The Labour Thread

[Max]

Oh dear, that's theorising.

Your infatuation with making Corbyn look like the anti-christ is strange. If you really do stand for the things you purport to do then you need saving from yourself, let's leave it at that.

My argument has always been that Corbyn is unelectable.

Then you asked for evidence.

Now I have shown you evidence that Labour members and trade union members don't think he's electable. They're the core. You need them, and then you need much more after that. Are they lying? Is it a big conspiracy?

So, we appear to be at an impasse, as you have consistently ignored any evidence put your way. Let's try it the other way around. Show me any evidence you can muster that Corbyn will do better in 2020 than Ed Miliband did in 2015.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Genuine question Max, if the Labour party actually got behind Corbyn, and I mean actually got behind him (that means pushing his qualities, hiding his weaknesses and covering them with strong supporting characters etc), not half-arsed putting up with him and "giving it a go", do you still believe he is inherently unelectable?

I think that is where I disagree with people. Right now, in the context we're in? He is unelectable, because nobody will vote for somebody whose party is undermining/has no confidence in, but nobody is electing anybody in Labour atm imo (whoever wins, a large % of the party won't be happy, nobody is voting for a disunited party). I'm not so sure that if the party actually got behind him he is unelectable.

 

[Abertawe]

Genuine question Max, if the Labour party actually got behind Corbyn, and I mean actually got behind him (that means pushing his qualities, hiding his weaknesses and covering them with strong supporting characters etc), not half-arsed putting up with him and "giving it a go", do you still believe he is inherently unelectable?

I think that is where I disagree with people. Right now, in the context we're in? He is unelectable, because nobody will vote for somebody whose party is undermining/has no confidence in, but nobody is electing anybody in Labour atm imo (whoever wins, a large % of the party won't be happy, nobody is voting for a disunited party). I'm not so sure that if the party actually got behind him he is unelectable.

Exactly, feel like banging my head against a wall at times. Is anyone electable with the majority of their MP's in total revolt, ofc not. It comes down to why the revolt is taking place. I'm backing the man who will bring Labour back to it's core whilst Max is seemingly hungry for some political elite gash. Dude needs saving from himself. See Canada if you want evidence of Corbyn policies winning an election.

 

[Kopper]

My argument has always been that Corbyn is unelectable.

Then you asked for evidence.

Now I have shown you evidence that Labour members and trade union members don't think he's electable. They're the core. You need them, and then you need much more after that. Are they lying? Is it a big conspiracy?

So, we appear to be at an impasse, as you have consistently ignored any evidence put your way. Let's try it the other way around. Show me any evidence you can muster that Corbyn will do better in 2020 than Ed Miliband did in 2015.

Corbyn won't win a general election.
The electorate are too far to the right of Labour. Labour needs to bide it's time and sees what happens after article 50 is triggered (if it ever is). Theresa May, may do a Nick Clegg and scupper brexit or fight to keep the single market. Either outcome means nothing changes and the electorate might ditch them for UKIP or Labour (depending on their own petty self interests).

 

[Max]

Genuine question Max, if the Labour party actually got behind Corbyn, and I mean actually got behind him (that means pushing his qualities, hiding his weaknesses and covering them with strong supporting characters etc), not half-arsed putting up with him and "giving it a go", do you still believe he is inherently unelectable?

I think that is where I disagree with people. Right now, in the context we're in? He is unelectable, because nobody will vote for somebody whose party is undermining/has no confidence in, but nobody is electing anybody in Labour atm imo (whoever wins, a large % of the party won't be happy, nobody is voting for a disunited party). I'm not so sure that if the party actually got behind him he is unelectable.

I think the question is hard to answer, because Corbyn's policies and his leadership qualities cannot be totally separated. Hours after Theresa May was named the new PM, he was not giving a statement addressing this, but addressing a solidarity for Cuba event. At the NEC event, he voted against having secret ballots, even though many members of the NEC had been drastically and unpleasantly intimidated. He claimed to be supporting Britain Stronger In, despite obvious evidence he did his best to avoid the campaign and work against it. His inability to lead the party is not just to do with his pure policy principles, but also to do with examples like this of his inadequate leadership that can now not be ignored. Competent and capable shadow ministers like Heidi Alexander (Health) have really tried to make it work but Jeremy has not done well.

I did think that Corbyn's policies would be good for the Labour Party, but in reality it is not reasonable to expect his MPs to pretend they agree with him about NATO, about nuclear weapons, about the Falklands, etc. People demand honesty from MPs but also demand they get behind Jeremy. The two things are not compatible.

So honestly in retrospect I don't believe this was workable. I consider myself left of a lot of the PLP, but Corbyn has been on a small fringe of the party for 30 years. He cannot suddenly pretend he has a monopoly on Labour. I wanted him to shift the conversation leftwards, and he has done this. He questioned the PM today about homelessness, for instance, which is the sort of thing I want to see Labour leaders doing. But him working as leader was always a longshot.

He has certainly not been given a fair hearing by the media. He has certainly be struggling against an uphill battle. But all that is irrelevant now. We are where we are. He won last year's election, and he did so impressively. I look forward to another election for leader soon, as has been scheduled. I would like Labour to address its issues BEFORE it loses a landslide election, and not afterwards.

 

[Max]

Exactly, feel like banging my head against a wall at times. Is anyone electable with the majority of their MP's in total revolt, ofc not. It comes down to why the revolt is taking place. I'm backing the man who will bring Labour back to it's core whilst Max is seemingly hungry for some political elite gash. Dude needs saving from himself. See Canada if you want evidence of Corbyn policies winning an election.

Trudeau led in the polls after having been elected leader of his party.

You are ignoring the three polls I quoted a few minutes ago because they are telling you of a reality that you would rather not confront.

Jeremy has some great ideas. People don't like him. That is the reality.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

The.electorate aren't to the right of Corbyn on any of his main policies bar Trident.

 

[Abertawe]

Trudeau led in the polls after having been elected leader of his party.

You are ignoring the three polls I quoted a few minutes ago because they are telling you of a reality that you would rather not confront.

Jeremy has some great ideas. People don't like him. That is the reality.

That just isn't true. The whole summise of their election was the Liberals coming out of nowhere to win. They harnessed momentum with policies that sit right in line with Corbyn.

 

[Max]

That just isn't true. The whole summise of their election was the Liberals coming out of nowhere to win. They harnessed momentum with policies that sit right in line with Corbyn.

Look back further. He was elected leader of the party in 2013. He led for ages, dipped in popularity and came back. Just scroll down on the Wikipedia article you took that from.

Also even at their worst, Trudeau's party were at worst, what, 3 points down? How long are you willing to watch Corbyn fail for?

 

[Max]

Also,

https://twitter.com/gentlerpolitics

I don't blame Jeremy Corbyn for this, but it's a reality that his leadership has attracted a massive level of abuse and hatred to the party, not known since the 80s. Verbal abuse, threats of violence, death threats. John McDonnell has not been much better. It's disgusting, and has got to stop.

 

[Abertawe]

You know you're struggling when resort to profiling trolls as a means to strengthen your argument.

 

[Max]

You know you're struggling when resort to profiling trolls as a means to strengthen your argument.

Please answer any of my arguments.

Jeremy Corbyn has never been shown to be popular.

I have provided, repeatedly and over again, evidence he is not popular and unlikely to win.

The best counter-argument you have is that across the Atlantic, in a very different country, someone who is actually charismatic came back from 3% down to win a general election.

A lot of Jeremy Corbyn supporters are in denial but you really take the biscuit. You are a grand master of total deflection. I try always to answer your arguments directly, and you just pivot away and focus on another non-argument.

The fact that a lot of his supporters are hugely unpleasant people is just an extra facet to the argument of why he is bad for the party. Apart from, y'know, reducing a great party of government to a student union debating society.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I think the question is hard to answer, because Corbyn's policies and his leadership qualities cannot be totally separated. Hours after Theresa May was named the new PM, he was not giving a statement addressing this, but addressing a solidarity for Cuba event. At the NEC event, he voted against having secret ballots, even though many members of the NEC had been drastically and unpleasantly intimidated. He claimed to be supporting Britain Stronger In, despite obvious evidence he did his best to avoid the campaign and work against it. His inability to lead the party is not just to do with his pure policy principles, but also to do with examples like this of his inadequate leadership that can now not be ignored. Competent and capable shadow ministers like Heidi Alexander (Health) have really tried to make it work but Jeremy has not done well.

I did think that Corbyn's policies would be good for the Labour Party, but in reality it is not reasonable to expect his MPs to pretend they agree with him about NATO, about nuclear weapons, about the Falklands, etc. People demand honesty from MPs but also demand they get behind Jeremy. The two things are not compatible.

So honestly in retrospect I don't believe this was workable. I consider myself left of a lot of the PLP, but Corbyn has been on a small fringe of the party for 30 years. He cannot suddenly pretend he has a monopoly on Labour. I wanted him to shift the conversation leftwards, and he has done this. He questioned the PM today about homelessness, for instance, which is the sort of thing I want to see Labour leaders doing. But him working as leader was always a longshot.

He has certainly not been given a fair hearing by the media. He has certainly be struggling against an uphill battle. But all that is irrelevant now. We are where we are. He won last year's election, and he did so impressively. I look forward to another election for leader soon, as has been scheduled. I would like Labour to address its issues BEFORE it loses a landslide election, and not afterwards.

That's fair enough, usually all I ever hear is "he's unelectable", and nobody can really explain why, it's something they've learned, partly from the media and word of mouth, a lot of people seem to believe it... because well, everyone say's it right? At least you have a cogent argument for why you think that.

Perhaps my perspective is different, I'm a life long Liberal Democrat, so my focus has always been policy first, electability second. I care more about what I believe is right rather than "my party will viably lead the country". I genuinely admire some of Corbyn's policies, I admire that he got people engaging with the party in record numbers etc, I want to see people actively involved in politics instead of utterly apathetic to them. Perhaps some of my sympathies for Corbyn are tied to the fact that I saw as my own party, despite their obvious flaws, got butchered in the media for the coalitions descisions despite being the minor party (whilst the Tories, who enacted them go a bloody boost!), watching him just get criticised from day one, undermined pretty much from the get go... I guess I hate to see politics get that dirty. I believe, perhaps again due to being an academic, that ideas should be debated and arguments won on merit, not voices being trampled because they're not what "those in charge" want to hear.

I voted Labour last time, in part because I wanted to prove to my party they don't just get my vote whatever after their record and because Labour are the only viable alternative to a Tory government. No matter how noble some MPs may think their intentions are, I think they're doing lasting damage to their party, damage that will be far more disasterous than a Corbyn election campaign and defeat would have ever been. I can't trust a party which so quickly turns on its leader, despite a massive mandate, I know many others, long term Labour supporters feel the same.

I'll return to being a Lib Dem voter once again no doubt, but it troubles me how much damage all this in fighting is going to do to the only credible option to oppose the Tories, who I want out.

 

[Abertawe]

Please answer any of my arguments.

Jeremy Corbyn has never been shown to be popular.

I have provided, repeatedly and over again, evidence he is not popular and unlikely to win.

The best counter-argument you have is that across the Atlantic, in a very different country, someone who is actually charismatic came back from 3% down to win a general election.

A lot of Jeremy Corbyn supporters are in denial but you really take the biscuit. You are a grand master of total deflection. I try always to answer your arguments directly, and you just pivot away and focus on another non-argument.

The fact that a lot of his supporters are hugely unpleasant people is just an extra facet to the argument of why he is bad for the party. Apart from, y'know, reducing a great party of government to a student union debating society.

I'll no longer be discussing the issue with you, time will be the judge. I'll end this inane back & forth with one last comment, I pity you.

 

[Max]

That's fair enough, usually all I ever hear is "he's unelectable", and nobody can really explain why, it's something they've learned, partly from the media and word of mouth, a lot of people seem to believe it... because well, everyone say's it right? At least you have a cogent argument for why you think that.

Perhaps my perspective is different, I'm a life long Liberal Democrat, so my focus has always been policy first, electability second. I care more about what I believe is right rather than "my party will viably lead the country". I genuinely admire some of Corbyn's policies, I admire that he got people engaging with the party in record numbers etc, I want to see people actively involved in politics instead of utterly apathetic to them. Perhaps some of my sympathies for Corbyn are tied to the fact that I saw as my own party, despite their obvious flaws, got butchered in the media for the coalitions descisions despite being the minor party, watching him just get criticised from day one, undermined pretty much from the get go... I guess I hate to see politics get that dirty. I believe, perhaps again due to being an academic, that ideas should be debated and arguments won on merit, not voices being trampled because they're not what "those in charge" want to hear.

I voted Labour last time, in part because I wanted to prove to my party they don't just get my vote whatever after their record and because Labour are the only viable alternative to a Tory government. No matter how noble some MPs may think their intentions are, I think they're doing lasting damage to their party, damage that will be far more disasterous than a Corbyn election campaign and defeat would have ever been. I can't trust a party which so quickly turns on its leader, despite a massive mandate, I know many others, long term Labour supporters feel the same.

I'll return to being a Lib Dem voter once again no doubt, but it troubles me how much damage all this in fighting is going to do to the only credible option to oppose the Tories, who I want out.

I would have liked Corbyn to be popular with people, and it is to my immense disappointment that people are quite superficial, and demand a certain level of media performance from a leader. I really, really support the policy ideas and platform of Ed Miliband. I thought his ideas, principles and positions were mostly very good and he was a big improvement, ideology-wise, from, for example, Tony Blair. Problem is - and I totally share your view here I think - that the general public do expect a certain 'electability'. I pretended to myself for five years between 2010 and 2015 that this could be overcome, but I think honestly that most people vote on their general impressions of leaders, and so we can't ignore that.

I think it's important to recruit new members, but Jeremy's views have been a minority for a while now in Labour, and so it's a shame that a lot of people joined as new members and are now indignant that the party as a whole does not match their beliefs.

I thought the Lib Dems did as well as could be expected in coalition. Not Nick Clegg's biggest fan but the Lib Dems lost a lot of really good MPs in 2015 who advanced some very sensible arguments. There are Lib Dem MPs I would certainly vote for if I lived in the relevant constituency. But I think the coalition agreement showed that with our current electoral system, you have to put yourselves in a position where you control the agenda, which unfortunately the Lib Dems were not able to do. Whether this was a failure of negotiating strategy with the Tories or just a failure of PR to communicate their role to voters I am not sure. Labour are in a genuine position to challenge the government and I do not believe Jeremy is capable of taking advantage of this. I understand that Labour MPs are acting ruthlessly, but (with all due respect to the Lib Dems), Nick Clegg has shown that it is very easy for a party to be decimated by the electorate if they don't think they are relevant.

 

[Max]

I'll no longer be discussing the issue with you, time will be the judge. I'll end this inane back & forth with one last comment, I pity you.

That's fine. I have persistently given you the opportunity to explain your views using evidence, and you have repeatedly declined. I do hope you take comfort in your blind faith and political purity as you continue to thrash against reality in your tinfoil hat.

 

[Techno Natch]

That's fine. I have persistently given you the opportunity to explain your views using evidence, and you have repeatedly declined. I do hope you take comfort in your blind faith and political purity as you continue to thrash against reality in your tinfoil hat.

Who needs evidence you blairite!!!!!!!!!

 

[smat]

I'm so glad you asked.

Exhibit A: Opposition leaderdership ratings after 10 mths:
Foot - 32
Kinnock -7
Smith +1
Blair +29
Hague -16
IDS - 9
Howard -15
Cameron -1
Ed M -7
Corbyn -41

Exhibit B: His popularity AMONG LABOUR MEMBERS is now -3%

Exhibit C: 70% of Union members don't think he can win a general election.

I have always provided you evidence. You have always ignored it.

V v v interesting! Where did you get these?

 

[NorfolkWomble]

We know he won't win a general election, but no left leaning candidate will. I would rather JC than an empty suit.

Then what the hell is the point? You seem to be missing the point of having parties, of having MP's, of having a fucking Labour Party. The point of it all is that the party is able to form a government or at the very least, dictate policy. Labour under Corbyn are entirely UNABLE to do so.

This coup only came about because they recognised that he had a clear path to winning a general election. Stop forming opinion from headlines and look at the country and even the world as a whole. People are looking for new directions and the establishment is flailing, all over the world it's resulting in previous irrelevant parties or movements coming to the fore. Whether that be the right wing national front in France, Party for Freedom in Holland or the very exciting Five Star Movement in Italy, all are on the verge of achieving something historic, all are also anti-EU. Further afield the Liberal Party came from nowhere to win Canada, using basically all the policies Corbyn calls for. Then we have Trump, the ultimate protest vote. The establishment is toppling.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Keep it vaguely sensible please.

So I see the Labour ballot will end up in court after all because of a party donor submitting a case, believing that the rules prevent Corbyn standing after all. Presumably if it goes to court it just prolongs the whole farce.

 

[Aber gas]

Also,

https://twitter.com/gentlerpolitics

I don't blame Jeremy Corbyn for this, but it's a reality that his leadership has attracted a massive level of abuse and hatred to the party, not known since the 80s. Verbal abuse, threats of violence, death threats. John McDonnell has not been much better. It's disgusting, and has got to stop.

It's not a one way thing though is it max? I've had dogs abuse said to me in person and on Twitter etc....The climate is highly charged and aggressive but it's certainly not the case that Corbyn's support is bullying others with impunity. I was at an event with Paul Flynn recently and I saw both sides. Flynn being derided as " trot scum" by one side and " turncoat traitor" by the other. It's a mess but the constant demonising of all of Corbyns supporters isn't helping.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Then what the hell is the point? You seem to be missing the point of having parties, of having MP's, of having a fucking Labour Party. The point of it all is that the party is able to form a government or at the very least, dictate policy. Labour under Corbyn are entirely UNABLE to do so.

Of course you want to win and I think he can but it still pays to shift the Overton window left anyway. New Labour pushing the neoliberal line helped make it a consensus in the face of the facts. When in power they delivered the soft version and when out enabled the bad cop version from the Tories.
Look at Mays blue collar Tory bleating, she knows people are sick of the austerity lie and she wants to preempt a slightly more left challenge from Labour. So he's begun to win a bit already.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm so glad you asked.

Exhibit A: Opposition leaderdership ratings after 10 mths:
Foot - 32
Kinnock -7
Smith +1
Blair +29
Hague -16
IDS - 9
Howard -15
Cameron -1
Ed M -7
Corbyn -41

Exhibit B: His popularity AMONG LABOUR MEMBERS is now -3%

Exhibit C: 70% of Union members don't think he can win a general election.

I have always provided you evidence. You have always ignored it.

If this is indeed the case then why are the PLP so vehement that Corbyn shouldn't be on the ballot. If he is so unpopular in the party then winning an election with him on the ballot gives them a greater mandate.

 

[Abertawe]

Have you read up on what Thatcherism means yet? I'm still waiting to compare both myself and my lifestyle to this ideology you talked so expertly about.

Imagine a scouser who jacked the city in it's bad times. Now residing in Buckinghamshire and has no choice but to be a rat and commute because they can't afford to live closer to work. Imagine that same person not even being allowed to take their own bank card to work without permission. If you can imagine that old boy, you've got your definition.

Would be pretty grim that though. I'd imagine to compensate they'd have to find some bizarre solace in adhering to the rules in the vain hope it provides them with some sense of self-righteous moral superiority. Once they achieve that they can then set about deciding what to spend their only disposable £20 note on, what a life.

 

[Pagnell]

Imagine a scouser who jacked the city in it's bad times. Now residing in Buckinghamshire and has no choice but to be a rat and commute because they can't afford to live closer to work. Imagine that same person not even being allowed to take their own bank card to work without permission. If you can imagine that old boy, you've got your definition.

Would be pretty grim that though. I'd imagine to compensate they'd have to find some bizarre solace in adhering to the rules in the vain hope it provides them with some sense of self-righteous moral superiority. Once they achieve that they can then set about deciding what to spend their only disposable £20 note on, what a life.

Ah, we finally have it dragged out from you. See, it wasn't so difficult, was it?

Anyway, setting aside the fact you have defined a strange version of Thatcherite idealism in a sad and rather desperate attempt to throw insults at the nearest target to salve your wounded pride after what I assume was you being given a thorough kicking in recent days on the politics forums, it's good to finally have it clarified that you were confused and had someone else in mind.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Thatcherism is easy enough to define in her own words, no such thing as society and economics is the method, the.purpose is to change men's souls.
An attempt to dismantle all the normal social bonds of a historical community and to enclose what remains of the commons to be replaced by the bloodless logic of the market in the service of existing wealth and power.

 

[merseyboyred]

Abuse seems to have increased, it certainly is a problem from some on Corbyn's side. It's not just Corbyn supporters or from momentum though. Some of it is also reaching. Also, the characterisation of momentum being the only group trying to deselect unsympathetic candidates at local/national level in the background is definitely wrong.

 

[Kopper]

Then what the hell is the point? You seem to be missing the point of having parties, of having MP's, of having a fucking Labour Party. The point of it all is that the party is able to form a government or at the very least, dictate policy. Labour under Corbyn are entirely UNABLE to do so.

With all due respect, it's you who's missing the point. Most people in this country are on some form of benefit. Corbyn is promising to give them a sympathetic ear and more money. Yet those people on benefits would rather vote for the Tories and UKIP. That tells you they're happy with what they're receiving and perceive the country's problems to be down to immigration.
Labour can't move into this arena as it's widely viewed as having caused the problem.

No Labour leader can win the next general election, but the leader can frame the discussion and energize the core support.
For me Corbyn does both.

It's not about winning if you can't win.

 

[Max]

V v v interesting! Where did you get these?

Exhibit A: I found this out from Professor of Political Science at Manchester Uni - the data is Ipsos Mori, I believe: https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/753189403653267456

Exhibit B: Ipsos Mori, page 16: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pm-july-2016-tables.pdf

Exhibit C: YouGov polling. Outlined here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yougov-poll-reveals-majority-union-8400837

Also another interesting Ipsos Mori thing today, showing Corbyn spectacular lack of appeal, even among people that don't vote Tory at the moment: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/753568257374904320

It's not a one way thing though is it max? I've had dogs abuse said to me in person and on Twitter etc....The climate is highly charged and aggressive but it's certainly not the case that Corbyn's support is bullying others with impunity. I was at an event with Paul Flynn recently and I saw both sides. Flynn being derided as " trot scum" by one side and " turncoat traitor" by the other. It's a mess but the constant demonising of all of Corbyns supporters isn't helping.

It absolutely is not one-sided, but I've just seen a lot of pro-Corbyn supporters online engaging in it. I am going to my CLP AGM on Tuesday which I think will be very charged on both sides. I don't mean to demonise all Corbyn supporters, and I think everyone should acknowledge it's a big problem coming from all sides.

If this is indeed the case then why are the PLP so vehement that Corbyn shouldn't be on the ballot. If he is so unpopular in the party then winning an election with him on the ballot gives them a greater mandate.

He's still got a lot of fans in the party. The data now appears to show it's going to be a close leadership election.

I think the PLP believe - and I think this is reasonable - that the leader SHOULD be able to command support of 50 MPs. It's going to be finely balanced - Corbyn very may well win, but I think the party would probably split if that happened, and so the risks are huge.

 

[Alty]

As I think I posted here waaaay back, I looked at the four runners and riders in the Labour leadership election last year and thought it was three candidates who were too right-wing and a bit phoney, and one who was at least genuine, albeit too left-wing and with some odd foreign policy ideas. But, the membership had had their say and Corbyn was the man.

Corbyn has made mistakes, just as any leader does. But the PLP really has acted disgracefully. We probably are in a situation now where Corbyn is completely unelectable because his authority has been undermined and if he does make it to 2020 he'll be limping into a General Election campaign with no momentum (no pun intended). If the Blairite wing of the party hadn't continually voiced their fears about Corbyn being unelectable and had instead got behind him and given his team space to develop their (genuinely quite interesting, from what I've seen) economic ideas, I think Labour under Corbyn might have had a chance in 2020.

Obviously our big political parties contain a wide range of people (Philip Davies to Ken Clarke in the Tories, Jeremy Corbyn to Simon Danczuk in Labour) so I'm going to simplify a bit here, but I think Labour actually has three main factions now.

1. Working class, patriotic voters. Primarily found in Northern England or Wales. Believe in tax and spend, investment in public services, but also want to see tough sentences for criminals and immigration kept under control. Blue Labour, I guess you could say.

2. Blairites. Predominantly metropolitan. Very socially liberal, but accepting of centre-right economics. They do see a role for the state, but are very relaxed about private companies playing a role in the provision of public services.

3. Socialist internationalists. Extremely left-wing, no borders immigration policy, believe criminality is largely or entirely caused by state failure to assist the vulnerable.

All this is complicated somewhat by the identity issues associated with ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc etc. But if we had a multi-party system you could actually see Labour splitting into 3 quite easily.

Fuck knows what happens now. If Corbyn wins the leadership election (which seems likely), a split is inevitable, you'd have thought. It's really very difficult for me to work out where UKIP and the Lib Dems fit into all this, but the one thing that does look likely is a stonking Tory majority at the next election (assuming Brexit isn't a disaster, which I don't think it will be under May).