The Labour Thread

[TheArtfulDodger]

The real heart of Labour was torn out with Blair.

Don't get me wrong, Blair's government did some good things but since Blair Labour have become basically a party saying 'we're slightly less cruel than the Tories'. They've conceded the centre ground to neo-Liberal economics and actively allowed its advancement to the point of economic collapse. Labour is a wide church but when people like Corbyn, and even Miliband are derided as loony lefties then it shows how far to the right we have gone. I accept there has to be a practicality to politics, focusing on winning the votes is of the most importance but Labour lost sight of what they are, a party which genuinely believes in advancing the cause of the working-class, now the definitions change but most the country remain at the mercy of the markets and global capital. We need the dreamers, and the drive to create a better world, not a 'slightly less shit world' but a different, changed world where the values the Labour party have always stood for are shared by the majority and we see a genuinely fair, equal society. Labour has changed this country radically for the better, 'New Labour' took on that mantle and gave up on it.

 

[Kopper]

The real heart of Labour was torn out with Blair.

Don't get me wrong, Blair's government did some good things but since Blair Labour have become basically a party saying 'we're slightly less cruel than the Tories'. They've conceded the centre ground to neo-Liberal economics and actively allowed its advancement to the point of economic collapse. Labour is a wide church but when people like Corbyn, and even Miliband are derided as loony lefties then it shows how far to the right we have gone. I accept there has to be a practicality to politics, focusing on winning the votes is of the most importance but Labour lost sight of what they are, a party which genuinely believes in advancing the cause of the working-class, now the definitions change but most the country remain at the mercy of the markets and global capital. We need the dreamers, and the drive to create a better world, not a 'slightly less shit world' but a different, changed world where the values the Labour party have always stood for are shared by the majority and we see a genuinely fair, equal society. Labour has changed this country radically for the better, 'New Labour' took on that mantle and gave up on it.

We lost our heavy industries decades ago. Labour identified and spoke for those workers. In this service economy of ours there are no labour intensive jobs that require political representation. The Labour Party is irrelevant.
I say that as a life long Labour supporter.
New Labour wasn't "less cruel than the Tories". They were a damn sight better. The difference between night and day.
I dislike this revisionism of New Labour as being Tories in sheep's clothing. Almost none of New Labours initiatives would've been adopted by a Conservative government. Least of all their spending and investment in the people of this country.

Ideologically the green party is where I hope Labour end up. Labour has to be a part of something bigger than itself or a defined group of people.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

The nature of the work may change but the relationship between worker-employer power-capital has stayed exactly the same. In fact you could argue are people in more of a vulnerable position now, jobs are so transient and weak that real Labour is needed more than ever. Of course New Labour did some good things, but it's undeniable that Blair embraced Thatcherist economics, he did nothing to challenge that consensus which led us to the brink of financial oblivion. Labour betrayed it's own principles and that's why it's in this position today, the party is full of those with more in common with Conservatives than real Labour.

 

[Kopper]

TAD, jobs are scarce and poorly paid. But this is due to globalisation and the ability of employers to find cheap labour.
Are you suggesting the government use protectionist measures to ensure workers are paid more?
How long could the government afford to do this?
This exact same scenario brought down the Callaghan government and led to 18 years of Conservatism.

How soon they forget.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

You have to remember that putting up the minimum wage too much can result in the following, especially in the retail sector:
- Labour hours cut (zero hour contracts) or job losses in order to keep the wage bill under control.
- Poor customer service due longer queues, as a result of cuts to hours/jobs.
- Prices rise in order to meet the increased wage bill. However can't raise prices too much or you will lose revenue, so the first option applies.
- Small business who are already down to minimum manning forced to close down.
- Costs go up as suppliers pass on their Labour costs, resulting again in price rises.

I know what I am talking about in this area, as I used to get a sales per man hour figure to work to when doing staff Rota's. When the minimum wage increased, available hours reduced and prices increased.

Eventually you end up with less jobs, people working less hours, but those still working having to work a lot harder for little gain.
People pay more for products and services, which eventually nullifies the wage increase or in some cases, end up worse off than they started with.

If you want to get out of that trap and force companies to pay more wages, then you have to cut co-operation tax and business rates as an incentive and hope to make up the short fall through increased income tax revenues. Also currency value and inflation also come into it.

The above is why the minimum wage is put up in stages by small amounts in order to reduce the impact that it has

 

[.V.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36760387

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36760387

Raising prices to increase turnover in order to fund a higher wage bill, as I put in one of my points

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/benjiw/status/754410308727341058

 

[.V.]

And this too.

https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/754392773332262912

 

[Max]

Thanks .V.

I'm sure various people will tell me I'm secretly a Tory.

Various people will insist this is what I want.

It isn't. It's reality. Jeremy Corbyn is not taken seriously by the electorate. Leaders of the opposition are not the same as prime ministers. They do not get the opportunity to persuade people back to their side. People's minds are made up.

He has to go. It is the single most important thing in ensuring there is a left-wing British electable alternative to the Conservative Party. Staying at this point would be monumentally selfish and stupid.

 

[.V.]

I would love voters to take to Corbyn and for him to have fantastic polling figures, but the reality is not that.

At the end of the day Labour can't do anything unless they win elections, and they can't do that when they're to the right of the electorate, especially in England.

 

[Kopper]

Thanks .V.

I'm sure various people will tell me I'm secretly a Tory.

Various people will insist this is what I want.

It isn't. It's reality. Jeremy Corbyn is not taken seriously by the electorate. Leaders of the opposition are not the same as prime ministers. They do not get the opportunity to persuade people back to their side. People's minds are made up.

He has to go. It is the single most important thing in ensuring there is a left-wing British electable alternative to the Conservative Party. Staying at this point would be monumentally selfish and stupid.

Which Labour candidate would win Labour the next election? What policies does Labour need to change in order to attract voters?

 

[Max]

Which Labour candidate would win Labour the next election? What policies does Labour need to change in order to attract voters?

At the moment I am not sure who is the best candidate. I don't think it's either Angela Eagle or Owen Smith, but I do think they're both a better bet than Corbyn. The current arguments have falsely made it look like everyone in Labour is either a follower of Corbyn or on the right of the party, and that is not true. I could forsee circumstances in which a lot of people could do well as leader. The main thing is about competence, clearly articulating your policies and views, being able to lead the PLP, doing things like responding to the new PM and Cabinet, and running a tight ship with clear, repetitive messages. None of this can currently be said for JC. If you want some names, the future of the party could be well represented by someone like Stella Creasy, Heidi Alexander, Tom Watson, Dan Jarvis, Rushanara Ali, Keir Starmer, Sadiq Khan etc.

Labour needs to sound like a viable alternative to the Conservative Party. A lot of Jeremy's actual policies could be very popular, but people don't know what they are, because he is on a quest to prove that being popular or communicating through the mainstream media is some sort of unnecessary affectation.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yes, the question of competence is interesting as it's a quality which the PLP has resolutely failed to demonstrate it is capable of over the course of the past nine months. I'm not ordinarily a Labour voter but would consider voting for the party under a Corbyn leadership (can't definitively say I would as it's probably not the most pragmatic course of action in my part of the world). I'm afraid I've already decided that there's no prospect of me voting for them under a successor. Whilst I'm beginning to think replacing Corbyn with a soft left alternative might be the least destructive thing for the party, I feel completely alienated and really rather disgusted by the party's behaviour to the extent that there's very little they could do to persuade me that they are a party fit for office. God knows how some Labour loyalists (who the PLP have treated with complete contempt throughout this fiasco) must feel.

 

[silkyman]

I would love voters to take to Corbyn and for him to have fantastic polling figures, but the reality is not that.

At the end of the day Labour can't do anything unless they win elections, and they can't do that when they're to the right of the electorate, especially in England.

One of the main reasons Corbyn hasn't won over much of the floating electorate is because the media have been painting him as some sort of second coming of Stalin with a dash of Hitler. If he survives this campaign, then what he really needs is someone like Malcolm Tucker in his corner.

I also think he needs to rally against Brexit. Fight with the angle that the people were utterly lied to by the Tory boys who were campaigning for it. If they are so willing and able to spout utter bullshit over something as vital to the nation as the EU referendum then how many lies will they be trotting out for a mere general election?

 

[smat]

This, from Richard Murphy, architect of Corbynomics, has hastened my loss of faith in Corbs. Particularly:

Third, I had the opportunity to see what was happening inside the PLP. The leadership wasn’t confusing as much as just silent. There was no policy direction, no messaging, no direction, no co-ordination, no nothing. Shadow ministers appeared to have been left with no direction as to what to do. It was shambolic. The leadership usually couldn’t even get a press release out on time to meet print media deadlines and then complained they got no coverage.

Fourth, and critically, there was no vision. A team of economic advisers were set up, but never properly consulted, let alone listened to. Three enquiries, into the Treasury, Bank of England and HM Revenue & Customs were established and given far too long to report: none has as yet. I gather the tax report is in draft: I have not seen it. Whether it will be presented is anyone’s guess. The Bank of England study has collapsed with the departure of Danny Blanchflower. Of the Treasury report I haven’t a clue. The point is though that for coming on for a year now policy has been on hold for these reports and the world has moved on. That’s just not competent.

 

[SUTSS]

One of the main reasons Corbyn hasn't won over much of the floating electorate is because the media have been painting him as some sort of second coming of Stalin with a dash of Hitler. If he survives this campaign, then what he really needs is someone like Malcolm Tucker in his corner.

I also think he needs to rally against Brexit. Fight with the angle that the people were utterly lied to by the Tory boys who were campaigning for it. If they are so willing and able to spout utter bullshit over something as vital to the nation as the EU referendum then how many lies will they be trotting out for a mere general election?

I just don't buy the idea that the reason why Corbyn doesn't win over voters is because the press aren't being very nice to him. And as you hint at with the Tucker comment is that Corbyn is awful with the press with unnecessary gaffs and not cleaning up when someone else makes one. Take Ken's Hitler comments for example, someone needed to be on him straight away and shutting down any interview he was going to appear on but instead he was able to go on for hours.

 

[Kopper]

At the moment I am not sure who is the best candidate. I don't think it's either Angela Eagle or Owen Smith, but I do think they're both a better bet than Corbyn. The current arguments have falsely made it look like everyone in Labour is either a follower of Corbyn or on the right of the party, and that is not true. I could forsee circumstances in which a lot of people could do well as leader. The main thing is about competence, clearly articulating your policies and views, being able to lead the PLP, doing things like responding to the new PM and Cabinet, and running a tight ship with clear, repetitive messages. None of this can currently be said for JC. If you want some names, the future of the party could be well represented by someone like Stella Creasy, Heidi Alexander, Tom Watson, Dan Jarvis, Rushanara Ali, Keir Starmer, Sadiq Khan etc.

Labour needs to sound like a viable alternative to the Conservative Party. A lot of Jeremy's actual policies could be very popular, but people don't know what they are, because he is on a quest to prove that being popular or communicating through the mainstream media is some sort of unnecessary affectation.

Stella Creasy comes across as disingenuous. Sadiq Khan wouldn't have the same appeal nationally as he does in London.
Labour would have to position itself, politically, where the Conservatives are right now in order to win over the electorate. But why would they vote for Labour when they could have the Conservatives?

Think of it this way. Why do you want Labour in power?
The NHS needs more funding and we the people are unwilling to pay the true cost of funding it.
We also need to cut welfare spending and raise the retirement age to keep the pension system from going bust.
Labour has no real policies to address these issues. Just promises to invest more.

They say the older you get the more conservative you become. In that regard my conservatism is best define by the phrase: social responsibility.
I see Labour as being socially irresponsible. Constantly running after the boy who cries wolf. While the Conservatives are willing to leave him to his fate.

 

[Gashead]

But why would they vote for Labour when they could have the Conservatives?

Think of it this way. Why do you want Labour in power?
The NHS needs more funding and we the people are unwilling to pay the true cost of funding it.
We also need to cut welfare spending and raise the retirement age to keep the pension system from going bust.
Labour has no real policies to address these issues. Just promises to invest more.

They say the older you get the more conservative you become. In that regard my conservatism is best define by the phrase: social responsibility.
I see Labour as being socially irresponsible. Constantly running after the boy who cries wolf. While the Conservatives are willing to leave him to his fate.

This is where electability versus protest comes into it. Some are willing to put forward a realistic Labour govt. whilst others are not.

Smith for example wants to lower welfare spending, he's said as much. In an ideal world there would be very low welfare spending. But, does that mean we should cut off people who need it immediately, without helping them to relieve themselves of the need for welfare? That would be fairly socially irresponsible.

Often with these things I find there are cries of 'social responsibility!!' when it comes to cutting welfare and spending on certain things (but not others...), yet taxation is funnily enough a subject which gets avoided a lot. Or is that not an element of social responsibility too? 'But that effects me, not others!!'

I can try and convince people who are open to discussion that there are alternative ways of implementing fiscal policy in order to both balance the books and try and create a more equal society. By your last paragraph, I'm sort of inclined to believe you're past the point of convincing and that it would be a waste of time. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Max]

Yes, the question of competence is interesting as it's a quality which the PLP has resolutely failed to demonstrate it is capable of over the course of the past nine months. I'm not ordinarily a Labour voter but would consider voting for the party under a Corbyn leadership (can't definitively say I would as it's probably not the most pragmatic course of action in my part of the world). I'm afraid I've already decided that there's no prospect of me voting for them under a successor. Whilst I'm beginning to think replacing Corbyn with a soft left alternative might be the least destructive thing for the party, I feel completely alienated and really rather disgusted by the party's behaviour to the extent that there's very little they could do to persuade me that they are a party fit for office. God knows how some Labour loyalists (who the PLP have treated with complete contempt throughout this fiasco) must feel.

Jeremy Corbyn has not been called on his incompetence that much, because the PLP have actually been quite restrained. Smat's link is a good example though, and here is something else that's hard to justify from JC:

https://www.facebook.com/thangam.debbonaire/posts/10157204442320083

Many of his supporters will say all of this is distortion and smear, but it's up to Corbyn to lead the party, and he's not even attempted this in many respects. With the latest info showing that Theresa May outperforms Corbyn among LABOUR voters, it really is necessary to get change in the leadership. I do understand why you're annoyed with the PLP, but the big picture is that non-Labour voters who are sympathetic towards Corbyn (like your good self) are dwarfed in number by others that need to be won back to Labour. Corbyn is a net vote-loser.

One of the main reasons Corbyn hasn't won over much of the floating electorate is because the media have been painting him as some sort of second coming of Stalin with a dash of Hitler. If he survives this campaign, then what he really needs is someone like Malcolm Tucker in his corner.

I also think he needs to rally against Brexit. Fight with the angle that the people were utterly lied to by the Tory boys who were campaigning for it. If they are so willing and able to spout utter bullshit over something as vital to the nation as the EU referendum then how many lies will they be trotting out for a mere general election?

He's had some unfavourable coverage, but a lot of the time he's actively run away from journalists, declined the opportunity to go on the TV. Also, it is up to him to get himself a Malcolm Tucker. People shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

Stella Creasy comes across as disingenuous. Sadiq Khan wouldn't have the same appeal nationally as he does in London.
Labour would have to position itself, politically, where the Conservatives are right now in order to win over the electorate. But why would they vote for Labour when they could have the Conservatives?

Think of it this way. Why do you want Labour in power?
The NHS needs more funding and we the people are unwilling to pay the true cost of funding it.
We also need to cut welfare spending and raise the retirement age to keep the pension system from going bust.
Labour has no real policies to address these issues. Just promises to invest more.

They say the older you get the more conservative you become. In that regard my conservatism is best define by the phrase: social responsibility.
I see Labour as being socially irresponsible. Constantly running after the boy who cries wolf. While the Conservatives are willing to leave him to his fate.

I am just putting forward some potential people who I think could be leaders in the future. I am not going to try and convince you of the merits of all of them.

Theresa May, in the last speech I saw, was proposing putting ordinary workers in the board room, publicising the disparity between low and high paid workers at big companies, and making votes on bonuses binding rather than just advisory. As was pointed out by many people, this is almost exactly what Ed Miliband used to talk about. The Conservatives are now trying to take over the centre-left as well as the centre-right, and it will work if Jeremy Corbyn continues to take the party in a place where people don't know what its position is and don't articulate a message on matters of national importance.

The issue is not that Labour are the same as the Conservatives. It is that there is not someone viable that is expressing the clear differences that there could be between the two.

 

[Max]

As an addendum, I have also just read this. At time of writing, so far as I know, Jeremy has not issued any kind of response:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-corbyn-continually-undermined-me-job-i-loved

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Well, I see the relentless attacks of the entitled traitors are getting through:

Tomorrow's Times, I'm told. It's almost as if no-one trusts the word of a shower of naked careerists.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Jeremy Corbyn has not been called on his incompetence that much, because the PLP have actually been quite restrained. Smat's link is a good example though, and here is something else that's hard to justify from JC:

https://www.facebook.com/thangam.debbonaire/posts/10157204442320083

Many of his supporters will say all of this is distortion and smear, but it's up to Corbyn to lead the party, and he's not even attempted this in many respects. With the latest info showing that Theresa May outperforms Corbyn among LABOUR voters, it really is necessary to get change in the leadership. I do understand why you're annoyed with the PLP, but the big picture is that non-Labour voters who are sympathetic towards Corbyn (like your good self) are dwarfed in number by others that need to be won back to Labour. Corbyn is a net vote-loser.

I can't agree with this at all I'm afraid. In fact, the suggestion that the PLP has been quite restrained seems absolutely preposterous to me. There were MPs baying for his blood and briefing against him from the moment he became leader. Ian Austin, in quite disgraceful fashion, heckled Corbyn, telling him to "sit down and shut up" during his Iraq war speech. Jess Phillips was looking to "knife him in the front". Lots of MPs seem very keen to line up to tell us how awful he is (which would be more credible had they not already given us the distinct impression that they didn't welcome him in the first instance). If we're going to spend time linking to articles from those hostile to Corbyn we might as well give his allies the time of day. So here's a piece by Diane Abbot.

MP after MP got up to attack Jeremy Corbyn in the most contemptuous terms possible, pausing only to text their abuse to journalists waiting outside. A non-Corbynista MP told me afterwards that he had never seen anything so horrible and he had felt himself reduced to tears. Nobody talked about Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. There was only one intention: to break him as a man.

So how do we interpret all of this? This is the problem I have - there is so much claim and counter-claim, the atmosphere is so febrile that I simply don't know what to believe anymore. It seems self-evident to me that there's a lot of distortion and manipulation on the anti-Corbyn side and yet he does not once appear to have risen to it, to have attempted to smear his opponents in the same way that they have attempted to rubbish him. You can read Thangam Debbonaire's post as evidence of gross incompetence or you can view it as an unfortunate mix-up (remember that time Blair accidentally "sacked" Angela Eagle?); I think it largely depends on your preconceived ideas about Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.

It doesn't surprise me that he might not be palatable to the wider electorate (he's not well liked within his party so how can he be?) but I wonder whether Labour may like to consider a couple of points. Firstly, they need to regain trust amongst the electorate. I don't think a hilariously botched coup attempt and outright hostility towards your leader make a party appear fit for purpose. It's also probably best not to alienate some of your members by retrospectively changing party rules, resulting in their disenfranchisement. Aside from the viciousness of some of the attacks the other thing that's most struck me about Labour is the paucity of ideas. Corbyn's not working? Ok, so what? I'm yet to see someone sketch out a more compelling vision for the party or anything to suggest there's anything like a more "competent" or "electable" leader waiting in the wings. Labour's problems don't start and end with Corbyn. The party has fundamental problems that go far beyond the leader. Fail to acknowledge this and they'll spend yet more time in the political wilderness.

 

[Kopper]

This is where electability versus protest comes into it. Some are willing to put forward a realistic Labour govt. whilst others are not.

Smith for example wants to lower welfare spending, he's said as much. In an ideal world there would be very low welfare spending. But, does that mean we should cut off people who need it immediately, without helping them to relieve themselves of the need for welfare? That would be fairly socially irresponsible.

Often with these things I find there are cries of 'social responsibility!!' when it comes to cutting welfare and spending on certain things (but not others...), yet taxation is funnily enough a subject which gets avoided a lot. Or is that not an element of social responsibility too? 'But that effects me, not others!!'

I can try and convince people who are open to discussion that there are alternative ways of implementing fiscal policy in order to both balance the books and try and create a more equal society. By your last paragraph, I'm sort of inclined to believe you're past the point of convincing and that it would be a waste of time. Maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with your point on the hypocrisy of those who don't want higher taxation (as it effects them), but want welfare cuts (as it doesn't). It reminds me of the pensioners who vote Conservative or UKIP en masse.
Who want cuts to welfare to toughen up the feckless youth, to the harsher realities of life.
But winter fuel payments, the retirement age or pensions shouldn't be touched in their view.
The Conservatives won't upset the apple cart as this demographic elected them to power. Labour won't because they're deemed vulnerable. Thus the elderly escape the consequences of their actions.
My understanding of social responsibility, means they wouldn't.

It occurred to me while reading your post, you see helping people as a theoretical exercise. You assume because someone intimates they need welfare, they automatically do.
There's no room for doubt.
Your debating strategy is simply to race to the moral high ground and claim victory.
I can tell, you've never been the good samaritan. Your money isn't on the line to help these (so called) vulnerable people. Deep down you know it's a mug's game. Hence the requirement of the government to play chief mug.
If you had the moral conviction to practice what you preach, you would've become disillusioned a long time ago. You would've realised everyone who asked for a hand out, didn't necessarily need one, but wanted one all the same. Their lack of appreciation would hurt, but the futility of your endeavours would become apparent when your generousity wasn't used as intended and ultimately, didn't improve their lot.

I have an open mind and would like to debate policy. But from the standpoint, both major parties have talked about welfare spending cuts. Brexit will mean further cuts.
If you aren't open to cuts how can you claim to have an open mind?

 

[Kopper]

Jeremy Corbyn has not been called on his incompetence that much, because the PLP have actually been quite restrained. Smat's link is a good example though, and here is something else that's hard to justify from JC:

https://www.facebook.com/thangam.debbonaire/posts/10157204442320083

Many of his supporters will say all of this is distortion and smear, but it's up to Corbyn to lead the party, and he's not even attempted this in many respects. With the latest info showing that Theresa May outperforms Corbyn among LABOUR voters, it really is necessary to get change in the leadership. I do understand why you're annoyed with the PLP, but the big picture is that non-Labour voters who are sympathetic towards Corbyn (like your good self) are dwarfed in number by others that need to be won back to Labour. Corbyn is a net vote-loser.

He's had some unfavourable coverage, but a lot of the time he's actively run away from journalists, declined the opportunity to go on the TV. Also, it is up to him to get himself a Malcolm Tucker. People shouldn't need to make excuses for him.


I am just putting forward some potential people who I think could be leaders in the future. I am not going to try and convince you of the merits of all of them.

Theresa May, in the last speech I saw, was proposing putting ordinary workers in the board room, publicising the disparity between low and high paid workers at big companies, and making votes on bonuses binding rather than just advisory. As was pointed out by many people, this is almost exactly what Ed Miliband used to talk about. The Conservatives are now trying to take over the centre-left as well as the centre-right, and it will work if Jeremy Corbyn continues to take the party in a place where people don't know what its position is and don't articulate a message on matters of national importance.

The issue is not that Labour are the same as the Conservatives. It is that there is not someone viable that is expressing the clear differences that there could be between the two.

Theresa May's speech is hogwash. Cameron said similar when he became Prime Minister and of course he lifted it from Tony Blair.
Theresa May is covering her bases with that speech. A smart LEFT jab followed by a good RIGHT hook!

If you put forward a list of future labour leaders with the intention of succeeding Corbyn and winning a general election. Surely they should have the capacity to win an election. Uniting the PLP shouldn't be the order of the day.

 

[Max]

I can't agree with this at all I'm afraid. In fact, the suggestion that the PLP has been quite restrained seems absolutely preposterous to me. There were MPs baying for his blood and briefing against him from the moment he became leader. Ian Austin, in quite disgraceful fashion, heckled Corbyn, telling him to "sit down and shut up" during his Iraq war speech. Jess Phillips was looking to "knife him in the front". Lots of MPs seem very keen to line up to tell us how awful he is (which would be more credible had they not already given us the distinct impression that they didn't welcome him in the first instance). If we're going to spend time linking to articles from those hostile to Corbyn we might as well give his allies the time of day. So here's a piece by Diane Abbot.

So how do we interpret all of this? This is the problem I have - there is so much claim and counter-claim, the atmosphere is so febrile that I simply don't know what to believe anymore. It seems self-evident to me that there's a lot of distortion and manipulation on the anti-Corbyn side and yet he does not once appear to have risen to it, to have attempted to smear his opponents in the same way that they have attempted to rubbish him. You can read Thangam Debbonaire's post as evidence of gross incompetence or you can view it as an unfortunate mix-up (remember that time Blair accidentally "sacked" Angela Eagle?); I think it largely depends on your preconceived ideas about Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.

It doesn't surprise me that he might not be palatable to the wider electorate (he's not well liked within his party so how can he be?) but I wonder whether Labour may like to consider a couple of points. Firstly, they need to regain trust amongst the electorate. I don't think a hilariously botched coup attempt and outright hostility towards your leader make a party appear fit for purpose. It's also probably best not to alienate some of your members by retrospectively changing party rules, resulting in their disenfranchisement. Aside from the viciousness of some of the attacks the other thing that's most struck me about Labour is the paucity of ideas. Corbyn's not working? Ok, so what? I'm yet to see someone sketch out a more compelling vision for the party or anything to suggest there's anything like a more "competent" or "electable" leader waiting in the wings. Labour's problems don't start and end with Corbyn. The party has fundamental problems that go far beyond the leader. Fail to acknowledge this and they'll spend yet more time in the political wilderness.

There's no point in treating the PLP as one mass of people, as I think views certainly have varied a lot during JC's leadership. The near-unanimous opposition to him is relatively recent. A vocal minority were against him from the very start. What I'm saying is that a lot of people have tried to work with him, and have found it unworkable. The two pieces I cited are just two examples of Shadow Cabinet ministers outlining their specific issues of him not being able to lead the party.

Quite frankly, I don't take Diane particularly seriously. She has shown herself utterly divorced from reality in her recent media appearances. Nobody is trying to 'break him as a man'. People are asking him to resign, for the good of the party and in the long term the country. I don't know what constitutes 'the most contemptuous possible terms'. She doesn't quote any names, phrases or speeches.

This is all a matter of perspective and interpretation, yes. From my perspective, I have seen a lot of inaccurate criticisms being thrown at many of Corbyn's opponents. But to be honest, all of this will always come back to the same, fundamental point. The PLP don't think he can win a general election, and frankly he doesn't seem very interested in winning a general election. On these grounds, he's not fit to be the leader, and they wouldn't be doing their jobs to sit there and blindly support him.

Theresa May's speech is hogwash. Cameron said similar when he became Prime Minister and of course he lifted it from Tony Blair.
Theresa May is covering her bases with that speech. A smart LEFT jab followed by a good RIGHT hook!

If you put forward a list of future labour leaders with the intention of succeeding Corbyn and winning a general election. Surely they should have the capacity to win an election. Uniting the PLP shouldn't be the order of the day.

I wasn't saying she was being honest. I wasn't saying it wasn't hogwash. But it's the message she's sending out, that nobody is countering.

Jeremy Corbyn can neither win a general election, nor unite the PLP, so it is sensible to look at someone who can at least get one of these things right ...

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Well, Owen Smith is the only man in contention. Can he do either of those things? I'd doubt whether he could do the former. Does he stand a better chance of doing the latter? Yup, but he'll almost certainly alienate a lot of enthusiastic party members in the process. Does the party emerge in much better shape? I remain unconvinced.

 

[Pliny Harris]

When they said "Anyone But Corbyn" they really meant it, didn't they? May as well put an expired Frube up for the leadership election.

I get the feeling the PLP have only mustered two unknowns for the election because most of them know it's curtains for their career if they (most likely) fail to get in. The Tristrams and Hilarys don't want to take that risk when they're dining Lib Dems and One Nation Tories over the autumn and winter.

Confidence from his constituency? Corbyn wins.
Confidence from CLPs nationwide? Corbyn wins.
Most cogent vision for the country? Corbyn wins.
Recognisability within the party? Corbyn wins.
Discernible from other parties? Corbyn wins.
Vision post-Brexit? Corbyn wins.
Consistent policy? Corbyn wins.
UK-wide polling? Corbyn wins.
Labour values? Corbyn wins.
Sincerity? Corbyn wins.

PLP support? Smith wins.

All proven elements. Smith might put together a policy quicker and actually meet media deadlines but it's anyone's guess. Those are the proven, "safety" elements rated so much by those eager to say that Blair won three elections. Far from ideal at present even if the PLP had shown the vaguest solidarity over the past year, but for anyone who has a desire to live in a UK where there's enough for everybody and the vulnerable aren't punished for the sake of political expediency, it's easily the best we've got (south of the border???!!!).

 

[.V.]

Do we know what Corbyn stands for in terms of policy?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...bout-economy-corbyn-s-economic-advisory-board

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/755750259263938561

10 point lead for the Tories. A May bump, possibly, but don't recall a Corbyn bump last September.