The Labour Thread

[The Jovial Forester]

Eagle must be a stalking horse, she voted for the Iraq war and against Chilcot ffs, though given the strategic nous of the PLP maybe they are serious.

 

[Aber gas]

They're very active on social media and all circulate in the same sort of networks,

very few of them have actually been out on the doorstep campaigning for Labour. They're very active on social media

which beyond their group and the metropolitan areas of north London, is just not true at all.

Arrogant and uninformed dismissals of Corbyns support.
Is Dale Rooke ( mayor of Chepstow) one of these? How about Paul Flynn? Am I ?
If you don't want Corbyn as leader then that's fine. Make the argument for someone else to lead but don't just assume the people who voted for Corbyn fit into your presumptive little boxes.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Arrogant and uninformed dismissals of Corbyns support.
Is Dale Rooke ( mayor of Chepstow) one of these? How about Paul Flynn? Am I ?
If you don't want Corbyn as leader then that's fine. Make the argument for someone else to lead but don't just assume the people who voted for Corbyn fit into your presumptive little boxes.

Angela Eagles CLP, bet they've never got anyone elected. Err, hang on.

 

[Abertawe]

Do you seriously think I'm just basing that assertion from "some conversations" in Grimsby? Look at Max's post above - are you seriously denying Labour has lost support in the north? And don't quote the by-elections wins, as they were all in Labour-held seats. To win an election Labour need to make huge gains in the north as well as Scotland - is that going to happen under Corbyn?

Corbyn is startlingly unpopular with the country at large. He was the first politician, upon appointment to opposition leader, to receive a negative net approval rate (-8%), which has now plundered to -22%. What makes the voice of those 200,000 more important than the general public? If there was a general election next month, do you honestly think Corbyn would come anywhere near winning? And this is against a Tory party in turmoil...

You've still got to go back to the results of the last general election to draw conclusion, it's lazy to trot out the "Labour has lost it in the north" line. It isn't true.

When you analyse the results from a mix of constituencies in England & Wales the data is simple to decipher. Labour didn't lose it's support, in fact it grew, but so did the Conservatives, Green and most of all UKIP. The results of the marginal seats came down to the total collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote. LD's may not have won as many seats as they wanted in 2010, but they garnered lots of votes up & down the country. That collapse of such a sizeable vote meant that Conservative, Labour, Green & UKIP were going to split the votes between em all. It came down to how effective they were at stealing those up for grab votes. Labour lost the election because they couldn't win enough of the split, not because it lost it's ability to get people to vote for em. They secured roughly 730,000 more votes in 2015 than in 2010, by contrast the tories collected over 600,000 more votes than in 2010. Labour outperformed the tories, the often forgotten fact of the 2015 election. That said the result wasn't decided on Labour or tories votes.The weirdest part of 2015 was how a large proportion of the Lib Dem vote seemingly got swallowed up by UKIP. It shouldn't have been the case but in almost every seat UKIP was eating up bigger portions of the LD vote than anyone else. Below is a mix of places to give a snapshot of what happened to the LD vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14001038
www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000047
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000738
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000554
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000974
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14001018
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000766
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000648

I think it proves that a sizeable proportion of the electorate aren't really stirred by policy but personality. It just defies logic that the missing LD vote is found by UKIP but it happene. Clegg was a new dawn until he sold his soul, the LD U-turns killed that dream dead. Nige has slowly but surely become a household name and he has charisma & damning wit which people generally like, combine that with the EU being a dead duck in the heads of 52% of the country it's easy to see why they did so well.

Whether Labour can be successful at the next general election isn't easy to confidently predict. Should May win the Tory candidacy, we won't have an election until 2020. That gives ample time for Corbyn to rebuild and prove he has what it takes to bring to the fore the message of anti austerity and how unjust it is on the majority, the protection of workers rights, equality and the unending quest for human rights & social justice. That's before you move onto an economic policies based on investment, he has a positive message to bring which will resonate with people. The sizeable proportion that vote based on personality may well be attracted to him too. If he survives this coup and is still in power in 4 years time he'll surely be considered cool as fuck or will at least command respect and hence his positive message has an audience. A lot of it depends and what UKIP now do and if they rebrand what happens to their votes, the answer to that hinges on who the Tories choose I suspect. They'll be more influential to the vote with May at the helm but would probably dissolve should it go to Gove.

This is why I don't understand why the PLP are doing what they're doing. Labour isn't losing votes. It smells of higher forces deliberately trying to steer Labour into a forever centre verging on mild right party, which if allowed to succeed would spell the death of the left & social justice based ideals for ever. Anyone of left leaning thoughts or morals who isn't on the side of Corbyn are either very confused or verging on manipulated. This coup is being instigated because they see the path to victory for Corbyn and left leaning socialism have in front of them as a consequence of the leave decision. They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him yet he's remained strong and shows no signs of stepping down. If Corbyn harnesses what Clegg honed in on in 2010 then he stands every chance of winning an election, the UKIP vote you would now expect to dwindle. Conservatives also have their own deep routed internal issues that don't have a clear fix. The PLP have played this all wrong. The public don't give influence to random names, they become very familiar with a face maybe two of any given party. If Corbyn wins a second mandate he'll have huge momentum on which to build his profile and gain familiarity with the public. All those rebelling MP's will soon toe the line when it comes to contesting their seats come election time so unless they totally betray the party the coup shouldn't have too much influence come 2020, the policies of Corbyn will count for more. But a Corbyn labour can win a general election.

 

[TimeyWimey]

Blimey, even Cat Smith is (apparently) wanting Corbyn to go now. Bloody Blairite.

 

[Pagnell]

No matter what people's views on Corbyn and his leadership qualities are, this is surely nearing the end. He can't hang on for much longer. Whether it turns out to be good for the Labour party in the long run is another matter. The bottom line is they want to be a feasible alternative to the Tories, and with Corbyn at the helm it's highly debatable if that's the case. It's a shit situation all round really.

 

[Pagnell]

"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'. It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on antisemitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti's report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing."

http://www.ruthsmeeth.org.uk/statement_on_the_launch_of_the_chakrabarti_report

Becoming a bit nasty now. Comments from other MPs about this incident, including one telling Corbyn he was there and did nothing. The Labour party is in turmoil.

 

[smat]

The Labour party is in turmoil.

why, what's happened

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

The election contest was a double-edged sword, being the first one where it was one-member, one-vote, and it was made too easy to join the party. Old-school left wing socialists have always wanted the Labour Party to be a left-wing socialist party, rather than a centre-left social democratic one. However, the Labour Party already had this battle throughout the 80s, and the country always rejected this version of Labour. The huge new membership to the Labour Party was celebrated at the time, but this was not previously unpolitical people joining the party to try to energise it. It was, largely, Socialist Worker Party voters, Morning Star readers, people who lost the argument about Labour's future in the past etc. and who the public at large would regard as being a bit too far to the left. It seems odd to me that a lot of new Labour members never joined Labour before because they didn't like 90% of the party, and so they joined to support the 10% represented by Jeremy Corbyn, and are now complaining because nobody likes them.

Really? Citation needed for this, methinks. My impression was that it was chiefly disillusioned and disengaged former Labour voters and hitherto unenthused younger voters who joined the party. I certainly wouldn't have though it was chiefly the SWP/Morning Star crowd. How far removed is Corbyn from your average social democrat? Not very, I would argue (and certainly a lot closer than the Blairites). Forget socialism - I'd suggest that the problem with Labour is that they've not resembled a social democratic party for a very long time.

With that in mind, it is very frustrating to see people who have been in the Labour Party for 9 months insulting and castigating people who have been in it for 40 years and saying that THEY are the real party etc etc.

Well yes, but let's consider that Corbyn would still have won the leadership contest without the much derided £3 affiliate supporters. He won over double the number of first preference votes than his nearest rival from full members and over double the number of votes than his nearest rival from affiliate trade unionists. No one can possibly claim the contest was hijacked by a lunatic fringe - he had a clear mandate from people with longstanding connections to the party.

Some MPs wouldn't serve with him, which I thought was petulant, but I think it's worth remembering that some of them have worked with him for 20 years, during which time he has never been remotely loyal to any leader, any party idea, or anything other than his own ideas. That's fine - principle is respected - but it's a bit rich to demand loyalty in return.

Not really. Had he served in government or the shadow cabinet one could perhaps level this accusation at him. But he didn't; he was a backbencher and so there's no expectation of collective responsibility.

I've seen Angela Eagle get slagged off for supporting him and then turning on him, which proves that MPs cannot win. They get abuse for not supporting him. They get abuse for trying to make it work. The only way they avoid abuse is to blindly follow Jeremy towards electoral oblivion. The left wing of politics has always been its worst enemy. Labour councillors, MPs and MEPs have been pretty open about their beliefs to get selected. It's how you get selected to run for a seat. It really should not come as any surprise that a lot of them can't work with Jeremy. It's not a grand betrayal, it's just common sense. It's as if 100,000 people joined the Green Party, elected Nigel Farage, and then complained when it didn't go well.

He's been leader for nine months! If MPs can't bring themselves to profess loyalty to their leader for that long then yes, they probably do deserve to be slagged off. It was clear that he would need time to reform and democratise the party and its institutions and yet it's abundantly clear that the PLP won't afford him that. It's obviously nothing like the Green party electing Nigel bloody Farage! Jeremy Corbyn's been a Labour MP since 1983!

When I read your post, your mention the word 'electorate', and you, in that instance, seem to use it as a synonym for the people that voted for Jeremy. Most of the general public have very little interest in the internal workings of the parties, and have no interest in electing a party leader, but would like to see a good PM and a good leader of the opposition. MPs are working against Corbyn because they don't think he is effective, don't think the public trust him and don't think he can win a general election. In this quest, they are grossly offending around 200,000 people, most of whom hated the PLP before anyway. They're doing this to try to win over millions of people in future elections.

But what's the evidence that he isn't effective? If it's approval ratings then that can be worked upon. In pure electoral terms there's nothing to suggest he's doing a disastrous job (local and by-election showings have hardly been bad).

To take issue with a couple of things, the Iraq War did not force Tony Blair out. The war started in 2003. There was then the Hutton Enquiry in September of that year, and Blair won a third general election in 2005. When he announced he was standing down in September 2006, his approval rate was actually higher than when the Hutton Enquiry was published. Though I would agree the Lim Dems were the major benefactors of Labour's decline in popularity, this was in 2005, rather than in 2010.

What the membership wants is not the same as what the country wants. The die-hard Northern support areas are indeed at risk from UKIP, but here are the key marginals from 2015 that Labour needed to win:

Warwickshire North
Thurrock
Hendon
Cardiff North
Sherwood
Norwich South
Stockton South

To elaborate further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_target_seats_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

I would agree the task is difficult, because Labour has to appeal to both working class voters and to middle class voters, but the Tories have long had reasonable success in lots of working class areas, so it can be done.

I take issue with this notion that Labour are at risk from UKIP in the north. UKIP have made advances in certain areas but I think the referendum has got people unnecessarily excited - there's really no hard evidence that Labour are in danger here. Labour's local election performance in 2015 in their northern heartlands looks perfectly respectable to me so where does this perception come from?

Can Labour really hope to be all things to all people anymore? The political landscape has shifted so much that I'm increasingly doubtful about this notion of having to capture the centre ground in order to win elections. Let's face facts - Labour faces an uphill struggle because it's lost Scotland and that has sod all to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, maybe it was the preoccupation with middle England that resulted in Labour taking their eye off that particular north of the border ball?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I also think the notion that he's too metropolitan London is pretty weird. Yes, he represents Islington North, has done since it was a deprived inner city constituency and has held the seat strongly despite massive demographic changes (which surely suggests an across boundaries appeal). His seat still contains areas of profound deprivation and he talks almost exclusively about how damaging inequality (entrenched by our economic system/policy decisions) is. Why wouldn't this appeal to traditional Labour voters in other areas of the country? Unless of course the rhetoric surrounding immigration has become so toxic that people simply don't want to listen... but then again, why wouldn't you want to fight that?

 

[Aber gas]

I also think the notion that he's too metropolitan London is pretty weird. Yes, he represents Islington North, has done since it was a deprived inner city constituency and has held the seat strongly despite massive demographic changes (which surely suggests an across boundaries appeal). His seat still contains areas of profound deprivation and he talks almost exclusively about how damaging inequality (entrenched by our economic system/policy decisions) is. Why wouldn't this appeal to traditional Labour voters in other areas of the country? Unless of course the rhetoric surrounding immigration has become so toxic that people simply don't want to listen... but then again, why wouldn't you want to fight that?

It really is a weird thing to throw at Corbyn. He has no support outside of the " North London metropolitan elite" It's clearly not true and why use that against him. There are several valid criticisms that that people can use against Corbyn but that seems the one that critics like to use. Very odd

 

[Abertawe]

So the ground work for Eagle to make a bid for leader came even before Benn was sacked, fancy that. Her crocodile tears were repulsive. This is a planned coup with Blair's grubby prints all over it.

 

[Max]

A bit of news today:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/labour-members-corbyn-post-brexit/

Jeremy's favourable rating among party members has gone from +45 to +3, in less than 2 months. If you click to see the full results, total definite or might vote for Jeremy in another contest is at 50%, might not or definitely wouldn't is now 47%. You can look at these numbers and see whatever you want in them. In an attempt to be fair, surely a balanced view is that his position remains strong but appears to be weakening quite a lot(!)

Really? Citation needed for this, methinks. My impression was that it was chiefly disillusioned and disengaged former Labour voters and hitherto unenthused younger voters who joined the party. I certainly wouldn't have though it was chiefly the SWP/Morning Star crowd. How far removed is Corbyn from your average social democrat? Not very, I would argue (and certainly a lot closer than the Blairites). Forget socialism - I'd suggest that the problem with Labour is that they've not resembled a social democratic party for a very long time.


Well yes, but let's consider that Corbyn would still have won the leadership contest without the much derided £3 affiliate supporters. He won over double the number of first preference votes than his nearest rival from full members and over double the number of votes than his nearest rival from affiliate trade unionists. No one can possibly claim the contest was hijacked by a lunatic fringe - he had a clear mandate from people with longstanding connections to the party.


Not really. Had he served in government or the shadow cabinet one could perhaps level this accusation at him. But he didn't; he was a backbencher and so there's no expectation of collective responsibility.


He's been leader for nine months! If MPs can't bring themselves to profess loyalty to their leader for that long then yes, they probably do deserve to be slagged off. It was clear that he would need time to reform and democratise the party and its institutions and yet it's abundantly clear that the PLP won't afford him that. It's obviously nothing like the Green party electing Nigel bloody Farage! Jeremy Corbyn's been a Labour MP since 1983!


But what's the evidence that he isn't effective? If it's approval ratings then that can be worked upon. In pure electoral terms there's nothing to suggest he's doing a disastrous job (local and by-election showings have hardly been bad).


I take issue with this notion that Labour are at risk from UKIP in the north. UKIP have made advances in certain areas but I think the referendum has got people unnecessarily excited - there's really no hard evidence that Labour are in danger here. Labour's local election performance in 2015 in their northern heartlands looks perfectly respectable to me so where does this perception come from?

Can Labour really hope to be all things to all people anymore? The political landscape has shifted so much that I'm increasingly doubtful about this notion of having to capture the centre ground in order to win elections. Let's face facts - Labour faces an uphill struggle because it's lost Scotland and that has sod all to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, maybe it was the preoccupation with middle England that resulted in Labour taking their eye off that particular north of the border ball?

Ahoy, I shall answer your points in turn:

1. I apologise, that was a bit sweeping. I should have said instead that a lot of the pro-Corbyn rallies (and one can thus assume a fair proportion of his hardcore support) have been open about the SWP affiliation. Their banners are clear to see in the recent protests. The core of people who absolutely won't budge on the idea of Jeremy resigning, whenever given a platform, appear to be of the fairly far-left. One annecdotal example would be that on Tuesday I listened to The World At One on Radio 4, and the person London Young Labour had put up to defend Jeremy Corbyn is a self-described Marxist. Although I think we'd need to define the difference between a socialist and a social democrat.

2. He did indeed win with everyone. However, as I suspected before but I think can now be shown with polling info (see top of post), a huge number of people that supported him as recently as two months ago no longer support him.

3. I agree, and I know he'd not served cabinet/shadow before, but I was just establishing that Jeremy's more or less total isolation from the majority of the PLP is not new.

4. My point was about Angela Eagle his colleagues get slagged off for both saying they can't work with him, and also for saying they can. I do honestly think he has been poor enough over the course of 9 months to honestly say "I've tried but this isn't working". People aren't annoyed he hasn't democratised the party fast enough. The PLP are frustrated he does not lead the party well and project the image for a future prime minister.

5. The evidence he isn't effective: I do think the polling is the most important thing, and it has never been good enough, and has barely moved. So I don't know where your faith comes on that it will suddenly swing upwards by 15 points. The by-elections and Mayoral elections in solidly Labour areas have been good, but we've not had any marginals in play, and we did actually lose council seats this year, which in opposition against this government is unforgivably bad. He just escaped too much criticism because ultimately people thought Labour would lose loads more than they did.

He's not effective because he can't be effective while he is not talking to the country. On the Falklands, on shoot-to-kill, on not attacking the government, on his bizarre attitude towards the press (I would advise anyone who has not seen the Vice documentary to have a watch: https://news.vice.com/video/jeremy-corbyn-the-outsider), allowing his personal appearance to become a major issue, the national anthem bullshit, the refusal to just say Hamas are not his friends (I don't believe he's in any way antisemitic, but he really has not done very well at just correcting his record on this - see also the launch of the antisemitism report yesterday), his totally cowardly EU referendum activity, giving the top jobs to blokes, going backwards electorally in Scotland, still associating himself with Stop The War, appointing Ken Livingstone to the defence review, appointing Diane Abbott to anything, and for all his stern teacher face, he's actually not very good in Parliament.

6. I agree with you that Labour can't be everything to everyone. But UKIP came 2nd in 34 northern Labour seats at the general (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandp...-this-be-a-springboard-for-the-party-in-2020/) and are increasingly the main opposition to the Tories in the south of the country. The wider point is that Labour needs a leader that appeals to swing voters, ordinary people (by which I mean non-political obsessives) and people in England. This does not look like Jeremy Corbyn.

So the ground work for Eagle to make a bid for leader came even before Benn was sacked, fancy that. Her crocodile tears were repulsive. This is a planned coup with Blair's grubby prints all over it.

Why would Tony Blair be behind this? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you think the Parliamentary Labour Party can't organise a rival leadership campaign without Tony Blair? Do you imagine he sits in a big smoky room, smoking a cigar and pretending he's the godfather?

I'm still waiting for you to define what a Blairite was from earlier...

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Apologies for the delay in responding, Max. I'll pick up on 5 & 6 as they're the main points that go beyond clarification.

5. I don't really accept the idea that performance in the local elections was unforgivably bad. Personally, I didn't expect Labour to perform any better than they did (I said as much at the time, and it really has nothing to do with Corbyn). The reasoning? Well, you have to look back to 2012 and the equivalent election. Labour's performance in 2012 was really very good - 38% was the best local government percentage in recent years which reflected the fact that they were looking in rude health in May 2012, polling better nationally than at any other point in the last parliament (important to remember that this was post-omnishambles budget and pre-UKIP surge). As such, I think Labour performed quite reasonably in 2016 - yes, this government are not popular but nor have they had any real disasters that might precipitate a collapse.* Largely holding on to what they had is a respectable performance for Labour imo.

Some of the things you cite don't really ring true for me. Unless there are very specific circumstances that make them red hot issues things such as shoot-to-kill (is his really an unreasonable position?) and the Falklands are not going to decide an election. As much as I think Corbyn could be a bit more media savvy I don't think his attitude toward the press is in the least bit bizarre (from day one they've completely savaged him and even supposed lefty publications have been out to get him). I'm sure we're regularly told that the public are uninterested in spin and media image and would be much happier if their politicians simply had convictions. If that's the case then why the fuck would anyone care that this guy looks slightly dishevelled and doesn't, as a self-confessed republican, obsequiously sing an anthem he doesn't believe in? Might as well bring back Campbell and Mandleson!

6. How close are UKIP to actually challenging Labour in those 34 though? Not very, I would argue. The Tories perform poorly in these areas and the Lib Dems have tanked so it's little surprise that UKIP are doing well. It does not necessarily mean the Labour vote is under threat (although clearly that is a possibility). Increasingly the main opposition to the Tories in the south? Again, only in selected areas (they're not a major force in my backyard by any means - there are still plenty of places both north and south where UKIP haven't advanced significantly).

*the Brexit calamity was actually a huge opportunity for Labour to make themselves appear an effective opposition and overhaul the Tories in the polls. Could it be that senior Labour figures don't want that as it might make a Labour led Corbyn appear electable? Is sabotage preferable to any possibility of PM Corbyn? One really does wonder...

 

[Aber gas]

Angela Eagles and Owen Smith have decided to hold off leadership challenges in order for a negotiated settlement in which Corbyn walks away.
Do they not understand the man at all? or are they so insecure in their own position that they are clutching at straws? It's weird that the two people who see themselves as the right people to lead the Labour Party are being so coy about testing their conceit.

 

[Max]

Angela Eagles and Owen Smith have decided to hold off leadership challenges in order for a negotiated settlement in which Corbyn walks away.
Do they not understand the man at all? or are they so insecure in their own position that they are clutching at straws? It's weird that the two people who see themselves as the right people to lead the Labour Party are being so coy about testing their conceit.

I think the prospect of a general election now looks less likely than was thought, so there is suddenly less of a rush on.

 

[Max]

Apologies for the delay in responding, Max. I'll pick up on 5 & 6 as they're the main points that go beyond clarification.

5. I don't really accept the idea that performance in the local elections was unforgivably bad. Personally, I didn't expect Labour to perform any better than they did (I said as much at the time, and it really has nothing to do with Corbyn). The reasoning? Well, you have to look back to 2012 and the equivalent election. Labour's performance in 2012 was really very good - 38% was the best local government percentage in recent years which reflected the fact that they were looking in rude health in May 2012, polling better nationally than at any other point in the last parliament (important to remember that this was post-omnishambles budget and pre-UKIP surge). As such, I think Labour performed quite reasonably in 2016 - yes, this government are not popular but nor have they had any real disasters that might precipitate a collapse.* Largely holding on to what they had is a respectable performance for Labour imo.

Some of the things you cite don't really ring true for me. Unless there are very specific circumstances that make them red hot issues things such as shoot-to-kill (is his really an unreasonable position?) and the Falklands are not going to decide an election. As much as I think Corbyn could be a bit more media savvy I don't think his attitude toward the press is in the least bit bizarre (from day one they've completely savaged him and even supposed lefty publications have been out to get him). I'm sure we're regularly told that the public are uninterested in spin and media image and would be much happier if their politicians simply had convictions. If that's the case then why the fuck would anyone care that this guy looks slightly dishevelled and doesn't, as a self-confessed republican, obsequiously sing an anthem he doesn't believe in? Might as well bring back Campbell and Mandleson!

6. How close are UKIP to actually challenging Labour in those 34 though? Not very, I would argue. The Tories perform poorly in these areas and the Lib Dems have tanked so it's little surprise that UKIP are doing well. It does not necessarily mean the Labour vote is under threat (although clearly that is a possibility). Increasingly the main opposition to the Tories in the south? Again, only in selected areas (they're not a major force in my backyard by any means - there are still plenty of places both north and south where UKIP haven't advanced significantly).

*the Brexit calamity was actually a huge opportunity for Labour to make themselves appear an effective opposition and overhaul the Tories in the polls. Could it be that senior Labour figures don't want that as it might make a Labour led Corbyn appear electable? Is sabotage preferable to any possibility of PM Corbyn? One really does wonder...

5. It was the first time the opposition failed to pick up local seats in a non-election year in about 30 years. And it does have everything to do with the leadership. Surely you'd agree that an awful lot of people don't vote in local elections solely (or at all) on local issues. Local government results correlate with the reputation and fortunes of the party leader. The local government results though - and I agree they were not as bad as they could have been - is just part of a wider issue of Jeremy Corbyn not being seen as electable.

No one issue has doomed Jeremy Corbyn, but the things I flag up are all examples of him picking the wrong battles, or are issues that add towards him alienating the average voter. For an as-of-yet uncited source, I refer you to http://europe.newsweek.com/jeremy-corbyn-scruffy-worzel-gummidge-focus-groups-nuneaton-457221

6. They (UKIP) used to be absolutely nowhere, and are now the major opposition in many areas. 4 million votes at the general election is not nothing, and I think you're quite complacent about this. The bigger point is that UKIP's rise has been very quick in national political terms, and that Labour is generally seen to be a party in decline. My concern is that Jeremy is taking the party off into irrelevance, when now more than ever Labour need to seem relevant to people.

 

[Abertawe]

If Corbyn stepped down and threw his support behind Clive Lewis as new leader, would that snooker the coup plotters? Think it might happen.

 

[Aber gas]

I think the prospect of a general election now looks less likely than was thought, so there is suddenly less of a rush on.

Sure, but what's their plan? They've already stated their position so what are they waiting for? They're going to have a long wait for Jeremy to walk so I should think they'd want to start the election process instead of bitching from the sidelines.

 

[Max]

Sure, but what's their plan? They've already stated their position so what are they waiting for? They're going to have a long wait for Jeremy to walk so I should think they'd want to start the election process instead of bitching from the sidelines.

Agreed, this stalling is now quite odd. But I think Chilcot was something Corbyn was absolutely determined to be around for. He is not showing any signs of resigning, and the PLP have burned their bridges, so fuck knows where we go from here.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

5. It was the first time the opposition failed to pick up local seats in a non-election year in about 30 years. And it does have everything to do with the leadership. Surely you'd agree that an awful lot of people don't vote in local elections solely (or at all) on local issues. Local government results correlate with the reputation and fortunes of the party leader. The local government results though - and I agree they were not as bad as they could have been - is just part of a wider issue of Jeremy Corbyn not being seen as electable.

No one issue has doomed Jeremy Corbyn, but the things I flag up are all examples of him picking the wrong battles, or are issues that add towards him alienating the average voter. For an as-of-yet uncited source, I refer you to http://europe.newsweek.com/jeremy-corbyn-scruffy-worzel-gummidge-focus-groups-nuneaton-457221

6. They (UKIP) used to be absolutely nowhere, and are now the major opposition in many areas. 4 million votes at the general election is not nothing, and I think you're quite complacent about this. The bigger point is that UKIP's rise has been very quick in national political terms, and that Labour is generally seen to be a party in decline. My concern is that Jeremy is taking the party off into irrelevance, when now more than ever Labour need to seem relevant to people.

I don't think I'm being complacent when it comes to UKIP. They've obviously made very impressive advances and have taken votes from parties right across the political spectrum. I'd probably suggest that they're slightly more of a problem for the Tories than they are for Labour but there's little doubt they have the capacity to be troublesome for both. My main contention is simply that it's relatively easy (in light of the Lib Dem implosion) to become the main opposition party in any given area but altogether harder to actually take seats. I also think they're way down the list of problems for a Labour party who lost the last general election due to questions concerning economic competence, the aforementioned Lib Dem collapse (which gifted the Tories seats in the south) and a virtual wipe out in Scotland.

If Labour are perceived to be a party in decline then that's really the PLPs own doing so far as I am concerned. It is, as I said earlier, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's impossible for a party to regain trust or to be seen as electable if they are resolutely unwilling to present a united front. The trouble - so far as I can see it - is that it's easy to diagnose the problems and altogether harder to find solutions. In order to win back key marginals Labour are going to need some compelling ideas and someone to sell them. At least Corbyn has a distinctive policy platform and, if nothing else, is seen as principled, honest and understanding. Does anyone else within the Labour party have any better ideas and anyone better to pitch them? I'm yet to see any evidence of this (standing on a platform of general wishy-washiness and hoping the Tories fuck up doesn't seem like a fail-safe recipe for electoral success).

 

[Abertawe]

I asked you five time in the other thread to clarify what a Blairite was. You had no idea then, and you have no idea now. I have been a member of the Labour Party since April 2010. Before that I was a member of the Lib Dems. I have never actually commented on Tony Blair on this forum, ever, as far as I can recall. But go ahead and call everyone you disagree with a conservative or a Blairite. That's sure to get things done. Make sure to continue to personally insult people as well - it reflects so well on the left.

I just couldn't be arsed having a discussion with someone so intent on playing devils advocate, it's boring. You know very well what Blair was and what you seemingly subscribe to, neo-liberal shamefully riding on the coat tails of Attlee with the sole objective of furthering personal wealth & a deranged sense of power. What you subscribe to isn't Labour chum. Will you be fucking off with the rest of the loathsome twunts when Jezza or Clivey defeats this shameful Blairite coup? I hope you do, your kind have no place in the Labour party.

 

[Max]

I just couldn't be arsed having a discussion with someone so intent on playing devils advocate, it's boring. You know very well what Blair was and what you seemingly subscribe to, neo-liberal shamefully riding on the coat tails of Attlee with the sole objective of furthering personal wealth & a deranged sense of power. What you subscribe to isn't Labour chum. Will you be fucking off with the rest of the loathsome twunts when Jezza or Clivey defeats this shameful Blairite coup? I hope you do, your kind have no place in the Labour party.

As far as I can tell, all I have said in this thread is that Jeremy Corbyn is doing a bad job as leader and someone else should be leading the party. How you extrapolate that, automatically, to 'furthering personal wealth and a derange sense of power' is beyond me. You are projecting a lot onto me that I haven't said.

Bored? You have no idea what I subscribe to. I am quite bored of people who have been interested in the Labour Party for 9 months telling me I'm not allowed in the party I've been a member of for six years. The party of my father and grandfather. I am very bored of being personally insulted for having different ideas about policy. Corbyn supporters can't have it both ways. You alone don't get to define the Labour Party. It should be a broad party for people interested in a fair society, workers' rights, civil rights, and a number of other policies that should be debated.

 

[Aber gas]

I just couldn't be arsed having a discussion with someone so intent on playing devils advocate, it's boring. You know very well what Blair was and what you seemingly subscribe to, neo-liberal shamefully riding on the coat tails of Attlee with the sole objective of furthering personal wealth & a deranged sense of power. What you subscribe to isn't Labour chum. Will you be fucking off with the rest of the loathsome twunts when Jezza or Clivey defeats this shameful Blairite coup? I hope you do, your kind have no place in the Labour party.

That's not right Aber, we need a United Labour Party ( ideally behind Corbyn ) but max is entitled to his view. We've all got more that unites us than divides us.
I don't agree with Max on loads of things but just shouting at him doesn't get us anywhere. Also from what I've seen of Max's posts he has about as much to do with Blairs warmongering as I do.

 

[Abertawe]

As far as I can tell, all I have said in this thread is that Jeremy Corbyn is doing a bad job as leader and someone else should be leading the party. How you extrapolate that, automatically, to 'furthering personal wealth and a derange sense of power' is beyond me. You are projecting a lot onto me that I haven't said.

Bored? You have no idea what I subscribe to. I am quite bored of people who have been interested in the Labour Party for 9 months telling me I'm not allowed in the party I've been a member of for six years. The party of my father and grandfather. I am very bored of being personally insulted for having different ideas about policy. Corbyn supporters can't have it both ways. You alone don't get to define the Labour Party. It should be a broad party for people interested in a fair society, workers' rights, civil rights, and a number of other policies that should be debated.

9 months, fool. My great uncle was an MP for Labour spanning over 35 years and is now a Lord. You can have different ideas, they're welcome, but you can't have ideas that totally contradict the moral compass of the Labour party. I'll ask again, will you fuck off with the rest of the chancers when democracy defeats this Blairite coup?

 

[Max]

9 months, fool. My great uncle was an MP for Labour spanning over 35 years and is now a Lord. You can have different ideas, they're welcome, but you can't have ideas that totally contradict the moral compass of the Labour party. I'll ask again, will you fuck off with the rest of the chancers when democracy defeats this Blairite coup?

I will retract the 9 months comment regarding you, but I have spoken to a lot of equally verbally aggressive Corbyn fans who are pretty new to Labour.

I am not going anywhere, regardless of who temporarily leads the party, Corbyn or otherwise. Jeremy Corbyn represents a lot of members, not all members, and his position is not unassailable. And as for democracy, I am entitled to criticise Jeremy Corbyn without being asked to leave the party.

As for the moral compass of the Labour party, this is what it says on my membership card:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

That is what I stand for.

I didn't know I had to justify myself, but apparently I do. So for the avoidance of doubt: I am against Trident renewal, I thought the mansion tax was a good idea, I favour the renationalisation of energy companies, and the train lines. The national minimum wage is not high enough, there is a cost of living crisis, and it needs to be addressed. This country should maintain international development and its foreign aid spending. We should welcome refugees in a practical and compassionate way, campaign for a voting system of proportional representation, decriminalise cannabis and resist any effort to weaken trade unions. I don't think lowering corporation tax is a very good idea, and I don't think wealthy pensioners should get free TV licenses. Labour did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, and it invested in public services in a way that improved a lot of people's lives. Austerity as a national policy is folly, and it is harming people.

I would like to think that we'd agree on some of these issues, and on the general ethos of the Labour party. Then again, I do think that the government of 1997-2010 did a lot of good things, as well as bad things, which may prove an unforgivable sin.

I would ask again that you stop being so verbally aggressive.

 

[Aber gas]

I will retract the 9 months comment regarding you, but I have spoken to a lot of equally verbally aggressive Corbyn fans who are pretty new to Labour.

I am not going anywhere, regardless of who temporarily leads the party, Corbyn or otherwise. Jeremy Corbyn represents a lot of members, not all members, and his position is not unassailable. And as for democracy, I am entitled to criticise Jeremy Corbyn without being asked to leave the party.

As for the moral compass of the Labour party, this is what it says on my membership card:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

That is what I stand for.

I didn't know I had to justify myself, but apparently I do. So for the avoidance of doubt: I am against Trident renewal, I thought the mansion tax was a good idea, I favour the renationalisation of energy companies, and the train lines. The national minimum wage is not high enough, there is a cost of living crisis, and it needs to be addressed. This country should maintain international development and its foreign aid spending. We should welcome refugees in a practical and compassionate way, campaign for a voting system of proportional representation, decriminalise cannabis and resist any effort to weaken trade unions. I don't think lowering corporation tax is a very good idea, and I don't think wealthy pensioners should get free TV licenses. Labour did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, and it invested in public services in a way that improved a lot of people's lives. Austerity as a national policy is folly, and it is harming people.

I would like to think that we'd agree on some of these issues, and on the general ethos of the Labour party. Then again, I do think that the government of 1997-2010 did a lot of good things, as well as bad things, which may prove an unforgivable sin.

I would ask again that you stop being so verbally aggressive.

You certainly don't have to justify yourself comrade.

 

[Abertawe]

I will retract the 9 months comment regarding you, but I have spoken to a lot of equally verbally aggressive Corbyn fans who are pretty new to Labour.

I am not going anywhere, regardless of who temporarily leads the party, Corbyn or otherwise. Jeremy Corbyn represents a lot of members, not all members, and his position is not unassailable. And as for democracy, I am entitled to criticise Jeremy Corbyn without being asked to leave the party.

As for the moral compass of the Labour party, this is what it says on my membership card:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

That is what I stand for.

I didn't know I had to justify myself, but apparently I do. So for the avoidance of doubt: I am against Trident renewal, I thought the mansion tax was a good idea, I favour the renationalisation of energy companies, and the train lines. The national minimum wage is not high enough, there is a cost of living crisis, and it needs to be addressed. This country should maintain international development and its foreign aid spending. We should welcome refugees in a practical and compassionate way, campaign for a voting system of proportional representation, decriminalise cannabis and resist any effort to weaken trade unions. I don't think lowering corporation tax is a very good idea, and I don't think wealthy pensioners should get free TV licenses. Labour did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, and it invested in public services in a way that improved a lot of people's lives. Austerity as a national policy is folly, and it is harming people.

I would like to think that we'd agree on some of these issues, and on the general ethos of the Labour party. Then again, I do think that the government of 1997-2010 did a lot of good things, as well as bad things, which may prove an unforgivable sin.

I would ask again that you stop being so verbally aggressive.

Why did you leave the Lib Dems, I presume you only left after the general election and U turn on tuition fees?

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.

That in itself is Blairite.

If you've already abandoned one party how can you be so sure you won't leave another one? Especially when that party is gonna embark on a democratic decision that totally contradicts your view. When Corbyn comes out on top, it will officially kill new labour and if my theory about you leaving the LD's is right, then I can only advise you to stop lapping up the shite served up by the political elite. Irrespective of whatever colour they pledge themselves to they're in it for themselves and will only ever serve their own interests. That is why I find it utterly bizarre that you want the Labour party back in the hands of the political elite and not the people. Oxford uni gyal Angela Eagle & pharmaceutical cheerleader Owen Smith ain't gonna do shit other than serve their masters.

Your justification (pathetic use of language btw, very much trying to curry favour, stop being a gimp) is on the whole spot on. Again, I find it bizarre that you've set about ridiculing the only movement that can achieve your wants & therefor completely undermine yourself. This coup is orchestrated by those sympathetic to the Blairite legacy & those with a vested interest in the status-quo that has seen the rich get richer and the poor poorer. If you want a political elite serving their pay masters and not the people you may as well vote Conservative, it's that simple, no point in messing about.

The great Tony Benn knows
"Labour won the election in 1997, but New Labour was a Conservative idea. It was the idea of a Conservative group who had taken over Labour. Their idea was that entrusting everything to market forces was the best way to get things done, which was fundamentally an anti-Labour idea. Clearly there were achievements during their time in office, good things were done and progress made in some ways and I am not denying that. But it was a Conservative group running the party. Mrs Thatcher herself said her greatest achievement was New Labour."

I'm not sure what to file you under, either a devils advocate messer or an intelligent but ultimately brainwashed individual.

And Gas, stop gassing, Max is an intelligent adult, he doesn't need defending from an idiot like me.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Labour membership up by around 130k in a few days, most in favour of Corbyn apparently.

Interesting times.

 

[.V.]

Why did you leave the Lib Dems, I presume you only left after the general election and U turn on tuition fees?


That in itself is Blairite.

If you've already abandoned one party how can you be so sure you won't leave another one? Especially when that party is gonna embark on a democratic decision that totally contradicts your view. When Corbyn comes out on top, it will officially kill new labour and if my theory about you leaving the LD's is right, then I can only advise you to stop lapping up the shite served up by the political elite. Irrespective of whatever colour they pledge themselves to they're in it for themselves and will only ever serve their own interests. That is why I find it utterly bizarre that you want the Labour party back in the hands of the political elite and not the people. Oxford uni gyal Angela Eagle & pharmaceutical cheerleader Owen Smith ain't gonna do shit other than serve their masters.

Your justification (pathetic use of language btw, very much trying to curry favour, stop being a gimp) is on the whole spot on. Again, I find it bizarre that you've set about ridiculing the only movement that can achieve your wants & therefor completely undermine yourself. This coup is orchestrated by those sympathetic to the Blairite legacy & those with a vested interest in the status-quo that has seen the rich get richer and the poor poorer. If you want a political elite serving their pay masters and not the people you may as well vote Conservative, it's that simple, no point in messing about.

The great Tony Benn knows
"Labour won the election in 1997, but New Labour was a Conservative idea. It was the idea of a Conservative group who had taken over Labour. Their idea was that entrusting everything to market forces was the best way to get things done, which was fundamentally an anti-Labour idea. Clearly there were achievements during their time in office, good things were done and progress made in some ways and I am not denying that. But it was a Conservative group running the party. Mrs Thatcher herself said her greatest achievement was New Labour."

I'm not sure what to file you under, either a devils advocate messer or an intelligent but ultimately brainwashed individual.

And Gas, stop gassing, Max is an intelligent adult, he doesn't need defending from an idiot like me.

If you think Blair was a democratic socialist, then with respect, clearly you don't know what a democratic socialist is.