the Tories.

[and his from someone who is Not a member of the Labour party]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry, Ricardus, cross-posted.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A link to what he said.

Scroll down to the video link.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.

See here.

BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Another way Cornyn is like Trump. Trump just views his negative media attention as free publicity. He got the media to find his primary campaign.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.

See here.

BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?

I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"I speak to some of my supporters here. I regret the need to do this, but I have seen the evidence and cannot keep silent about your actions. Listen up. Whatever you may think, you are no friends of mine if you abuse, threaten and intimidate Labour MPs who do not support me. I disown such actions. They are repugnant to me. They are no part of what membership of this party means. You are doing me no favours. You are bringing the party into disrepute. Where sufficient proof of any of the abuses outlawed by our rules is forthcoming, your membership of the party will be cancelled forthwith. Where prosecution is believed to be in order, the evidence will be handed over to the police for further action. You have been warned"

Something like that, anyway.

[ 22. July 2016, 22:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
He's already said as much several times.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.

I agree with this, but put it differently.

JC's presence at the helm has let loose forces he is powerless to stop.

They believe in using aggression, viciousness, the power of the angry mob and even violence. Milliband, Brown and Blair were too centrist for them, so they didn't get involved. Now they have something to get nasty for, and get nasty they will. The enemy will be bullied into silence.

This will continue at least while JC is in charge.

They may act in Corbyn's name, but he has no control over them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.

I found this

quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.

He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.

“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”

That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Anyway, it seems that he is now going to make another statement on the subject.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.

I found this

quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.

He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.

“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”

That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.

I would have thought that most people reading Corbyn's condemnation with an open mind would be pretty clear what he thought of threatening or bullying behaviour, whoever was the source: a clear and unequivocal condemnation. I'm assuming that you, Barnabas, as an intelligent and fair minded person, believe that this is a true reflection of what JC actually thinks. So why the desire to make him jump through hoops? Don't you think a specific condemnation of those who are his supporters would lend creedence to the media agenda of portraying the bullying as being confined to his supporters with everyone else being whiter than white? Because that's how the daily heil would portray it: "see, even Corbyn accepts that his supporters are thugs and bullies". How is that a smart move?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There are unruly elements in Jeremy's supporters, JJ, and there is clear evidence that they have taken aggressive and abusive use of social media to a different level. The extent to which this is concerted or conspiratorial is not yet clear. The sheer volume of abuse is new, and the reports of intimidation by other means are coming from serious, reliable sources.

Jeremy has a problem with some of his supporters which is on a completely different scale to anything seen previously. I've looked at some of the recent Facebook entries and twitter feeds involving a number of dissenting MPs and needed brain bleach afterwards. With such "friends" who needs enemies?

Do I think Jeremy condones this abusive behaviour? No. Do I think that at least some of it is being orchestrated by folks who support his position as leader? Yes. Do I think enough positive action (suspensions of memberships, effective CLP checks and curbs on behaviour which contravenes the code of conduct) has happened yet? No. Do I think it will now happen? I hope so but there may be some CLPs whose local leaders are part of the problem, rather than prepared to be part of the solution. Wallasey may not be an isolated case.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If John Paul II, having decided to apologise for the Crusades, had in fact said something on the lines of 'of course We condemn the violence on both sides of the conflict, and did We mention the Almohad persecutions in Spain and the martyrdom of Isidore of Seville?' - then I think the Muslim world would have been justified in regarding his words as a non-apology.

To put it another way: Mr Corbyn has no need to condemn abusive behaviour towards his supporters because it is not being done in his name. Bringing it up in the context of an apology comes across as whatabouttery.

[ 23. July 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It does seem slightly reminiscent of the hoops that Muslims have to jump through to distance themselves from extremism. Did they condemn violence? Well did they condemn this specific instance of violence? Did they use the phrase "radical Islam"? And so on.

The press is again being unfair. However such has been the treatment of every Labour leader excepting T Blair. I suppose the difference is that the Guardian is joining in this time.

But having said that it seems the same themes continue to play out in this instance - of vitriolic unfair press, Corbyn apparently being very reasonable and technically correct, but not very inspired, communicative or media-savvy.

I think there are dangers in what Barnabas proposes along the "see, he admits it!" line that JJ says, but there would be a middle ground between a rather bland almost platitudenous statement about bullying and a more personally impassioned plea to end this. And an impassioned plea that acknowledges real things have taken place would be more helpful than one that doesn't acknowledge and real bullying and carries an overtone of "well I've had it too".
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Actually, I think it is a "smart choice" by Jeremy to slam directly and threaten disciplinary action against those JC supporters who are crossing the line "in his name". (That's the closing phrase in the open letter from 45 female MPs in the PLP.) And remind CLP leaders of their responsibility to ensure the code of conduct is applied locally.

If he takes a small hit from that now, that would IMO be better than the much larger hit he will get later if he doesn't do that before some of the investigations (e.g. Wallasey) come to book. Oh sure, that is second-guessing those investigations, but in Wallasey the evidence of abuse already in the public domain is impressive, along with the critical reports of unacceptable behaviour at local CLP meetings. Leadership includes the courage to grasp painful nettles, and take effective action to uproot them.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
FFS Jeremy Corbyn MP on Twitter: "I've just launched Respect & Unity: Our Code of Conduct for the Labour leadership election. Please read and RT → https://t.co/gpWHSQMEQD"

This has been out for days, plus about five other formal statements.

The idea he hasn't condemned abuse is just a lie.

(And every single time he has been asked directly, immediately, and without ambiguity.)

You might remember he also went into bat for Laura Kuenessberg, stating the petition for her to be sacked was unacceptable and that people should treat her with respect.

[ 23. July 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I also note though the press covered the 'keep it comradely' thing they've let that go virtually unreported.

[ 23. July 2016, 11:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.

Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.

If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Doublethink

I had read the Code of Conduct. What is the operational connection between abuse of the code and pre-existing disciplinary procedures? I can see shoulds, expects and tolerance limits. Classically, these are "warm words".

Codes of conduct normally do not have teeth and this one doesn't seem any different to me. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

This.

He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:

“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”

Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

This.

He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:

“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”

Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.

Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...

I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?

Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.

Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.

If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.

(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).

Actually, "keep it comradely" was Angela Eagle's pledge, the respect and unity one - which is more detailed - is from Corbyn.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...

I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
Apart from reporting abuse - which can lead to suspension or expulsion from the party, or reporting to the police - what else are you expecting ? There is no other mechanism, he can't very well go round and beat them up.

[ 23. July 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Meanwhile, T.May got off to a roaring start as 'Thatcher #2' ... JC got a bit of a spanking, although I do hope for the day when he can turn the words, 'Remind her of anyone?!' back at May ...

Labour members are concerned, I think, both at what is said, and the way it is being said. Many long-term party-people agree with 85% of what JC says in terms of policy but are nevertheless worried that no one other than the left are listening to him... This is a real issue the movement must face.

The idea of a truly radical-left party winning a General Election in the UK can still seem far-fetched (though there are debates to be had about how many votes Tony Blair actually won by, say, committing to the Tory spending plans to get into office in 1997)...

I will simply observe for now that there certainly needs to be something 'in the air' among the general public; a sense of an ever more urgent need for a 'new beginning' in the way we re-organise our society / our whole attitude to the way decisions should be reached. Not expressing myself very well here, as typing off the cuff, but have this feeling that there is some kind of common thread in the successes of Atlee, Wilson and Blair. I too have my doubts about JC's place in their company,, but at the same time have heard nothing as yet from his rival, beyond Millibandish-triangulation ...........
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think I may have an answer to my question to Doublethink.

Here is the Labour Party rulebook for 2016 (You have to download the pdf.)

Chapter 6 refers to Disciplinary Procedures. It begins this way
quote:
The NEC shall take such disciplinary measures as it deems necessary to ensure that all Party members and officers conform to the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party.
Is the Code of Conduct now a part of "the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party"? Or does it need first to be ratified by an NEC meeting? Its enforcibility depends on its status. Is that clear?

(edited for bad link - B62)

[ 24. July 2016, 00:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.

But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned. However, he can't change the party rules himself - those are agreed by the NEC to which representatives are elected by party members.

Part of the problem, is that Twitter accounts, or Facebook, or email - do not necessarily give a person's real name nor is their any guarantee that person is a member of the party. Sock puppets and trolls are a thing.

The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.

[ 23. July 2016, 22:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."

I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?

Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:

a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.

I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?

Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
IIRC, Corbyn opposed secret voting in the NEC, because secret voting in the NEC is highly irregular.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, Johanna Baxter, the NEC member quoted in Sarah G's link, says something even more amazing:

Quote: "The only reason to vote against that [secret voting] is so the intimidation can continue".

This strikes me again as highly inflammatory language - 'the only reason' - how does she know that? 'Is so the intimidation can continue' - this suggests that Corbyn is actively organizing abuse and intimidation.

WTF? She continues: 'he showed his true colours in that vote', well that is, according to her interpretation.

Who is being abusive now?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.

But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned.

Yes I had a look in Chapter 2 and came to the conclusion that "prejudicial conduct" was the broad category of offence which might be used.

I think that means two things.

1. Both the Code of Conduct and the Pledge are not directly subject to disciplinary action if they are transgressed. Adherence to them is essentially voluntary.

2. "Prejudicial Conduct" is too broad. The wording of the current rule book needs to be beefed up - e.g. by including something like the Code of Conduct as part of the "standing orders of the Party".

quote:
The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.
I accept your general argument as far as it goes. (The feeling in the PLP seems to be a mixture of fury and frustration with Jeremy.)

But it does look as though the weight of the dogpiling, whether or not it is co-ordinated, comes from folks who support Jeremy. I hope they listen to him and stop. But under the current Rule Book, there is not a lot that can be done easily if they don't, provided they stay within the law.

I still think he should talk directly to his supporters, in very strong terms. He may be doing this in the rallies. That would be good.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.

I think the disproportion is simply because - example percentage - 2% of a larger number of people, is a larger absolute number of people. Whilst more MPs who receive abuse over the leadership, are going to receive abuse from that 2% because there are more MPs who are anti-corbyn.

Conversely, Corbyn supporters are unimpressed with being referred to as trots / rabble / dogs - hence the emergence of the trotrabbledogs hashtag. Nor did a labour mp claiming poor people aren't interested in politics, so disenfranchising them doesn't matter, help.

[ 24. July 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.

Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)

And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.

quote:

As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.

All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.

There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.

There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.

Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.

Fury is no excuse for misconduct.

[ 24. July 2016, 08:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
After reading the story of access to Seema Malhotra's office this morning it seems pretty clear that no matter what, the party is not going to unite behind Corbyn. It's just got simply too toxic for that. In the interests of party unity he needs to step down to defuse the situation.

There have been far too many resignations and it is a sad day for any party to come to a vote of no confidence in their leader. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, it can't be healed by Corbyn staying in place. IMO.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.

He would be playing a blinder, however, were he to urge all his supporters to get behind Smith, in the event of Smith winning -- and then call upon Smith's supporters to match the offer .....
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
When I read the headline "Jeremy Corbyn denounces media blackout at Labour parish council win" on Twitter, I presumed the accompanying link would be to the Daily Mash or another satirical website. But no, the link was to Politics Home and Corbyn actually said that.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.

Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.

Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.

Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)

And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.

quote:

As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.

All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.

There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.

There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.

Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.

Fury is no excuse for misconduct.

I am following the code of conduct, it doesn't stop me being tarred with the same brush - see any amount of commentary on this thread for example. I am not using the hashtag, I have no friends doing so.

People are promoting 'block don't bicker' on Twitter. But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option. There a re already clone accounts on Twitter posting repeated attakcs on corbyn using exactly the same phrases and graphics. All that will happen if Corbyn supporters don't use Twitter is that it will get colonised by those making the opposite argument - and then the relative volume of messages / hashtags will become a story about how corbyn is losing support.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.

[ 24. July 2016, 09:26: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.

Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.

Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?

If we had a sensible electoral system, a split would be inevitable, and healthy IMO.

If Corbyn is re-elected, as he will be barring something earth-shaking, then a split is likely. The centre-left/soft-left breakaway group will probably try all kinds of shenanigans to try and claim ownership of the valuable Labour brand, but I don't think they'll succeed. In the long term, there could well be a larger centre-left party, possibly in alliance/merger with the Lib Dems, but that raises all sorts of other issues that will take many, many years to work through. In the meantime, the Tories have the next election, and the one after that probably, in the bag.

In about 10 years time the Tories will have succumbed to the scandals/exhaustion/running out of ideas that afflict all parties that have been in power too long. A unifying centre-left person (who may not yet be an MP) will then have every chance of winning a general election.

That's best case, as far as I can see.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option.

Dunno. Couldn't both candidates call for a social media truce on the grounds that the dogpiling is prejudicial to Party unity, regardless of who wins?

I think you and I agree (probably) that the current levels of media dogpiling are prejudicial to the Party. I reckon Owen and Jeremy would do themselves and the Party a favour if they stood up together in front of this runaway train and shouted "STOP"!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It really isn't option, especially in terms of reaching the younger members of the party. We are now a country where the first announcement the chancellor was leaving office was on Twitter - you can't take it out of the equation it just won't work.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In which case, what the Hell is the point of the Code of Conduct?

I'm not talking about stopping tweeting and FBing. I'm talking about pleading to party members to stop using these media to vent, foster emnity and distrust. A joint appeal for better conduct along the lines of the code, when using social media.

This stuff is doing very great damage to party and to prospects of future party unity. The bitterness will linger on.

And the Tories cannot believe their good fortune.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.

I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive? I don't have any evidence of this, except anecdotal, but you don't have to be a genius to wonder why the right-wing media are so against him?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.

Unless there is any possibility that they really are being harassed and bullied. If that is true then it becomes understandable that they might want to vote in secrecy.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?

And 40 female MP's have vivid imaginations? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?

No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive?

Since Murdoch's press was able to destroy Kinnock, make Blair, destroy Gordon Brown, destroy Miliband and deliver Brexit without any serious counter-productivity I doubt the Guardian joining in on this occasion will tip the wagon over.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.

Seriously? There's no part of you that wonders if there might be something to it? I desperately wanted Corbyn to succeed and still do to some extent, but I find it very hard to ignore the accounts of those who have tried to work with him.

It's very hard to know exactly what is going on amidst the maelstrom and it is crystal clear that the press is profoundly unfair on Corbyn. But that doesn't make him necessarily innocent. But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?

No. He's a politician of principle, which probably makes him more difficult to work with than say, many of his predecessors.

But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.

The metric here isn't difficult to ascertain. The PLP are completely and utterly out of touch with the membership of the party, who have always been more leftwing than the elected politicians. Over the last twenty years, with the rise of New Labour, those who voted Labour have been less and less the 'traditional' Labour voter.

There was always a tension here, and that tension has now snapped. Those who voted for Blair no longer see the point of a right-centre Labour party when they can vote Tory. Those who didn't vote for Blair but will vote for Corbyn also don't see the point of a right-centre Labour party.

The anti-Corbynists in the PLP literally have no base. They're stuck in the middle of no-man's land. They can go back to their own trenches, where they now risk being court-martialled as traitors, or they can defect en masse to either form their own party, or join another.

But they have brought this on their own heads, in very great part by their own lack of situational awareness and bone-headed pride. I have zero sympathy for them.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?

This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Remember that Corbyn was never supposed to win the leadership election. That the PLP were so entirely wrongfooted by their own members was simply a symptom.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.

I don't think those are the only choices though. I think he's probably a very principled socialist and I share many of his views. I also give him a lot of credit for being one of the few senior voices against bombing Syria.

However his handling of the anti-Semitism didn't seem very sure footed to me. I can see how if I was a Jewish MP experiencing anti-Semitism I would feel incompletely supported. He was very slow in bringing Ken Livingstone to heel. Having a chancellor who is caught on camera saying "fucking useless" doesn't seem all that professional even if it was accurate.

And I don't think stories like this and this one can be easily dismissed.

It seems to me that given the problem is, as you say, there is a split party that Corbyn has two alternatives. He either develops a consensus and brings the Blairites on board with posts in the cabinet and policies that take account of their views as some sort of middle ground, or he sticks to his principles, declares "my way or the high way" and tells them to get behind him or find another party.

He has tried to do the former but without any compromise on his part. Compounded by not being fantastic at handling the media and either personally lacking in management ability or lacking a team that is, it hasn't worked.

If he made it completely clear he had no truck with Blairites or the centre-left, intended no compromise, didn't want any in the cabinet and was going to run a socialist outfit and go to the people for a mandate I would have complete sympathy with that and it would be consistent. I suspect it would be suicide, but it would be consistent. The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.

The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I have come to feel that we are suffering from a massive universal outbreak of an overweaning sense of entitlement.

The universal id has been unleashed, ears are stopped, and everyone is screaming that they will have what they want and no one can stop them.

A perfect recipe for catastrophe.

The rarefied tips of the Labour party are feeding essentially off the Westminster consensus, then they have no legitimacy as the national expression of the party - they draw their legitimacy from their membership of the political elite, not of the party, and that is a very dangerous situation. It fosters disaffection with the political process itself, which is the last thing that our current situation needs: reconnection, not further disconnection, is vital to the future of the country, at all levels.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well I think that's the choice. Either socialist principles or compromise. Personally I think that a compromised labour party is a better choice than the conservative and the idea that one might as well throw in the towel is slightly fundamentalist in thinking. I respect those that want to keep the pure socialist faith, I just don't think they are going to be in power anytime soon in the UK.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?

This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.

Interesting point about the referendum. There also seem to be seismic shocks in different political parties and European countries.

Of course, you could argue that the ferment goes back quite a ways, at least to the 2008 economic crash. And there seem to be paroxysms across different countries, see Trump. But also, the Middle East collapsing, not sure if this connects.

Is there a 'cause' or a set of causes? Dunno, it's tempting to develop a thesis about Götterdämmerung, but I will leave that to you young whippersnappers.

I know this is an old one, but I still like it: the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum a variety of morbid symptoms appear. (Gramsci).

[ 24. July 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.

The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.

The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.

Yes, it is also interesting in a way, not just as a political development, but a cultural one. It strikes me as a sign of great morbidity a la Gramsci, but of course, nobody knows what it points to in the future, if anything.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.

The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.

Hasn't this partly produced Brexit also? I mean, the deprived areas voting Leave not only felt that deindustrialization had left them high and dry, neglected, with poor housing, crap jobs, poor services, poor NHS, but also that Labour wanted their votes, but didn't really bother that much about their lives. So Brexit enabled people to say fuck you to both Tory and Labour.

Of course, Corbyn has capitalized on the post-Blair disillusionment; whether anything more productive ensues, whether from him or someone else, dunno. It's all like a huge kaleidoscope, bloody hell, remember them?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.

Probably disaffection has a lot to do with Brexit, but given Corbyn's attempt to campaign for stay I don't think it is part of the Blair=>Corbyn shift. I suspect that immigration was the defining issue leading to disaffection over Brexit.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.

Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?

Do you believe that Jeremy's views on socialist principles and their relationship to policy are the only possible views that a good socialist can hold?

Good socialists can and do disagree on means even when they agree on ends. We always have done. Policy gets hammered out to accommodate different understandings of what is best.

The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.

[ 24. July 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.

I'm not too sure about (wider than the party members) the denial is still great.

Would agree Blair/Brown did some good things with the 3 obvious bad things (Iraq, PFI, crash stuff) being done with the support of the Tories and dividing his own party (&Lib Dem's). Likewise to be fair there's some good things* of Cameroon** but these have either been in word only, or with the support of Labour and Lib Dem's against his divided party.

*Obv in this case selection bias makes this really inevitable .
**It's vaguely interesting to see a Tory friend's digging at him and George, after years of apparent support (pre referendum campaign). The Hunt reaction looked a bit 1984 too (but that may have been misreading on my part).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.

Yes; but isn't an issue that the ground has moved leftwards under them since their election?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
As I understand it, what has happened is this:

* the current PLP consists of people elected on a manifesto that was fuelled by the last reheated, tired remains of Blairism, through the twin filters of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. IMHO, a lot of Labour's current problems lie with the fact that EM did not seriously consider the need for the party to consider seriously the alternatives to Blairism which had gained popularity over the course of his tenancy.

* the 2015 GE declared that those remains had rotted, and were no longer capable of carrying out their magic, i.e. of convincing voters who had no intention of ever voting for anyone other than a Thatcherite that Labour was safe. Thank God for that, say I: it cannot be the future of any left-wing party to allow its agenda to be dictated by the Daily Mail.

* JC's election was the firstfruits of that tired, limp manifesto being consigned to the fires of history. Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster. They now want to do a stitch-up, so that they can continue as they are, and they don't have to fight real enemies.

* the referendum happened so early precisely because DC saw that Labour was still focused inwards, and he didn't seriously think that it would have the Tories fighting each other to the death. He was, sadly, spectacularly right about the first, and, equally sadly for him, spectacularly wrong about the second.

I think I have accounted for every element of the current mess, and why the only way out is through. This mess of a leadership election cannot lead the Labour party back to 1994: that would be a tragedy. Those begging for a "progressive alliance" would do well to remember that no progressive manifesto is available in the pages of the Daily Mail or the Murdoch press. Centrists need to go through some serious detox before they will be credible.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.

What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
 
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :
 
Their ignorance of how much closer Corbyn's appraoch to the EU was to the public sentiment than their own approach ???
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.

What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.

Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.

Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.

Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.

A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.

Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.

But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.

Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?

It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.

Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.

Some folks never learn.

Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism, so refined that the pursuit of it must be unquestionably correct. The seeming blind obedience it seems to engender in otherwise intelligent people is, as an outsider, fascinating in many ways.

And so it seems that the Conservatives might very well win the next general election with a massive majority. But it won't be because Jeremy Corbyn lost, because he can never lose, because he is pure. It'll be because of the Parliamentary Labour Party; or the 'right-wing press' (a term often used to describe the Mail and Murdoch-owned papers, but conveniently expanded to include the Guardian and probably anything except the Morning Star when it suits); it'll be because Labour voters weren't listening properly. It might even be because of MI5 or mysterious Zionists who exercise secret powers. But it won't be because of Jeremy. He cannot lose.

Barmy, but fascinating.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism

No. Most of them don't think he's a pure socialist, the only people making that identification seem to be projecting - a lot.

I think what he represents to most of his supporters is a break with the traditional politics of consensus around a neo-liberal center. Who don't really see the point in winning if the price is that there are two parties of the centre-right.

Their personal support of JC himself is perhaps more prone to change than people think, that he has retained support is more due to the lack of alternatives rather than anything else.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.

Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.

At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.

Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?

It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
Yes I saw that. I was still interested in your personal view. Some socialists are more pragmatic than others when it comes to matters of policy. That doesn't mean they have abandoned socialist principles. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.

Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas. There's currently a lot of anger around at the Tories but it didn't get expressed in Labour votes at the last election because the Labour campaign was so difficult to distinguish from the Tory campaign. Say what you like about Corbyn, he comes across as different. So who knows?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.

No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?

1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.

Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.
Perhaps I'm just a spawn of the Murdoch-Rothermere-Scott Trust nexus?

quote:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
Well, technically, yes they are. But...

Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.

This is true. But one of those by-elections occurred in a seat that hasn't returned a non-Labour MP (if one includes predecessor seats) since before 1918. For another, not since before 1935. To chalk these up as meaningful Labour victories in the context of the electoral success of the party or the leader is, I think, ridiculous. The only one of these four of note, I'd say, is Tooting in which Labour increased a fragile majority. But was that to do with Mr Corbyn's dynamic leadership of the Labour Party or because the departing MP had just been elected mayor and there was a strong local candidate? (I canvassed in Tooting, met a lot of Labour voters (sadly) and none of them mentioned Corbyn to me.)

Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.

Terrific. I don't know about the politics of Bristol, but Salford and London are traditionally Labour cities, are they not? And the Mayor of Liverpool was facing re-election so he was presumably campaigning on his record?

Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.

So why isn't Labour doing better now (after years of supposedly cruel Tory-led government) than it did when it had been in power for four years? Shouldn't it be doing far better than it did in 2001? I would've thought so.

Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.

Lovely. Will be interested to see whether this translates into actual people willing to tramp along pavements on wet Saturday mornings canvassing.

A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.

I haven't seen a breakdown of the result by party allegiance. Would be interested to see such a thing if it exists. There appears to have been some confusion, thanks to Mr Corbyn's (lack of) leadership on this issue as to what Labour's position even was. If such a view was widespread, it would seem that many Labour voters voted Remain in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.

Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.

But that's meaningful how? By comparison, if one were to add up the number of votes cast for Labour MPs who oppose Corbyn (something like 172 of them, right?) one would presumably get a figure that dwarfs the number of votes cast for Corbyn or his acolytes.

I'm not sure that this is all so reassuring.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.

No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.

I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

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

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

(Kept quote, as it means there's some disclaimer about the source, and uncertainties involved, and credit)

The adding individual contests doesn't seem quite right, without some kind of recognition of the nature of contest. I don't quite know how it should be scaled in terms of mandate, if Ron was an option, or even if AV, it would be a bit clearer.
For what it's worth, in simple terms, I'd guess it to be around 5m (the labour party as a whole got 9million, and I've guessed from there...).

But the use of mandate as solely a privilege annoys me anyway. The mandate is a responsibility to represent the people. Yes, situations change, and MP's should have the benefit of attending debates and being able to put more thought in.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this line of thinking; however, as I've pointed out a few times, the ball is really in the court of the PLP to put up an credible alternate candidate and make a proper, reasoned case - which is something they have signally failed to do [preferring instead to mostly behave like Kevin the teenager in the media and on twitter].

Secondly, I think there are other things going on that make this particular era somewhat different. I think we have reached the limits of Blair style third-wayism, and that is something that isn't restricted to the UK, you can see reflections of this all across Europe. Simultaneously the power of business to steer politics both directly and indirectly has never been greater, and this has lead to the various contortions some of the previous set of leadership candidates went through (Liz Kendall's Nicola Murray-esque agreement in order to oppose).

I don't think that there was an halycon age where Labour was driven purely by the desires, political aspirations and needs of the working classes, but I think the contrasts at this point in time are stark. [There's a related crisis for any sort of paternal Toryism that isn't all that far away either].

In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.

No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.

I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.

I think you forget the fury which in my case arises from the huge waste of opportunity which was Blair. His opportunistic corrupt craven politicking got the country so much less far than could have been achieved if he had not been guided by George w Bush and the right wing media.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.

Well, technically, yes they are. But...
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thunderbunk

I think chris styles' observations about the probable decline of the effectiveness of "third-wayism" (which was the essential DNA of New Labour) may well be right, but they had bugger all to do with George W Bush and the right wing media. This article re the origins and philosophy of New Labour is pretty good.

I'm absolutely furious about Iraq and it will forever besmirch Tony Blair's reputation, but it's not the whole story when it comes to evaluating New Labour and the more general European experiment with mixed economies.

Mixed economies are indeed pragmatic compromises between pure capitalism and pure socialism, but I'd be a lot more bothered about social stability in the UK if it became politically polarised around a choice between pure capitalism or pure socialism.

quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.

I have no problems with the aspiration to do that but how short do you think the short term might be?

An initial part of that answer must take into account the current disastrous divisions and how long it will take to recover from those. And what then will happen to the existing PLP MPs? Resignations, deselections prior to the next General Elections, a Labour Party conference or two revising existing policies along more purely socialist lines. Two years at least to get our house back in some sort of order before we even begin the job of persuading a suspicious electorate that the new radical Labour movement may have what it takes to run a government.

There is a transitional cost and time associated with a move to more purist policies. Making the transition now is bound to lose the next General Election and will probably lead to further loss of parliamentary seats. An aspirational policy to "change the terms of the question about electability" might enable some recovery of lost ground, but we will be coming from a long way back. I think it would take two elections to get a majority. Effectively, you're looking at being in opposition until 2030. By which stage I probably won't be around.

You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?

[ 25. July 2016, 01:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.

[ 25. July 2016, 04:12: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.

Surely the leader influences the votes? And the leader will set the policies that influence the votes?

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas.

But his new ideas where a centre-left approach, not so different from the approach favoured by virtually every challenger to Corbyn. Today these approaches are criticized as insufficiently different from Tory. And yet Blair won with them. This doesn't seem consistent. If the key thing was difference from the Tories then Foot would have won, Kinnock would have won and Blair would have lost. If Blair's victory had depended only on anger against the Tories he wouldn't have won more than the first election.

I accept it is possible the landscape has changed and Tory-lite/centre-left is no longer a winning formula, but one can't argue that changed landscape based on history.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?

1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.

The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.

And (with the caveat that this might be a strawman), if party members would really prefer a TUSC or Green agenda but campaign for Labour on the grounds that TUSC and Green candidates will never be elected, they can hardly complain that Labour MPs also compromise on pure socialism in the cause of electability.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
[Ish, but when the day after a close relative of the then PM says she wants to join the Labour party, they intentionally take the headlines. They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.

I guess there could have been a trigger discussion, but there can't have been much time for it.

[ 25. July 2016, 06:11: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.

I don't know who the story behind the close relative joining the labour party so might be misinterpreting you, but if electability isn't part of the deal then it really doesn't matter how pure anything else on the ticket is.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
The point was they (Hillary Benn et al) were giving both away.


It was Emily Sheffield (Samantha's sister)

The Independent version

To be fair, the mail version, has it to oust Corbyn (though only in the headline). But the tweets are from the day after the referendum, (and I'm sure I saw something Saturday, though can only see things from the Monday) before the events on Sunday (though obviously she's probably better informed). And wasn't ever true blue.

But the point being that would have been an ideal chance to woo those Tory's, whereas now (thanks ironically to the one's most in tune) they've lost that free chance, alienated a section of the workers (I.E the Brexity ones), and pissed of the liberal left. It might not have been enough, and pure socialism probably isn't a virtue anyway.

It might not have been enough, and perhaps an existing different leader, could have changed the balance and got more (or of another group instead). And you may have needed a future change to keep them.
[killed link and can't get it back in time, sorry] huff pst

(Independent link fixed - B62)

[ 25. July 2016, 08:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.

There is a huge gulf, that is not yet widely recognised, between the interests of small companies (including sole traders) and those of large corporations. To an unacknowledged extent, the latter rely on the operations of government to protect them from competition and create a favourable environment for them. They come into that category noted after the 2008 crash, "too big to fail", and they are an obvious point for governments to identify with, because they operate at a similar scale, and governments have for some time had an obsession with operating like private sector organisations - an ideological obsession every bit as damaging as the most abstruse and perverse Trotskyite mantra.

If I'm preaching pure socialism, then the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right as to be meaningless.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.

What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.

So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.

It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?

1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.

2. Because of hope.

The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.
Which is a perfectly fair point. People in difficult marriages make all sorts of compromises they'd rather not, and couldn't have foreseen that they'd make.

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.

It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?

It is arguable that the more gradualistic set of policies were already tried and found wanting.

Prior to Corbyn's election to leader there were two schools of thought floating around. Firstly that Labour had lost a lot of their working class support because of not being insufficiently anti-migration whilst simultaneously being distrusted on the economy because they weren't sufficiently pro-austerity. At the same time, some more thoughtful commentators pointed out that the 'Labour heartlands' had been subsidised but never really re-developed economically during the Blair years, and this had led to a gradual ebbing away of support.

Both prior to the leadership campaign and during the campaign itself, mainstream Labour pushed the first line. Hence things like the 'Controls on immigration' mug, and abstaining from voting on the Welfare bill, as well as Liz Kendall branding anything to the left of Blairism as extremism. [The reason I keep returning to Kendall btw, is that at least the start of the leadership election she was seen as the pundits choice, with Yvette Cooper being too close to the previous administration and Andy Burnham being portrayed as a characterless droid].

The problem with playing on this ground is that you alienate parts of your core constituency, and those inclined to vote Tory won't believe you anyway. So the idea that the way forward once the 'Third Way' had run out of steam was to move to the right of Blair seems somewhat fantastical - as is the idea, incidentally, that the PLP could set up a successful technocratic party of the centre/centre-right.

I think we have hit a secular crisis, and the current issues within the Labour Party are just a symptom of a wider malaise in politics. I do not believe it is possible for the Labour party to win by endlessly triangulating on every issue - as they will always be outflanked by the Tories, whilst simultaneously losing every pretension of progressiveness. I do not think that having a right wing government with a centre-right opposition is a desirable state of affairs.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.

Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.

But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.

Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.

That is, of course, all Corbyn's fault. Because he's such a loser.

There'll be a by election in Jo Cox's constituency soon. If Labour retain the seat, it'll be despite Corbyn. If they lose it, it'll be because of Corbyn.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
If they retain it, it will (also) be in memory of Jo Cox herself. I predict an increased majority.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Batley and Spen, owing the the circumstances in which the vacancy arose, is currently going to be contested by Liberty GB, The English Democrats and the Labour Party. In those circumstances one would expect the Labour Candidate to win by an extremely comfortable margin. At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.

Personally I think that's a fair comment. "Possibly" is as much as anyone can ever say in politics.

But how does he get the PLP to get on board so he can turn the "no but better than expected" into "possibly"? Either he has to compromise his approach to win enough of them over to subdue the rest, or declare war and get a new PLP. Neither is easy, but those were the choices to start with and he opted for both. (i.e. lack of compromise and hoping they would all come on board). It hasn't worked. So now what should he do? Clearly some of his supporters would prefer a new PLP.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
For those who say not a hint of fault in Corbyn's approach I wonder what to make of stories like this and this one.

And since I originally posted now this as well.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.

It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
Saying what you really want to say in the way you want to say it, has to be balanced against what you judge will be well received by your audience. You might be a politician setting out your policies, or a candidate applying for a job, or someone thinking how to post right here: you have to pitch it right.

This compromise is always there; it is part of communication. Is the issue for the Labour Party simply about adjusting this balance? Is it something deeper?

From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.

In power under Blair and Brown they did mildly redistributive things, but dressed it up in tough language.

Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.

Electability can wait. When an election looms, one where 40 lost Scottish seats might not be decisive, then is the time to turn a project into a set of policies expressed so they don't frighten the floating voters. Maybe the new head of the Murdoch empire would like a conversation, too.

Maybe a majority of the PLP don't want a more equal society, would prefer to send immigrants back, are willing to kill 10 million people if a conflict gets out of control, and think we should all be grateful to the rich. Maybe a majority just believe they should sound as if that's how they think.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.

.. and further to my post above, I would say one minor triumph of Corbyn/Mcdonnell was to hold the anti-austerity line until it was picked up on by other politicians (and even May echoed parts of it in her initial speech).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.
Well, I don't know which members of the PLP you had in mind, there, but all of them were elected on a manifesto which involved raising the top rate of taxation from 45% to 50% and implementing a property tax on homes over a value of £2 million pounds. The same manifesto also called for the ending of non-domisciled status for wealthy people who pay no tax here. During the subsequent leadership campaign Liz Kendall, who to judge by some of the remarks on this thread is regarded as Mrs Thatcher's last horcrux, opposed the Chancellor's inheritance tax cuts on the grounds that the money could more usefully be spent on early years education. So, apart from all the Parliamentary Labour Party, including the Blairites, none of them have called for redistributive taxation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I thought chris styles' analysis was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all. Some have already been linked in this thread.

I don't think all Corbynistas are the same either.

[ 25. July 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought chris styles' analyses was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all.

The thing is these complaints are the tip of the iceberg that started the day after Corbyn was elected, almost immediately a number of the PLP stated very publicly that they would refuse to serve in a Shadow Cabinet should they be asked, a number of others then started giving statements to the papers about hypothetical scenarios in which they would rebel against the leadership (incidentally, reverse the sexes and ask yourself how acceptable a threat to 'stab X in the front' would actually be).

So no, the fact that amongst all of this dross they have managed to come up with a few reasoned statements doesn't raise my overall opinion of them.

Even if they had a case, there are better, more organised, more dignified and ultimately more electable ways of making the same set of points.

[ 25. July 2016, 11:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"

And undoubtedly Corbyn will be expected to answer the question: "These were all just shoo-ins, right? Bristol and London were Labour cities (never mind the previous independent and Tory mayors) and were easy victories. When are you actually going to win something?"
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Fair enough, callan. I don't follow politics enough to remember many facts, though I accept I am not entitled to my own (that was a great line).

I still think, though, that despite those marginal policies, the Labour Party has worked very hard to sell itself as a pro-business party and to shake off the accusation that it believes in benefits. Worse, it seems to have accepted the suggestion that our country has been brought to the edge of economic collapse by the overwhelming amount of benefit fraud.

I forget manifestos, but I listen to the Today programme and Question Time, and I do not hear Labour MPs talking as if there was much merit in welfare. I hear them accepting that it is a drain on hard working people that should be reduced at all costs. I do not hear them saying that benefit fraud is trivial in terms of costs. I do not hear them taking about what it feels like to be on benefits.

Nor do I hear them talking about the replacement of traditional industries by insecure and low paid work as drivers and packers and call-centre workers, or the relentless march of computer driven efficiencies.

There are important questions about who will enjoy the profits of future economies where low skilled work is replaced by machines. This is already happening. Will those who own the machines benefit, or will we all, and how on earth might that be managed?

If I want answers to such questions I have to look for them myself, because the politicians who might represent me are stuck in the small government, light regulation, everyone look out for themselves ideology of the day. They daredn't talk about the future, what we would like society to look like, what we think would be fair, still less what sort of people do we want to be. A 5% adjustment to a tax band is a little disheartening.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good post, hatless. Some of the plp have gone so far to the right, they sound like the old time and motion experts, (anybody remember measured day work?) I think Brexit is part of their inheritance, since some Labour areas feel neglected by all governments. I suppose something similar happened in Scotland, with the turn to the SNP.

A shift back to the left seems inevitable, but nobody can predict how this will be integrated in the future, and which personnel might be involved, usually somebody we haven't thought of. But for me, Corbyn is keeping alive the soul of the Labour, and for that, much thanks.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't think the issue is that the Labour party forgot the dispossessed of the North. I think the issue is that they got it wrong. They thought immigration and European anti-democracy were the big issues and didn't believe the stories about economic damage and the benefits of cooperation with and being in Europe.

I think the same is true of Corbyn's unelectability. The PLP moved right because it made them electable and they decided they liked being in power better than opposition. Then when they were in opposition and had moved right there are two pulls - stay right and have another go at being electable or go back left.

I am left wing. I wish socialism was electable. But it isn't. That's because the electorate are getting it wrong. They got it wrong on Europe, they get it wrong on immigration and wrong on benefits. I don't really know whose fault that is but I reject the article of faith that the electorate are right and if we only talked about the right things in the right way they would come around to see things our way. They don't necessarily and they haven't.

By all means let's keep trying but let's not delude ourselves that they is a majority of nascent socialists out there just waiting for the right explanation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, and until we've tried everything there is to try we don't know. The alternative is to not bet on it and compromise.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think that Labour forgot the deprived areas, they took them for granted. I mean they took a Labour vote for granted, and yes, also did provide some succour, in the form of investments, Sure Start, and so on.

There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think it is about actually making the argument in the first place, and until very recently that just hasn't been happening.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?

Look, the thing is really simple. If how individual members of the NEC voted was made public knowledge, those voting against JC would face an almighty reaction from the Corbynistas, based on, well, everything that's happened so far (the 44 female MPs and minority figures will do for just a start). Multiply by 10 if the vote had gone against Corbyn.

She knew that, others on the NEC knew that, and that's why they were scared. That's why some who ended up supporting Corbyn to be on the ballot paper, voted for a secret vote.

JC knew what would happen to those who could be identified as voting against him.

There is no excuse for putting NEC members in that sort of fear, and certainly not 'transparency'.

Now could you answer the question put to you by Ricardus, please, which is really what I'm trying to say and he put better?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.

Actually, it's not just the Mail. Most national papers seem to be carrying the story. The Mirror for one.

I would have thought that Momentum of all organisations would have gone for Fairtrade t-shirts. This is an absolutely dead serious request away from all the noisy politics- if anyone reading this has connections, could you suggest they go FT on this and other things?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?

Do you think everybody should be paid the same salary, whatever their role?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.

What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.

So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?

Does the phrase "special advisors" mean anything to you?

In any case, it's a question of the drift of policy making, and how much difference a change of government made. To my mind, it didn't make nearly enough difference: there was still a tendency, at every turn, to make policy driven by the twin poles of lobbying and Daily Mail editorials, under New Labour as under the Tories. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time for a forensic analysis of the information available, but this is my memory of the accumulated impression, and why I voted Liberal Democrat in 2001 and 2005: they seemed to be the only people interested, at the time at least, in not being Tory. The irony.....

[ 25. July 2016, 16:49: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?

Do you think everybody should be paid the same salary, whatever their role?
No.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Sarah G wrote:

quote:
JC knew what would happen to those who could be identified as voting against him.

There is no excuse for putting NEC members in that sort of fear, and certainly not 'transparency'.

But that sounds different from what you said before, where you seemed to be saying that Corbyn was deliberately egging on the abuse.

You may be right; if you are, obviously, he should not only be suspended as leader, but from the party. One problem is that it requires mind-reading.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
In a bizarre turn of events, Sarah Champion, who quit having said that Corbyn's leadership position had become untenable, has now resumed her position

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more whacky.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Looking on the bright side, Sarah Champion unresigns. Maybe there'll be an uncoup, decoup, reverse coup, whatever the word is. I vote for conscious uncoupling.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sarah-champion-unresigns-labour-shadow-8490897
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.

Although death threats, rape threats, and threats of violence should go straight to the police, surely. And should carry penalty of expulsion, as should making false or inflammatory allegations.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Uncoup could be a thing to a certain point - moreover I note that Ian McNichol - the person with the authority to do so - is now establishing a panel to deal with allegations of abuse.

Although death threats, rape threats, and threats of violence should go straight to the police, surely. And should carry penalty of expulsion, as should making false or inflammatory allegations.
Clearly, but this is not a new recommendation - you should always report credible death threats to the police.

(By which I mean comments such Jess Phillips statement that if she's going to stab Corbyn she'll stab him in the front is not credible death threat, anymore than Rook's offer to stab denizen of Hell with a rusty pitch fork is.)
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.

Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.

Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
Conversely, list me a single occasion on which NuLab government policy was influenced by a Labour party conference, TUC motion or by any other expression of opinion outside a media organisation and/or the corporate lobbyists.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I think this illustrates a problem facing any political party. A party that wants to get elected needs to appeal to enough voters to get enough seats to form a government. In an ideal world it would be possible to do so by appealing to voters' sense of what is 'best'. Unfortunately much of modern democracy is couched in terms of encouraging voters to think "What's in it for me?", and therefore parties end up trying to appeal to that question - sometimes (often?) leading to compromise on their beliefs. The focus group approach doesn't ask 'is this right?' but 'does this appeal to you?'
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK Thunderbunk, I get it. An opinion and an assertion based on an impression plus some circumstantial.

Someone better endowed with time, and patience, can spend a very long time listing every single time the No 10 spin machine put in place by Tony Blair reacted to every tilt of the Northcliff House windmill. And every time one of the special advisers was in the towers of the City.
Managing relationships with news media and powerful financial interests is just a normal part of government in the modern world. You can't just tell them to piss off. The process always contains the possibility of corruption. That's not the same as being in the pockets of the powerful.

On your second point re influence on NuLabour policy by Labour Party or TUC motions, or representations by other than powerful lobbyists, here are three documents.

The 1997 Manifesto

The 2001 Manifesto

The 2005 Manifesto

Now I recognise that there are elements in those election manifestos which were the subject of contrary motions at Labour Party and TUC Conferences. But the majority of pledges in the manifestos were not at all controversial in terms of Labour principles and values. And surely that is the main point. Those were the formal bases on which MPs were elected and were able to form a government. Delivery is another matter but that is always the case for any government which gains power.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.

It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
The irony is I think the two sides (most of the PLP) and Corbyists are nowhere near as far apart as is being assumed in the midst of this highly charged debate.

Let's take the anti-austerity position - which is probably the most quoted example of the PLP moving to the right post the last election. It also appears to be widely misunderstood as a term.

Simon Wren-Lewis (Economics Professor Oxford Uni) defines austerity as ‘premature fiscal consolidation’. He is one of McDonnell’s team of economic advisors and has blogged repeately defending anti-austerity positions and attacking the ineptitude of the austerity policies of George Osborne. Consequently he regards anti-austerity policies - when properly understood - as textbook economics.

Wren-Lewis has frequently argued that Osborne’s austerity position only makes sense when seen as a means of shrinking the size of the state for ideological reasons. Now all this so far is uncontroversial to anyone outside the ideological right of the Tory party – in fact even some of them might concede this.

There is little doubt that the vast majority of the PLP are not ideologically committed to shrinking the state significantly. And in many situations would commit to anti-austerity policies. After all Mark Carney has hinted we may need them post Brexit. (It is unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn is the person responsible for putting anti-austerity on the agenda and persuading all these macro-economists to adopt it as mainstream theory.)

It should also be noted that McDonnell has started (at times) to appear to back-track on his anti-austerity stance especially when he's been under pressure to appear fiscally responsible. The SNP another anti-austerity party have of course been more cautious, less overtly anti-austerity - once in office. Certainly they have sought to avoid the tax and spend label.

So my guess is that almost all the PLP believe that Labour were not reckless in power and that they acted correctly in 2008 (when they followed anti-austerity policies). And yet this is the issue on which the PLP are judged to have moved to the right. The simple anti or pro-austerity division is absurd. The PLP may well feel the need to be careful of how they speak so that the tax and spend label can’t be attached to them so easily but the difference between a McDonnell budget and a soft left one from the PLP would almost certainly be pretty minimal.

And yet it is presented as this great ideological divide.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
[tangent, mostly addressed to Barnabas62]

I meant what I said literally: RL is demanding more of my attention than usual, and will continue to do so for the next two weeks, so I