The Labour Thread

[Abertawe]

My argument has always been pretty clear, that Jeremy Corbyn is a bad leader of Labour. It has been my experience that whenever I put things to you, all I get is strawman arguments and whataboutery. It wouldn't be terrible if you actually put forward some ideas, rather than blind support of Jeremy.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/sunday-mirror-independent-political-poll-august-2016/

New polling, out today, in which among Labour members, Jeremy enjoys a lead of 5% over Owen Smith. Hardly the monumental dominance you claim for Jeremy. Smith wins with the public by 14%, with only 23% of people thinking Jeremy makes the best leader of the party.

Why are you so certain I'm insincere? Why do you think you're the best judge of other people's motives? It is phenomenally arrogant to adopt the position that anyone who disagrees with you must really be brainwashed, because you're essentially saying yours is the only interpretation of the situation. It makes you no better than a conspiracy theorist.

I've been really clear about what I actually think on many occasions. I've defined myself with ideas and policies. You've just continually repeated slogans. The winning alternative is to lead the party credibly. To command the support of colleagues. To talk about issues the public are interested in. The party has to be credible with the public as well as the members. Having rallies for the leader's supporters get us nowhere. Jeremy has been unwilling to aggressively attack the government, and it is making the party irrelevant.

As you noted before, I don't think any Labour leader is likely to win in 2020, but under Jeremy I think it's totally impossible. And worse still, his approach has taken the party backwards and will continue to do so. The Sturgeon's dad council seat was a nice result, but we're talking about a council by-election in which 2,500 or so people vote. Compare it to the national picture in Scotland, which is dire.

Bored of saying this, but apparently you're not bored of hearing it: you don't get to define Labour for everyone else.

Please explain how the following policies suggested by Owen Smith are 'neoliberal' and against the ethos of the Labour party: abolishing zero hours contracts, ending the public sector pay freeze, improving the minimum wage, re-establishing the 50p tax rate, and additionally raising taxes on high earners beyond that. How does any of this ensure, as you put it, the 1% get richer? You don't understand what you are arguing against. You just make up your opposition's point of view and argue against that instead.

I can't speak for your beliefs about policies and ideas (you don't really put anything concrete forward, just vague sloganising about neoliberalism and Blairism), but the long-term future of the Labour party that actually wins general elections is not a Labour Party that thinks all of its own MPs are fascists and scum. If you want to get rid of all the elected representatives, perhaps consider that you're engaged in the takeover of a party? Why not enjoy the unity of people that share your ideas? http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/partydoc/What_We_Stand_For

Jeremy wouldn't have to compromise on any of his principles if he led the Socialist Party. If he's genuinely electable and the public are gonna love him, then this will pose no problem. If he doesn't really want to win a general election anyway, then this also suits him/you down to the ground.

Your boulded text is rather uncouth. I believe I have a greater understanding as to the perils of neoliberalism being allowed to run amok and it's societal detriment than you do given our respective leanings. Me saying that does not constitute myself striking a line through neoliberalism ad finitum, just thought I'd clear that up as you do tend to take what I say and apply the most extreme logic to it sometimes. Capitalism has it's uses. It should never override the needs & rights of the people which it has been allowed to do in beastly fashion.

Onto Owen Smith and the policies he's put forward I treat everything he says with a pinch of salt. When he's the man of the body that went to court, lost, won an appeal (where a certain judge has history with Blair & Labours right) to stop it's membership from voting in the leadership election it doesn't fuse trust. It's pretty transparent he's playing the political game although I don't feel he's playing it particularly well. He's obviously acknowledged the membership is with Corbyn and as such has agreed with him on everything bar trident essentially. The problem is that tactic is only going to work if you can discredit Corbyn's ability to lead the party, which is flawed because if that was going to work he'd already be gone. If so many MP's can resign and the membership remains steadfast behind Corbyn it should tell you that a few lines about ineffective leadership during a hustings isn't going to work. He's conceded the moral ground on policy whereas he should have challenged Corbyn on policy and presented the 'centre' argument and persuaded that's the real alternative. Alienating at least 52% of the electorate with his want for a 2nd referendum is absurd too. Not withstanding if he thinks that will work to convince Labour voters then he's contradicting his rhetoric about Corbyn not appealing to Labour voters during the referendum. The most alarming part of this campaign so far though was his exact words that he'd bring ISIS to the discussion table, if there was ever anything to prove he's out of his depth that was it. To spin a phrase you don't negotiate with followers of a death cult. His backers must've had their heads in their hands the moment he came out with that.

So to sum it up, I don't really care what Smith does or doesn't say. I don't trust him nor the body he represents and I'd speculate I'm far from alone in that view. I think the argument for allowing this new movement at having a go is pretty easy to decipher. It is a fact Labour's vote has reduced in every general election since 97 up until 2015 where it managed to grow marginally. That indisputable fact pertains to a trend that New Labour as a concept is losing respect among the electorate and is essentially a general election losing ideology. In 2008 the membership was at it's lowest level ever. For Labour to survive it needed fresh impetus. It's undeniable that the signs of fresh impetus have appeared and have continued to multiply since Corbyn was elected leader. I've asked for you to provide a credible persuasive argument that Smith is a better bet but I'm still not seeing it. You've provided subjective opinions which is fine, but it's not proof.

The winning alternative is to lead the party credibly.

An incredibly subjective view. I would put forward the argument that he's representing the members of the party and their wishes for the party, surely you don't get more credible than that?

To command the support of colleagues.

It's numero uno that you show respect & follow your leader in any walk of life. Given in this case that the leader looks set to be democratically twice in a year by the members of the party, I think it's for the 'colleagues' to support the democratically elected leader as a prerequisite. Given the the dissent was whipped up by forces with an opposed agenda then the principles of the 'colleagues' will become evident once the leadership election is over & done with. If they still don't follow the wishes of the membership I can't see how they can continue to represent the party. If that happens then good as far as I'm concerned, they're easily replaced, even better they'll be replaced by figures who share the memberships view.

The party has to be credible with the public as well as the members.

I'm pretty certain the members are the public. Growing the membership to it's highest level in modern history, so soon after numbers were at their lowest in history isn't certifiable proof that Corbyn can attract the public but it's a pretty encouraging sign that he can.

Jeremy has been unwilling to aggressively attack the government, and it is making the party irrelevant.

What you basing this on or have you a more extreme definition of 'attack'? I thought Cameron's stint as PM was roundly acknowledged to be the U turn government. Silver fox Jezza was leading opposition for many of these U turns.

I'm bringing it up because I feel it's relevant that such morals are made comparable to your supposed politically moral leanings. I found the below repulsive, not only is it factually incorrect it gives an insight as to your true being. I'd already come to the conclusion you see yourself as better and assume your daily life with an inflated sense of your own self worth but this rubber stamped it. Children are our future and we desperately need more of them if we're to avoid a crisis. The incredible arrogance that you feel fit to pass judgement on how many kids someone may or may not have. What gives you that right? That's Tory rhetoric.

If anyone is currently contemplating have some/more kids, please be reassured that it is not a requirement and society will thank you for actually not bothering. Far too many screaming, entitled, horrible children in the world. I mean, sure, yours might be nice, but are you willing to take the risk ... ?

Of course, I was being facetious. I just sometimes sit on a train and watch someone with three/four young kids, all having a tantrum, and wonder: Why at no point did you consider stopping?!

Appalling words there Max. Really repulsive stuff. I'm ashamed someone with such views is a member of the same political party as myself. I'm quite sure you'd admit such views aren't party policy and would be judged with disgust.

Serious question. Do you agree that this is a vote as to the soul of the party and as such given you're on the side likely to lose, will that bring about your departure from the party? I don't see how you could stay on to be honest. You're against the grain on such a divisive emotion stirring issue for you to stay would only cause detriment to the party. It's becoming rapidly clear that your views just don't correlate with the membership. I think it would be best for you, your health & ultimately your life if you got your coat & shut the door on the way out.

 

[Abertawe]

Another tiny result but Labour won the council seat for Tooting tonight with an increased 13.7% vote share.

 

[Alty]

Sky good but Guardian and C4 bad?

I sympathise with him to a certain extent based on what I've seen with the exception of C4. Always found their coverage of political stuff pretty solid.

Almost everyone at the Guardian is so obviously anti-Corbyn.

 

[SUTSS]

Smith's stuff on ISIS is nonsense. Corbyn has said similar in the past though. Corbyn's stuff on NATO also nonsense. The foreign policy part of this debate is very poor.

 

[Abertawe]

Smith's stuff on ISIS is nonsense. Corbyn has said similar in the past though. Corbyn's stuff on NATO also nonsense. The foreign policy part of this debate is very poor.

I know Corbyn is a bit washy for some on foreign policy but what's he said that's on the level of suggesting to bring a death cult round the negotiating table?

 

[Jockney]

I sympathise with him to a certain extent based on what I've seen with the exception of C4. Always found their coverage of political stuff pretty solid.

Almost everyone at the Guardian is so obviously anti-Corbyn.

Talking of Guardian journalists, I went to an LRB talk in Bloomsbury about a year ago, right before the GE and Zoe Williams was on the panel (alongside Aaron Bastani, the Novara Media co-founder, who could teach Abertawe a thing or two about articulating with a modicum of diplomacy a left-wing case for Brexit). She is now towing that wishy-washy Soft Left case for 'stability', but even when it looked like a small majority victory for Labour she bemoaned Milliband's reluctance/unwillingness to ally with Sturgeon and repeatedly made a strong case for the Labour membership to reclaim and reshape the party on ideological grounds. Owen Jones said the same thing. It seems only Gegorge Monbiot has managed to keep his bottle throughout.

 

[Abertawe]

Talking of Guardian journalists, I went to an LRB talk in Bloomsbury about a year ago, right before the GE and Zoe Williams was on the panel (alongside Aaron Bastani, the Novara Media co-founder, who could teach Abertawe a thing or two about articulating with a modicum of diplomacy a left-wing case for Brexit). She is now towing that wishy-washy Soft Left case for 'stability', but even when it looked like a small majority victory for Labour she bemoaned Milliband's reluctance/unwillingness to ally with Sturgeon and repeatedly made a strong case for the Labour membership to reclaim and reshape the party on ideological grounds. Owen Jones said the same thing. It seems only Gegorge Monbiot has managed to keep his bottle throughout.

Genius cannot be taught.

 

[SUTSS]

I know Corbyn is a bit washy for some on foreign policy but what's he said that's on the level of suggesting to bring a death cult round the negotiating table?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181.html

and similar to that.

I would say that my main issues with Corbyn are foreign policy. I think his domestic ideas are largely going in the right direction if very naive at times. There are also issues with his style of leadership (not just being rubbish at it but the style in which him, and that part of Labour, would like the party to be run) and with groups like Momentum but if we're talking solely about the man and his ideas then foreign policy is the main sticking point.

 

[Max]

Your boulded text is rather uncouth. I believe I have a greater understanding as to the perils of neoliberalism being allowed to run amok and it's societal detriment than you do given our respective leanings. Me saying that does not constitute myself striking a line through neoliberalism ad finitum, just thought I'd clear that up as you do tend to take what I say and apply the most extreme logic to it sometimes. Capitalism has it's uses. It should never override the needs & rights of the people which it has been allowed to do in beastly fashion.

Onto Owen Smith and the policies he's put forward I treat everything he says with a pinch of salt. When he's the man of the body that went to court, lost, won an appeal (where a certain judge has history with Blair & Labours right) to stop it's membership from voting in the leadership election it doesn't fuse trust. It's pretty transparent he's playing the political game although I don't feel he's playing it particularly well. He's obviously acknowledged the membership is with Corbyn and as such has agreed with him on everything bar trident essentially. The problem is that tactic is only going to work if you can discredit Corbyn's ability to lead the party, which is flawed because if that was going to work he'd already be gone. If so many MP's can resign and the membership remains steadfast behind Corbyn it should tell you that a few lines about ineffective leadership during a hustings isn't going to work. He's conceded the moral ground on policy whereas he should have challenged Corbyn on policy and presented the 'centre' argument and persuaded that's the real alternative. Alienating at least 52% of the electorate with his want for a 2nd referendum is absurd too. Not withstanding if he thinks that will work to convince Labour voters then he's contradicting his rhetoric about Corbyn not appealing to Labour voters during the referendum. The most alarming part of this campaign so far though was his exact words that he'd bring ISIS to the discussion table, if there was ever anything to prove he's out of his depth that was it. To spin a phrase you don't negotiate with followers of a death cult. His backers must've had their heads in their hands the moment he came out with that.

So to sum it up, I don't really care what Smith does or doesn't say. I don't trust him nor the body he represents and I'd speculate I'm far from alone in that view. I think the argument for allowing this new movement at having a go is pretty easy to decipher. It is a fact Labour's vote has reduced in every general election since 97 up until 2015 where it managed to grow marginally. That indisputable fact pertains to a trend that New Labour as a concept is losing respect among the electorate and is essentially a general election losing ideology. In 2008 the membership was at it's lowest level ever. For Labour to survive it needed fresh impetus. It's undeniable that the signs of fresh impetus have appeared and have continued to multiply since Corbyn was elected leader. I've asked for you to provide a credible persuasive argument that Smith is a better bet but I'm still not seeing it. You've provided subjective opinions which is fine, but it's not proof.


An incredibly subjective view. I would put forward the argument that he's representing the members of the party and their wishes for the party, surely you don't get more credible than that?


It's numero uno that you show respect & follow your leader in any walk of life. Given in this case that the leader looks set to be democratically twice in a year by the members of the party, I think it's for the 'colleagues' to support the democratically elected leader as a prerequisite. Given the the dissent was whipped up by forces with an opposed agenda then the principles of the 'colleagues' will become evident once the leadership election is over & done with. If they still don't follow the wishes of the membership I can't see how they can continue to represent the party. If that happens then good as far as I'm concerned, they're easily replaced, even better they'll be replaced by figures who share the memberships view.


I'm pretty certain the members are the public. Growing the membership to it's highest level in modern history, so soon after numbers were at their lowest in history isn't certifiable proof that Corbyn can attract the public but it's a pretty encouraging sign that he can.


What you basing this on or have you a more extreme definition of 'attack'? I thought Cameron's stint as PM was roundly acknowledged to be the U turn government. Silver fox Jezza was leading opposition for many of these U turns.

I'm bringing it up because I feel it's relevant that such morals are made comparable to your supposed politically moral leanings. I found the below repulsive, not only is it factually incorrect it gives an insight as to your true being. I'd already come to the conclusion you see yourself as better and assume your daily life with an inflated sense of your own self worth but this rubber stamped it. Children are our future and we desperately need more of them if we're to avoid a crisis. The incredible arrogance that you feel fit to pass judgement on how many kids someone may or may not have. What gives you that right? That's Tory rhetoric.





Appalling words there Max. Really repulsive stuff. I'm ashamed someone with such views is a member of the same political party as myself. I'm quite sure you'd admit such views aren't party policy and would be judged with disgust.

Serious question. Do you agree that this is a vote as to the soul of the party and as such given you're on the side likely to lose, will that bring about your departure from the party? I don't see how you could stay on to be honest. You're against the grain on such a divisive emotion stirring issue for you to stay would only cause detriment to the party. It's becoming rapidly clear that your views just don't correlate with the membership. I think it would be best for you, your health & ultimately your life if you got your coat & shut the door on the way out.

The bolded text was not a particular comment on your understandings of neoliberalism, it was the fact that mostly throughout this thread (although not in your response here) you have made a feature of inventing my views and then attacking them, rather than debating the actual points that have been raised. To pick up a few things:

1. The debates between Smith and Corbyn have been astoundingly embarrassing. I watched the Sky one the other day, in which they spent 1hr 20 talking about the Labour Party politics, and then 10 minutes naming celebrities before being allowed to discuss issues. For the record, Smith's whole thing about Isis was cringeworthy and horrendous, I would agree. For what it's worth, he managed to put some context to it and explain more fully later, when absolutely no one will have been listening. This, combined with Corbyn's total non-commitment to NATO, only serves to cement most people's views that Labour are soft on defence.

2. New Labour was invented to counter Labour's lack of electability in the 80s. Labour lost votes in 2001 due to total apathy (majority from 1997 was too massive) and 2005 due to the Iraq war, attacks on civil liberties and general government shitness. By 2010 the electorate was tired of Labour and needed to regroup. The Tories did this between 1997-2010 very well. I don't think re-establishing the Labour Party as an anti-EU, anti-NATO, rally-holding (they didn't do much for Michael Foot), is the right way to get back into government. The average gap between the two major parties continues to widen, and was still wide before the leadership challenge. You don't have to stick to New Labour as it was. Point of fact that most of the Labour MPs getting grief now for challenging Corbyn have nothing to do with the Blair-Brown government of pre-2010.

3. There's a difference between credible for party members (who are self-selecting - people have joined because they like Jeremy Corbyn, so of course he's going to be popular with many party members!) and the wider general public, who dwarf Labour members in numbers and who are not committed to any one party. Today's YouGov:


Best PM May 51% -1 Corbyn 19%+1 28% of LAB GE2015 voters say May. 38% JC


4. It didn't take you long to accuse me of hiding my opinions, or, as you put it my 'true being'. I can't quite believe you typed 'children are our future' with a straight face, but it's nice to see you doing some moral grandstanding. I agree - it's not party policy, or indeed somehow required of anyone - to like children personally or be glad that lots of people have lots of kids. I was, as I said, being facetious, but my point was that there are already too many people in the world, and that an awful lot of people have kids without sufficient thought and planning. As it happens, there's a certain amount of political moralising around this, what with all the talk from all sides of 'hardworking families'. Also, when I said 'horrible' children, I was referencing that a good deal of them behave very poorly, and are very entitled. I may have phrased those things in a way you found harsh, but I am in no way surprised that you are once again willing to assign underhanded motive and imply my duplicitous nature.

5. The Labour Party has accepted Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and the like for decades. Nobody tried to force them out. Nobody expelled them for rebelling. They were allowed to be MPs and continue being in the party. Because it's a 'broad church' - bit of a cliche, but it's a wide organisation. It's not a witch hunt, which Momentum and its supporters sometimes seem to advocate. I do appreciate your 'being honest' and thinking of the good of the party. To think of my health, as well - I am overwhelmed. It's very comradely of you. If Jeremy wins again, I will be staying put, like Jeremy has for 50 years, despite not 'correlating with the membership' for about 48 of said years. Whether or not come 2020 I will be able to knock on doors and sell Jeremy's promises to negotiate the surrender of the Falklands, leave NATO, and whatever else he comes up with, I doubt it. But he's building a movement, and we're definitely going to win in 2020 anyway ... right?

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Sadiq Khan comes out in support of Smith.

 

[Jockney]

Pasok 2.0.

Jez, McDonnell, et al, need to cut and run. The right, Blairites and Soft Left won't stop until there's nothing left.

 

[Abertawe]

I found this interesting. Gives an insight into what most already know. You'd have to imagine the same forces are undoubtedly doing the similar today.

 

[Abertawe]

Sadiq Khan comes out in support of Smith.

Yo Sadiq, why you always lying https://vine.co/v/5ME9Etg5mzj

 

[Kopper]

I'm glad after 51 pages we touched on a real world problem. Well done Max for highlighting over population and the social responsibility people have in not producing more children than they could reasonably afford.
Under Labour, higher birth rates were incentivised. Under the Tories it's limited to the first two children.

Even if Corbyn or Owen won in 2020, what would they do? Could either realistically reverse the austerity measures? Stop the rise in the age of retirement? Could either do anything about low interest rates (or negative rates)? What about the much needed electrification of our transport system. Will they continue infrastructure projects like crossrail and HS2. How would they go about tackling our creditors who are forcing us to cut back our spending programs, in order to pay back some of what we owe.

Does the Labour party as it stands today have a plan to combat our dependency on Russian gas?
What hydrocarbon conservation policies do they have? For example banning cars from London. Converting excess nuclear energy to ammonia to burn in modified buses and taxis.

The truth is Labour will lose in 2020, but should they win in 2025, they won't be in a position to radically change Tory policy.

 

[Abertawe]

Only an idiot would think the answer to the UK's aging population problem is to reduce birth rates.

 

[Max]

Perhaps it's an issue worthy of its own thread?

On a separate note, I was sad to see Corbyn supporters boo Sadiq Khan this evening (who recently won a great victory in London and has a bigger mandate than any other individual politician in the country). I can't see what it achieves, and would be equally disappointed to see anyone heckle Jeremy Corbyn. It's just unnecessary and depressing.

 

[Abertawe]

Probably summit to do with him happily taking advantage of the movement Corbyn represents which ultimately played a big part in his victory. Politicians who go back on their previous words aren't greeted with much applause either. I'm not sure why they're surprised, more slippery than a wet bar of soap is that Sadiq lad. There will be a lot of London voters who will have felt betrayed watching the news this morning, his victory was under a Corbyn Labour. I wouldn't personally boo but I wouldn't judge anyone on voicing their freedom of speech, it should be encouraged.

 

[Max]

We could argue for pages about how much Corbyn had to do with Khan's victory - and I personally think he would've won under any Labour leader - but the point is the booing thing is not helpful. Sure, people can have freedom of expression, but it would be nice for Jeremy Corbyn, at the beginning of his remarks, when someone from his own party has been roundly boo'ed by Corbyn supporters, to remind people about the kinder, gentler, comradely spirit he has called for in the past.

Someone saying they weren't going to endorse a candidate, and then changing their mind, is not grounds for a witch hunt, abuse, or a civil war.

 

[Abertawe]

A witch hunt, abuse and a civil war is exactly what's been on-going for months to be fair. Booing is generally a negative expression and you can question what it achieves for sure. The superlative language made me LOL. I'd imagine the PM linking him with IS (for which Corbyn passionately defended him) irks Sadiq more than a few 100 booing his name after he's just aligned himself to the other side.

Thinking back to Corbyn defending Sadiq at PMQ's just highlighted something out to me. PMQ's is a weekly event of booing & snarling, if politicians from all divides (with the exception of that man Jezza of course) are allowed to boo why it is so very wrong when people from outside of the bubble do it. It's a contradiction for sure but then this whole coup has been a massive contradiction.

 

[Kopper]

Only an idiot would think the answer to the UK's aging population problem is to reduce birth rates.

How very pusillanimous of you not to reference my post.
Leaving any issues of cowardice on your part aside, for a moment. Let's review the logic you've shown in your post.
If increased birth rates aren't a problem then immigration shouldn't be either. Absurd isn't it?

An aging population will have to work longer to maintain themselves.
And when they can no longer do so we'll use immigrant labour to tend to their needs.

No need for the birth rate to go up.

 

[Alty]

Pasok 2.0.

Jez, McDonnell, et al, need to cut and run. The right, Blairites and Soft Left won't stop until there's nothing left.

To where though? If these guys believe in a socialist Britain surely their best (albeit at this stage very faint) hope is to try to ride out the storm within the Labour Party?

It's obvious things can't go on like this. The question is whether Corbyn will give in and resign (looking very unlikely), the Corbynite wing split away (also unlikely, I'd contend - they're in the box seat), the most vehemently anti-Corbynites split away (perhaps a little more likely) or nobody formally splits away but you end up with a series of Labour vs Independent Labour battles at the next General Election (most likely).

I maintain that in 2016 a single Labour Party is too big and cannot cater to all of the constituencies from which it tries to garner votes. To paraphrase dear old Ruari O'Bradaigh, you can't ride two horses going in separate directions. In recent times I think the Labour Paty sort of accepted this, and tried to plonk itself slightly to the left of the Tories while occasionally saying something that various fringes of the party liked. But I think the utility of that tactic has faded now. The Scottish Labour vote looks in serious danger of never being able to bounce back. The neglected provincials of England and Wales have started drifting to UKIP and issued a big "fuck off" to PLP in the EU referendum result. The left of the party are infuriated by the treatment of Corbyn and will no doubt go berserk if and when he's forced out or resigns after a poor election performance citing the lack of support he received from his colleagues. Sure, the 'moderates' will hope for a Blair mk. 2, but if and when he/she does arrive, do they really think they'll start getting 42, 43, 44% of the vote again? It's over lads. No chance. Too many people have lost faith and it isn't going to be won back by a leader who doesn't think anything about anything.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

It's obvious things can't go on like this. The question is whether Corbyn will give in and resign (looking very unlikely), the Corbynite wing split away (also unlikely, I'd contend - they're in the box seat), the most vehemently anti-Corbynites split away (perhaps a little more likely) or nobody formally splits away but you end up with a series of Labour vs Independent Labour battles at the next General Election (most likely).

Which would be an utter disaster for them electorally!

I maintain that in 2016 a single Labour Party is too big and cannot cater to all of the constituencies from which it tries to garner votes. To paraphrase dear old Ruari O'Bradaigh, you can't ride two horses going in separate directions. In recent times I think the Labour Paty sort of accepted this, and tried to plonk itself slightly to the left of the Tories while occasionally saying something that various fringes of the party liked. But I think the utility of that tactic has faded now. The Scottish Labour vote looks in serious danger of never being able to bounce back. The neglected provincials of England and Wales have started drifting to UKIP and issued a big "fuck off" to PLP in the EU referendum result. The left of the party are infuriated by the treatment of Corbyn and will no doubt go berserk if and when he's forced out or resigns after a poor election performance citing the lack of support he received from his colleagues. Sure, the 'moderates' will hope for a Blair mk. 2, but if and when he/she does arrive, do they really think they'll start getting 42, 43, 44% of the vote again? It's over lads. No chance. Too many people have lost faith and it isn't going to be won back by a leader who doesn't think anything about anything.

We have the Labour behemoth pulling itself apart, a non existent Lib Dems, and currently identity lacking UKIP party. The Tories have an absolute clear run at the next 9 years plus. I think the logical thing to do would be for Labour to split, but with the Lib Dems ALSO folding, and together going on to form something along the lines of: 'Liberal Centrists' and 'Contemporary Socialists'. Two decent sized parties starting from a blank sheet of paper with minimal baggage. And depending how Brexit goes, potentially killing UKIP in the process. That would allow people to find the bracket that best suits them. As currently, everyone who isn't a Tory is really struggling to find the party matching their identity.



Regarding the topic of population, birth rates etc, that's a great point that politicians of all sides ignore and have done for many years because it's messy and controversial. But together with energy / resources, it does need some serious attention.

 

[Max]

A witch hunt, abuse and a civil war is exactly what's been on-going for months to be fair. Booing is generally a negative expression and you can question what it achieves for sure. The superlative language made me LOL. I'd imagine the PM linking him with IS (for which Corbyn passionately defended him) irks Sadiq more than a few 100 booing his name after he's just aligned himself to the other side.

Thinking back to Corbyn defending Sadiq at PMQ's just highlighted something out to me. PMQ's is a weekly event of booing & snarling, if politicians from all divides (with the exception of that man Jezza of course) are allowed to boo why it is so very wrong when people from outside of the bubble do it. It's a contradiction for sure but then this whole coup has been a massive contradiction.

I would personally prefer if politicians in PMQs behaved more like Jeremy Corbyn. However, that approach only works if everyone is playing by the same rules.

My problem with the booing wasn't that the Corbyn supporters are 'outside the bubble'. It's that Khan and Corbyn are in the same party. Khan said the other day 'Corbyn is a principled Labour man'. The majority of Corbyn's critics are not viciously personally attacking him. They're saying they don't think he's an effective leader. This is allowed. It's not a 'coup' - It's a challenge. Jeremy used to encourage them when he was on the back benches, because robust leadership should be able to handle challenges from dissenters. A lot of Corbyn supporters, by contrast, talk of their wish to deselect all critics, 'purge' (honestly nobody sees the irony there apparently using Stalinist language) and demand loyalty regardless of results. If Corbyn is really that popular, this is all very unnecessary. Time will tell, obviously.

I would like to ask of you, and other supporters of Jeremy Corbyn: What would Jeremy have to do to lose your confidence? Do you forsee him doing anything you'd disagree with between now and 2020? Are there any natural successors to him in the PLP at the moment? (eg McDonnell?) You were saying earlier you thought I should leave if Corbyn wins the contest - curious to know where you see the party going if he wins again, in the longer term?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It's true that some of the more vociferous Corbyn supporters haven't behaved in a particularly edifying way but is it any wonder that a lot of people feel upset with the party and some some of its (non Corbynista) top brass? I don't think it's acceptable or helpful for senior party figures, including the deputy leader, to denounce people as "Trots" and "entryists". I don't think it's acceptable for the party to go to court to prevent members from voting in a leadership contest that they had been assured they would be entitled to vote in (in truth I thought this was an utterly disgraceful spectacle). Denouncing the man's supporters may give the PLP and Corbyn's opponents some sense of moral superiority but, quite honestly, they bear rather a lot of responsibility for fuelling the bitterness and resentment that threatens to engulf the party.

There's been quite a lot of mention of polling and personal ratings and the like in this thread. I think this (a typically excellent analysis by YouGov's Anthony Wells) is worth a read on that front. In truth, I think there's a fair bit of ammunition there for Corbyn opponents and yet I still can't see the sense in attempting to remove him. If you're going to ditch a leader just nine months into their tenure you need both a very, very good reason to to do so and a coherent alternative vision. Labour's performance just isn't sufficiently disastrous to warrant the former and they clearly don't possess anything remotely resembling the latter. God knows where this farce leaves them (and those of us us who'd quite welcome a properly functioning opposition).

 

[Abertawe]

I would personally prefer if politicians in PMQs behaved more like Jeremy Corbyn. However, that approach only works if everyone is playing by the same rules.

My problem with the booing wasn't that the Corbyn supporters are 'outside the bubble'. It's that Khan and Corbyn are in the same party. Khan said the other day 'Corbyn is a principled Labour man'. The majority of Corbyn's critics are not viciously personally attacking him. They're saying they don't think he's an effective leader. This is allowed. It's not a 'coup' - It's a challenge. Jeremy used to encourage them when he was on the back benches, because robust leadership should be able to handle challenges from dissenters. A lot of Corbyn supporters, by contrast, talk of their wish to deselect all critics, 'purge' (honestly nobody sees the irony there apparently using Stalinist language) and demand loyalty regardless of results. If Corbyn is really that popular, this is all very unnecessary. Time will tell, obviously.

I would like to ask of you, and other supporters of Jeremy Corbyn: What would Jeremy have to do to lose your confidence? Do you forsee him doing anything you'd disagree with between now and 2020? Are there any natural successors to him in the PLP at the moment? (eg McDonnell?) You were saying earlier you thought I should leave if Corbyn wins the contest - curious to know where you see the party going if he wins again, in the longer term?

I disagree that Corbyn hasn't been attacked, he's faced vitriol from the moment he stood for election and since, Jess Phillips retort about knifing him in the from was as crass as it gets. In most cases it may not have been as blunt as a hall of people booing for the camera's to see but there has been a sustained effort to deride & undermine him at nearly every turn. The printed media have been almost universal in their attempts to ruin him, in some cases even putting out down right lies with no context or quotes attributed, so much so a group of 100 intellectuals decided to sign a letter voicing their concerns.

The leadership of Jeremy Corbyn has been subject to the most savage campaign of falsehood and misrepresentation in some of our most popular media outlets. He has, at different times, been derided, ignored, vilified and condemned. Few journalists attempted to fathom the reason for his overwhelming victory in the Labour leadership contest in 2015 and few have sought systematically and impartially to explore the policies he has promoted as leader. We do not expect journalists to give any elected leader an easy ride but Corbyn has been treated from the start as a problem to be solved rather than as a politician to be taken seriously. The reason is that he has never been part of the Westminster village or the media bubble and that he has never hidden his commitment to socialist politics. At a time when austerity, insecurity and racism remain real threats to the lives of many people in the UK, we believe that Jeremy Corbyn can help to provide a way out of the mess we are in. We condemn the unwarranted attacks on his leadership by an unelected media and call on those who want to see meaningful and progressive social change to stand behind Jeremy Corbyn.

There have been countless hatchet stories from our mainstream media where the substance to the story has derived from 'unnamed Labour source(s)', now they may be bullshitting but considering how interconnected the media is to politics I would suggest in the majority of cases there is an actual 'unnamed source' fanning the flames. There have also been plenty of snide interviews given to TV media where the personal agenda has been clear, Chris Bryant springs to mind but there have been plenty more, smirking whilst mocking the Leader of the party you represent on live TV is almost as low as howling at him to "shut up" when at the dispatch box during PMQ's (pretty sure that guy was found to have a horrendous history in relation to expenses). The attempt to unsaddle Corbyn has been evident from the off by those right at the very top, “Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Speaking at the Progress think-tank Mr Blair said anyone who supported Jeremy Corbyn “in their heart” needed to think about getting “a heart transplant”. The cross party & media attacks on Corbyn have been very personal, it's just a lot more disguised than a group of people being seen to boo a name.

Do you genuinely believe this is a challenge as opposed to a coup? I'd have thought it was obvious to all this was a coup, the signs have made it abundantly clear this was orchestrated by those with a direct interest in seeing the 'socialist movement' fail. We've had MP's alluding to being approached to back Owen Smith months before the referendum result on twitter, those said tweets from several serving MP's have mysteriously been deleted but they can still be seen. Website domains being registered prior to the actual 'challenges' being made public. This story in the Telegraph is almost a word by word account of what happened subsequent to the referendum result, yet it was 10 days prior. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...o-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/
Challenges aren't generally plotted for months on end, by nature they're reactive.

This is a battle between the establishment and those who don't wish to be controlled by the establishment. I just can't fathom why anyone who proclaims to have independent thought would actively choose to support the side of the establishment. Owen Smith is as establishment as they come, hell he's even got the BBC's deputy political editor's daughter on his staff. Literally any historical decision or event that can be deemed as bad or even evil has stemmed from the side that are now putting the case against Corbyn. Even if you don't believe Corbyn is super fantastic the fact those dark forces are plotting his downfall should be enough for anyone to decide they'll rally behind Corbyn rather than the establishment puppet of the day. The only reason for someone unconnected or not a benefactor of the establishment to continue to support that element is down to brainwashing. Now I know you take exception to that term so let's call it the manufactoring of consent instead. My man Noam sums it up very well from 10.45 onwards. It would actually be very apt for the referendum thread.

I think the part about the educated is brilliant and in relation to the UK was proven beyond all doubt with the breakdown of the referendum voting patterns. The irony is beautiful considering the classist comments from those who consider themselves to be 'educated'.

What would it take for me to stop supporting Corbyn? That question suggests there has already been events that should've swayed me. There hasn't been. Not that it needs pointing out but I detest the establishment and all their pets. So when the establishment, their media & political footsoldiers move en masse to depose him that only serves to strengthen my support of him. My support is based upon his principles & morals, it's everything I was taught to adhere too. So if he was to ever abandon his principles then I'd turn my back without a seconds thought. When you ask me to point out his policies it befuddles me. It's quite clear what his policies are, they're based on his whole being. That's not to say I completely agree with every political decision that he makes, because I don't. His stance of Trident I didn't believe was the right political move. His view on the issue of WMD's is absolutely correct but the majority of people support Trident even though it's carries zero logic both on a cost & defense basis, and the fact most people would claim to want a nuclear free world. Why do people support Trident? Manufactored consent I suppose. For him not to have held his view on Trident would've been an abandonment of principle so it's hypocritical of me to say it wasn't the right political move anyway. Do I forsee him doing anything I disagree with between now & 2020? More than likely yes. What I know to be the case though is that anything he does or doesn't do is based on honesty & morality, I can't say the same for any other applicable politicians. His strings aren't pulled by the establishment, his only agenda is to serve the people and make the country better for it's people not the powerful elite. History has also proven correct him on what were divisive issues time & time again too, so even if I disagree with a certain action or political judgement he's earned the right to have his opinion treated with credibility as far as I'm concerned.

In theory I believe the movement Corbyn is heading can only grow stronger once he reasserts his mandate and with a lot of hard work can lead Labour to success at a GE. The reason i say in theory is because I worry that the coup plotters will continue their mission to have him fail. My recent post gives an historical indication as to the nature of members of a party making movements to stop it succeeding at a GE. There have also been musings (again from unnamed Labour sources) that even when Corbyn 'wins' again, they will launch a 'challenge' year on year until 2020. That's why I've repeatedly said I hope those plotting against him leave after this leadership election. The Labour party belongs to the people by definition. Despite the fact establishment figures have entrenched positions within the party it doesn't change the fact it's a party of the people. They have shown they will stop at nothing to keep their grips on the party so any nagging doubt I have about Corbyn stems from influences outside of his control.

Clive Lewis I believe to be the natural successor. He's a gangster of epic proportions.

It's a sign of how low we've sunk when the members of a party are united behind the leader but he's having to battle a leadership election because those with money & power don't want him or his movement. It's not Corbyn versus Smith, it's the people versus the elite.

 

[Max]

I disagree that Corbyn hasn't been attacked, he's faced vitriol from the moment he stood for election and since, Jess Phillips retort about knifing him in the from was as crass as it gets. In most cases it may not have been as blunt as a hall of people booing for the camera's to see but there has been a sustained effort to deride & undermine him at nearly every turn. The printed media have been almost universal in their attempts to ruin him, in some cases even putting out down right lies with no context or quotes attributed, so much so a group of 100 intellectuals decided to sign a letter voicing their concerns.

There have been countless hatchet stories from our mainstream media where the substance to the story has derived from 'unnamed Labour source(s)', now they may be bullshitting but considering how interconnected the media is to politics I would suggest in the majority of cases there is an actual 'unnamed source' fanning the flames. There have also been plenty of snide interviews given to TV media where the personal agenda has been clear, Chris Bryant springs to mind but there have been plenty more, smirking whilst mocking the Leader of the party you represent on live TV is almost as low as howling at him to "shut up" when at the dispatch box during PMQ's (pretty sure that guy was found to have a horrendous history in relation to expenses). The attempt to unsaddle Corbyn has been evident from the off by those right at the very top, “Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Speaking at the Progress think-tank Mr Blair said anyone who supported Jeremy Corbyn “in their heart” needed to think about getting “a heart transplant”. The cross party & media attacks on Corbyn have been very personal, it's just a lot more disguised than a group of people being seen to boo a name.

Do you genuinely believe this is a challenge as opposed to a coup? I'd have thought it was obvious to all this was a coup, the signs have made it abundantly clear this was orchestrated by those with a direct interest in seeing the 'socialist movement' fail. We've had MP's alluding to being approached to back Owen Smith months before the referendum result on twitter, those said tweets from several serving MP's have mysteriously been deleted but they can still be seen. Website domains being registered prior to the actual 'challenges' being made public. This story in the Telegraph is almost a word by word account of what happened subsequent to the referendum result, yet it was 10 days prior. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...o-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/
Challenges aren't generally plotted for months on end, by nature they're reactive.

This is a battle between the establishment and those who don't wish to be controlled by the establishment. I just can't fathom why anyone who proclaims to have independent thought would actively choose to support the side of the establishment. Owen Smith is as establishment as they come, hell he's even got the BBC's deputy political editor's daughter on his staff. Literally any historical decision or event that can be deemed as bad or even evil has stemmed from the side that are now putting the case against Corbyn. Even if you don't believe Corbyn is super fantastic the fact those dark forces are plotting his downfall should be enough for anyone to decide they'll rally behind Corbyn rather than the establishment puppet of the day. The only reason for someone unconnected or not a benefactor of the establishment to continue to support that element is down to brainwashing. Now I know you take exception to that term so let's call it the manufactoring of consent instead. My man Noam sums it up very well from 10.45 onwards. It would actually be very apt for the referendum thread.

I think the part about the educated is brilliant and in relation to the UK was proven beyond all doubt with the breakdown of the referendum voting patterns. The irony is beautiful considering the classist comments from those who consider themselves to be 'educated'.

What would it take for me to stop supporting Corbyn? That question suggests there has already been events that should've swayed me. There hasn't been. Not that it needs pointing out but I detest the establishment and all their pets. So when the establishment, their media & political footsoldiers move en masse to depose him that only serves to strengthen my support of him. My support is based upon his principles & morals, it's everything I was taught to adhere too. So if he was to ever abandon his principles then I'd turn my back without a seconds thought. When you ask me to point out his policies it befuddles me. It's quite clear what his policies are, they're based on his whole being. That's not to say I completely agree with every political decision that he makes, because I don't. His stance of Trident I didn't believe was the right political move. His view on the issue of WMD's is absolutely correct but the majority of people support Trident even though it's carries zero logic both on a cost & defense basis, and the fact most people would claim to want a nuclear free world. Why do people support Trident? Manufactored consent I suppose. For him not to have held his view on Trident would've been an abandonment of principle so it's hypocritical of me to say it wasn't the right political move anyway. Do I forsee him doing anything I disagree with between now & 2020? More than likely yes. What I know to be the case though is that anything he does or doesn't do is based on honesty & morality, I can't say the same for any other applicable politicians. His strings aren't pulled by the establishment, his only agenda is to serve the people and make the country better for it's people not the powerful elite. History has also proven correct him on what were divisive issues time & time again too, so even if I disagree with a certain action or political judgement he's earned the right to have his opinion treated with credibility as far as I'm concerned.

In theory I believe the movement Corbyn is heading can only grow stronger once he reasserts his mandate and with a lot of hard work can lead Labour to success at a GE. The reason i say in theory is because I worry that the coup plotters will continue their mission to have him fail. My recent post gives an historical indication as to the nature of members of a party making movements to stop it succeeding at a GE. There have also been musings (again from unnamed Labour sources) that even when Corbyn 'wins' again, they will launch a 'challenge' year on year until 2020. That's why I've repeatedly said I hope those plotting against him leave after this leadership election. The Labour party belongs to the people by definition. Despite the fact establishment figures have entrenched positions within the party it doesn't change the fact it's a party of the people. They have shown they will stop at nothing to keep their grips on the party so any nagging doubt I have about Corbyn stems from influences outside of his control.

Clive Lewis I believe to be the natural successor. He's a gangster of epic proportions.

It's a sign of how low we've sunk when the members of a party are united behind the leader but he's having to battle a leadership election because those with money & power don't want him or his movement. It's not Corbyn versus Smith, it's the people versus the elite.

I shall try to respond to your points in turn:

1. I did say the majority of Corbyn's critics have been civil. The Jess Philips comments were crass, but ... well, it was a badly chosen phrase. She said 'stab him in the front' rather than 'stab him in the back'. Yes, it's a tasteless way to talk, but it was a metaphor to say she'd be upfront and say to his face, and directly, if she thought he was damaging the party. I think reading into it some sort of actual physical threat is obviously not what she meant. In the grand scheme of what's being thrown back and forth, I don't think it's an unpardonable sin.

2. I haven't seen that letter, and I don't know who the people are that signed it. I would totally agree he's not had a fair hearing, and that the media have been very unfair to him. However, I really do think that was also the case with Ed, and to a certain extent with Neil Kinnock too. Has it been more than ever with Corbyn's case? Probably, yes, but there's nothing the tabloids - especially - love more than a politician complaining they're being bullied. This being said, he's been very poorly advised and some of the terrible coverage was avoidable. One thing I don't think you've ever been willing to admit, though, is that the 'get Corbyn' MPs started off by being quite small in number. Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant (arguably), Jamie Reed, Wes Streeting etc. You readily dismiss almost the whole PLP now, but Chi Onwurah, Heidi Alexander, Thangam Debbonaire, Lilian Greenwood and others who have criticised him in recent weeks are not the same, and were not part of some giant stitch-up. The latter group have all given very straightforward, honest criticisms of his actual leadership (rather than anything flaky or insubstantial), but defenders of Corbyn are unwilling to take any criticism on board - the defensive shields are up, and neither Corbyn nor his supporters will engage with the constructive voices. You can see the same phenomenon with his economic advisers, who actively signed up to work with him, and months later said it wasn't working and stepped down. While some have always been out to get him, some people have real, experience-based issues!

3. To me, the word 'coup' = illegitimate or violent. I don't deny the coordination of some resignations was probably planned. Doesn't mean anyone's done anything morally or legally wrong. Coup is just a word for people to pretend they've been personally wronged.

4. The word 'establishment' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your post, and you've not really defined what you mean. I see the establishment as the people that run the country: the government, the judiciary, the Lords, the monarchy, senior media figures. In your posts you often seem to use it as shorthand for 'opponents of Jeremy Corbyn' or 'anyone whose politics are opposed to yours'. I think being an MP for decades puts you in that category, certainly when you're leader of the opposition. Corbyn's not abused the expenses system or anything like that, but you can still sling all the charges of nepotism at him, considering he got his son a job with John McDonnell! I would genuinely be interested to know who you think 'the establishment' includes and how it's defined, because otherwise it's just anyone that has any power. Considering I want the Labour Party to wield political power (rather than only oppose and protest), if Corbyn's not the establishment now, surely he should be sooner or later?

5. I didn't mean to say anything should have stopped you supporting Corbyn so far, just to find out what your own 'red lines' are. I appreciate your response. Like I say though, I don't understand your definition of when someone becomes 'elite'?

 

[Jockney]

To where though? If these guys believe in a socialist Britain surely their best (albeit at this stage very faint) hope is to try to ride out the storm within the Labour Party?

I don't think they'll have any problem riding out the storm. If Corbyn wants to be leader in 2020, he will still be leader in 2020. Historically the parliamentary terrain has been inhospitable to new political parties, but I think it is looking increasingly obvious that Corbyn lacks the political clout to threaten the hegemony of the party apparatus and, unfortunately, doing that successfully is absolutely essential to re-shaping the ideology of the party. He has an enormous base: a great deal of new Labour members are passionate about his ideas and are ultimately loyal to him (which, I think, is symptomatic of how hopeless the democratic project in this country has become, but that's for another discussion).

If in 2020 he loses in similar terms to Milliband I wonder how the party is supposed to mobilise support for socialist politics at the grassroots level after a project as large and successful as Momentum failed to yield long-term electoral success (that is absurd, obviously, but that will be the perception). A greal deal of that momentum (small 'm') will vanish in 2020, but if he were to leave now and forge alliances to set up a new left-wing project that project would have four years to canvas and strategise and pose a genuine alternative to the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP, and with an emphasis on the labour movement to distinguish itself wholly from the bourgeois insularity of the Greens. They wouldn't win, obviously, but it would be a purer ideological project and a genuine anti-establishment alternative that could change the political landscape in this country, especially if/when Scotland go independent.

He can't do any of that now, of course. He would be seen to be betraying those who voted for him and the many thousands more who have recently signed up to show their solidarity. If he loses to Smith (he won't) it's a real opportunity, though. People will be angry. Labour will have fucked themselves. An exciting opportunity for a new brand of 'radical' left-wing politics could present itself.

 

[JJ1532]

http://news.sky.com/story/virgin-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-corbyns-packed-train-claim-10548675

Tut tut. Naughty Jeremy.

 

[TheMinsterman]

http://news.sky.com/story/virgin-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-corbyns-packed-train-claim-10548675

Tut tut. Naughty Jeremy.

That MONSTER.

 

[.V.]

http://news.sky.com/story/virgin-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-corbyns-packed-train-claim-10548675

Tut tut. Naughty Jeremy.

A new kind of politics?