Labour party civil war

[Alf Bentley]

the perception in this country is that we have real democracy, yet labour mp's are doing all they can to oust Jeremy corbyn even though he was legally made the leader by a majority of the party members. does the labour party want its leader chosen by mps on which we will most likely get a blairite who will speak and act like any suit with their own agenda or does it want to elect a leader chosen by it's life long members on which we will get someone like corbyn who has deep seated values and beliefs

 

 

LCFC equivalent of such "real democracy": LCFC fans democratically elect Steve Walsh (the player, not the coach) as LCFC Manager. Facebook is filled with memes stressing what a decent man Walshy is and how all alternative managers are long-ball hoofers. No mention is made of Walshy's team tactics or club strategy as these don't seem to matter. Thousands more fans sign up - fans of Walshy, not the club. The players and coaching team try to make a go of it, but eventually lose all confidence in Walshy and try to get him replaced. The fans cite democracy and insist that their opinions are more valid than those of the players/coaches and that Walshy must remain manager. See anything wrong with that? 

 

There is room for debate over voting systems, but it is essential that some note is taken of the opinions of those who spend every day working with a party leader, seeking to achieve the party's aims, and who are regularly exposed to the views/concerns of ALL their constituents, not just party supporters. Until a couple of years ago, Labour's leadership voting system was to give 33% of the votes to grassroots party members, 33% to MPs/MEPs and 33% to Labour-supporting union members. The Tories have votes among their MPs and then present their members with the 2 choices most popular among MPs (or would have done if Leadsom hadn't withdrawn at the last minute).

 

I have 1 or 2 Corbynistas as Facebook friends. I tackled one recently (an intelligent, mature bloke), pointing out that I'd analysed the last 25 Corbynista memes he'd sent me: about 60% were highlighting what a "decent man" Corbyn is; about 30% were political attacks on party opponents like Eagle & Kinnock; a couple were jokes; absolutely NONE WHATSOEVER mentioned ANY policy! 

 

In view of that, could you answer 2 questions, Foxy:

- Which key Corbyn policies do you think the Labour Party should be promoting at the moment?

- How can Labour win the support of those inclined to vote for the Tories, UKIP or other parties, and keep the support of Labour voters who voted Brexit?

Meaningful politics requires you to gain power and influence. Otherwise, it's just a vanity project. It's just a load of people joining a club to agree with one another and to boost their egos by thinking what caring, right-thinking people they are....while people with other ideas win support, win power - and massively affect the lives of everyone in the country, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

 

In saying that, I should stress 2 things: (1) there is an important place from grassroots political activism & Corbyn has tapped into this - but it needs to be outward-looking, seeking to influence non-Corbynistas and political decisions, NOT a narrow, inward-looking, self-congratulatory faction intolerant of alternative ideas, or a policy-free personality cult; (2) Corbyn DOES actually have some good policies....it's just that you never hear about them, because he's so utterly crap at promoting the party's ideas (except preaching to the converted) and his supporters never seem to promote his policies, preferring to promote the leader's personal decency and their own imagined moral superiority. I actually suspect that most Corbynistas don't have a clue about politics, preferring moral absolutes. Corbyn's policies (some good ideas under "Taxation & Economy", particularly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn

 

A side issue: please don't refer to any Labour MP/member who opposes Corbyn as a "Blairite" (unless you'd be happy for all Corbyn supporters to be described as "Trotskyists" or something). The MPs AREN'T all Blairites. I want Corbyn gone and I'm absolutely NOT a Blairite, indeed I left the Labour Party as I was unhappy about some elements of Blairism (others were fine). Using such blanket condemnations is a sectarian, divisive bunker mentality - and ANTI-democratic.

[Guest MattP]

This is the best PMQS ever, the line about Corbyn reminding Call me Dave of the Black Knight in Monty Python had me in tears.

[Alf Bentley]

At least Corbyn speaks out against things he think are wrong. Take for instance Glenfield Child unit. A lot of people are up in arms about the prospect of it closing. Corby is one of the few MP's who would listen and do something about it. 

 

 

"Speaking out" about something is close to futile. You or I could "speak out" about Glenfield and have almost as much influence as Corbyn - because we, like him, have almost no power to influence the situation.

 

In 2003, I was one of the 1m-2m people on the big Iraq War protest. No notice was taken because those in power chose to ignore us. Parliamentary / governmental power isn't everything, but it still matters big-time.

 

What is Corbyn going to DO about Glenfield, apart from "speak out"? Nothing, because he has no power to do anything - and is never likely to have the power to do so.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Owen Smith's played a blinder in his Radio 4 interview, taking down both candidates with gentle barbs and successfully planting himself between the two candidates - that could work.

And @@Alf Bentley - although I agree with much you say, I'm struck that being in opposition, especially early on, is not about presenting policy, it's about tackling government policy.

You look at history and all opposition leaders have been accused of having no policies - and there's logic to that - there's no point in setting firm positions when you won't have the power to implement and things might change when it comes to actually running them (or worse still, you provide something so good it gets used by the government without your party getting any credit).

But this brings me back to why I think Owen Smith's pitch was clever - he's acknowledging that Corbyn might be onto something in terms of direction but that he's not the right man to bring it forward and he is - which is the sort of thing that could work in the forecoming contest.

[Alf Bentley]

And @@Alf Bentley - although I agree with much you say, I'm struck that being in opposition, especially early on, is not about presenting policy, it's about tackling government policy.

You look at history and all opposition leaders have been accused of having no policies - and there's logic to that - there's no point in setting firm positions when you won't have the power to implement and things might change when it comes to actually running them (or worse still, you provide something so good it gets used by the government without your party getting any credit).

 

 

 

I take your point to an extent. An opposition cannot set out a detailed manifesto when an election might be years away. 

 

But it shouldn't limit itself to opposing government measures, either. It needs to start giving people the impression that it is a credible alternative government with some specific aims, principles and strategies of its own.

As you say, there can be dangers in presenting any detailed policies - though, selectively done, this can gain you credibility among voters, even if an idea is outdated by election time or is nicked by the incumbent government.

 

Also, we don't know how "early on" this is. It is at least conceivable that Theresa May will want an early election within a couple of years, or even within a couple of months. I agree that it is too early to be presenting a detailed and comprehensive manifesto of budgeted policies, but it's certainly not too early to be giving the public the idea that Labour is a viable alternative government with some distinctive, appealing policies, even if they're mainly broadly drawn. 

 

That might seem like dreamland at the moment, but Corbyn (or McDonnell, probably) does have some decent ideas on economic policy - ideas that could have appeal if times are tough: people's quantitative easing, national investment bank, serious effort on tax avoidance, building council housing to cut housing benefit etc.

[Guest MattP]

LCFC equivalent of such "real democracy": LCFC fans democratically elect Steve Walsh (the player, not the coach) as LCFC Manager. Facebook is filled with memes stressing what a decent man Walshy is and how all alternative managers are long-ball hoofers. No mention is made of Walshy's team tactics or club strategy as these don't seem to matter. Thousands more fans sign up - fans of Walshy, not the club. The players and coaching team try to make a go of it, but eventually lose all confidence in Walshy and try to get him replaced. The fans cite democracy and insist that their opinions are more valid than those of the players/coaches and that Walshy must remain manager. See anything wrong with that? 

 

There is room for debate over voting systems, but it is essential that some note is taken of the opinions of those who spend every day working with a party leader, seeking to achieve the party's aims, and who are regularly exposed to the views/concerns of ALL their constituents, not just party supporters. Until a couple of years ago, Labour's leadership voting system was to give 33% of the votes to grassroots party members, 33% to MPs/MEPs and 33% to Labour-supporting union members. The Tories have votes among their MPs and then present their members with the 2 choices most popular among MPs (or would have done if Leadsom hadn't withdrawn at the last minute).

 

I have 1 or 2 Corbynistas as Facebook friends. I tackled one recently (an intelligent, mature bloke), pointing out that I'd analysed the last 25 Corbynista memes he'd sent me: about 60% were highlighting what a "decent man" Corbyn is; about 30% were political attacks on party opponents like Eagle & Kinnock; a couple were jokes; absolutely NONE WHATSOEVER mentioned ANY policy! 

 

In view of that, could you answer 2 questions, Foxy:

- Which key Corbyn policies do you think the Labour Party should be promoting at the moment?

- How can Labour win the support of those inclined to vote for the Tories, UKIP or other parties, and keep the support of Labour voters who voted Brexit?

Meaningful politics requires you to gain power and influence. Otherwise, it's just a vanity project. It's just a load of people joining a club to agree with one another and to boost their egos by thinking what caring, right-thinking people they are....while people with other ideas win support, win power - and massively affect the lives of everyone in the country, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

 

In saying that, I should stress 2 things: (1) there is an important place from grassroots political activism & Corbyn has tapped into this - but it needs to be outward-looking, seeking to influence non-Corbynistas and political decisions, NOT a narrow, inward-looking, self-congratulatory faction intolerant of alternative ideas, or a policy-free personality cult; (2) Corbyn DOES actually have some good policies....it's just that you never hear about them, because he's so utterly crap at promoting the party's ideas (except preaching to the converted) and his supporters never seem to promote his policies, preferring to promote the leader's personal decency and their own imagined moral superiority. I actually suspect that most Corbynistas don't have a clue about politics, preferring moral absolutes. Corbyn's policies (some good ideas under "Taxation & Economy", particularly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn

 

A side issue: please don't refer to any Labour MP/member who opposes Corbyn as a "Blairite" (unless you'd be happy for all Corbyn supporters to be described as "Trotskyists" or something). The MPs AREN'T all Blairites. I want Corbyn gone and I'm absolutely NOT a Blairite, indeed I left the Labour Party as I was unhappy about some elements of Blairism (others were fine). Using such blanket condemnations is a sectarian, divisive bunker mentality - and ANTI-democratic.

 

Brlliant post, it's a shame you can't put that to every Corbynista in the party and force them into a response on policy, it would show it up for the cult it is rather than serious political movement.

 

As an aside, Isn't it strange how the two most successful leaders of our lifetimes lend their names to the two biggest political insults people use? Thatcherite and Blairite, is this the nation's subconscious way of saying they made it?

[Guest MattP]

Owen Smith's played a blinder in his Radio 4 interview, taking down both candidates with gentle barbs and successfully planting himself between the two candidates - that could work.

And @@Alf Bentley - although I agree with much you say, I'm struck that being in opposition, especially early on, is not about presenting policy, it's about tackling government policy.

You look at history and all opposition leaders have been accused of having no policies - and there's logic to that - there's no point in setting firm positions when you won't have the power to implement and things might change when it comes to actually running them (or worse still, you provide something so good it gets used by the government without your party getting any credit).

But this brings me back to why I think Owen Smith's pitch was clever - he's acknowledging that Corbyn might be onto something in terms of direction but that he's not the right man to bring it forward and he is - which is the sort of thing that could work in the forecoming contest.

 

Owen Smith is now evens to be next Prime Minister, Eagle out to 7/1 - that suggests to me he's got her beating already inside the party.

 

As for policy, of course you can't produce a manifesto, but a year into a leadership you should be starting to form the basis of what your potential government is going to be about, all I've heard so far is the usual political cliches about NHS privitisation, social care, class war, bankers etc which no concrete ideas or policy, that might be good enough for staunch labour voters to turn out but it's not going to get anywhere with the rest of the population.

 

The prime example of this is coming up on Monday when we have a vote on Trident renewal.

 

Labour were told by Cameron that was going to happen this summer last November, we all wanted to know what the Labour position was going to be, we were told they couldn't say as they were going to have an debate and an investigation, we are now five days away from it and we find out that the debate hasn't even started, so yet again on another huge vote the opposition doesn't even have a position on an issue of grave importance, which seems to now be becoming the the norm for every single policy or position we need to discuss. It's not an opposition, it's a protest movement and it's time now something happened, Bercow could even designate the SNP as the official opposition soon if it carries on.

[purpleronnie]

Members who signed up after February not allowed to vote, sneaky.

Ah democracy.

[Strokes]

Owen Smith is now evens to be next Prime Minister, Eagle out to 7/1 - that suggests to me he's got her beating already inside the party.

I thought May was a sure thing

[Guest MattP]

I thought May was a sure thing

 

Next Labour leader!! Sorry

[DJ Barry Hammond]

@@MattP @@Alf Bentley

Surely the difficulty Corbyn has had with setting out policy is more to do with the selection of MP's which won't allow him to do that? Trident is an obvious example - whether you agree with his stance or not, it would be only healthy to have a strong counter argument against renewal from an opposition would it not - yet his own MP's won't back him in setting out a case, which makes it difficult to do just that.

Must admit, I fear I'm sounding like a converted Corbynite at this rate, but it's not that at all - I'm just annoyed that so many from within the party haven't really given the guy a chance to set out his platform, his tenior has always been overshadowed by dissenting background chatter to whatever he does. We don't really know how effective he could have been, given he's never been given the space and respect he deserved from his victory to perform.

Note I've used the past tense - because I reckon he's done for as leader, but if the Labour MP's who have been most vocal in their protests think that making a change in this way makes them more electable, they're badly mistaken.

Another thought on the pro's of Owen Smith however - as a Welshman, he should be able to appeal to the Welsh vote and that is key for Labour's ability to survive. The scary thing for Labour MP's however is they probably need to appoint a leader that would be in place for two terms, to win in 2025, because 2020 looks impossible.

[Alf Bentley]

As an aside, Isn't it strange how the two most successful leaders of our lifetimes lend their names to the two biggest political insults people use? Thatcherite and Blairite, is this the nation's subconscious way of saying they made it?

 

 

True. For better or worse, they both had a sustained influence for opponents to kick against. You don't hear of many Douglas-Humeites, Callaghanites or Majorites - and Brownite only exists as an intra-party rivalry with Blairite.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

Owen Smith's played a blinder in his Radio 4 interview, taking down both candidates with gentle barbs and successfully planting himself between the two candidates - that could work.

And @@Alf Bentley - although I agree with much you say, I'm struck that being in opposition, especially early on, is not about presenting policy, it's about tackling government policy.

You look at history and all opposition leaders have been accused of having no policies - and there's logic to that - there's no point in setting firm positions when you won't have the power to implement and things might change when it comes to actually running them (or worse still, you provide something so good it gets used by the government without your party getting any credit).

But this brings me back to why I think Owen Smith's pitch was clever - he's acknowledging that Corbyn might be onto something in terms of direction but that he's not the right man to bring it forward and he is - which is the sort of thing that could work in the forecoming contest.

He's a fvcking buffoon. Read on.

http://news.crocels.com/news/8412/owen-smith-labour-nhs-private-sector-involvement/

[DJ Barry Hammond]

He's a fvcking buffoon. Read on.

http://news.crocels.com/news/8412/owen-smith-labour-nhs-private-sector-involvement/

Hmmmm... sounds like he could bring in a fair amount of campaign money to the party!

[The Horse's Mouth]

This is the best PMQS ever, the line about Corbyn reminding Call me Dave of the Black Knight in Monty Python had me in tears.

Cameron is a massive bellend but he's certainly a big loss to the PMQs, I can't imagine May having as many cringeworthy quips on such a consistent basis. 

[ousefox]

Just caught the end of an interview on C4 news and a woman MP was nearly in tears talking to Kuensberg about the way she has been treated by labour members and the lack of support she's been given. She said even a few 'strong' party members were in tears at the NEC yesterday. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Guest]

And what excuse do all the "moderate" mps have for not putting someone forward.

 

Grow a pair.

[Guest MattP]

Oppo ldr ratings after 10 mths:

Foot - 32

Kinnock -7

Smith +1

Blair +29

Hague -16

IDS - 9

Howard -15

Cameron -1

Ed M -7

Corbyn -41

[Guest]

Oppo ldr ratings after 10 mths:

Foot - 32

Kinnock -7

Smith +1

Blair +29

Hague -16

IDS - 9

Howard -15

Cameron -1

Ed M -7

Corbyn -41

 

So Blair clear top, Foot at the bottom.

 

I know where I'd prefer to be and JC is there.

[leicsmac]

So Blair clear top, Foot at the bottom.

 

I know where I'd prefer to be and JC is there.

 

A man who stands on principle but can't get elected isn't really much use as he can't put those principles into effect.

 

That's something various right wing groups have understood for years, which along with being able to present a united front come ballot box time (mostly) is why they've won power more times than perhaps they should have.

 

JC might have the best ideas in the country, but if he can't communicate and convince the electorate as to the clarity and meaningfullness of his principles then he needs to either find a way to solve that - quickly - or step aside.

[Guest]

A man who stands on principle but can't get elected isn't really much use as he can't put those principles into effect.

 

That's something various right wing groups have understood for years, which along with being able to present a united front come ballot box time (mostly) is why they've won power more times than perhaps they should have.

 

JC might have the best ideas in the country, but if he can't communicate and convince the electorate as to the clarity and meaningfullness of his principles then he needs to either find a way to solve that - quickly - or step aside.

 

Being unprincipled and getting elected is the biggest failing in the British Eclectoral system.

[leicsmac]

Being unprincipled and getting elected is the biggest failing in the British Eclectoral system.

 

No disagreement there, but how do you solve that particular conundrum?

 

Politics is always about compromise of kinds. I disliked Thatcher because often she espoused the black-and-white, with-or-against-us BS that makes a mockery of our rich and varied universe, and I reserve the same contempt for politicians and their supporters from the other side of the fence who show similar lack of nuance.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Oppo ldr ratings after 10 mths:

Foot - 32

Kinnock -7

Smith +1

Blair +29

Hague -16

IDS - 9

Howard -15

Cameron -1

Ed M -7

Corbyn -41

Sorry for ignorance, whats are these figures based on? 

[Mark_w]

Being unprincipled and getting elected is the biggest failing in the British Eclectoral system.

 

The British electoral system is what it is and Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party will result in a massive Conservative majority and will, essentially, give them free rein to implement whatever they please. I'd prefer 400-odd Labour MPs, almost all of whom have principles and morals at least fairly in line with my own, led by a Tony Blair, than have 200 Labour MPs 'led' by Jeremy Corbyn watching on helplessly. Tony Blair may not have been a great Prime Minister, he clearly made some awful mistakes, but I'd like the Labour leader to be reading the Tony Blair guide to winning general elections as opposed to the Michael Foot version.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn can win a general election at this stage? Do you think he'll ever convince the British electorate that he's the right man to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? If so what gives you that confidence? If not, is it worth sticking with him and his principles and watching the Conservatives do what they want for five years while we shout and wave placards?

[Guest]

The British electoral system is what it is and Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party will result in a massive Conservative majority and will, essentially, give them free rein to implement whatever they please. I'd prefer 400-odd Labour MPs, almost all of whom have principles and morals at least fairly in line with my own, led by a Tony Blair, than have 200 Labour MPs 'led' by Jeremy Corbyn watching on helplessly. Tony Blair may not have been a great Prime Minister, he clearly made some awful mistakes, but I'd like the Labour leader to be reading the Tony Blair guide to winning general elections as opposed to the Michael Foot version.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn can win a general election at this stage? Do you think he'll ever convince the British electorate that he's the right man to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? If so what gives you that confidence? If not, is it worth sticking with him and his principles and watching the Conservatives do what they want for five years while we shout and wave placards?

 

I don't believe that Angela Eagle or Owen whatsisname can win a general election and the others don't seem to have the balls to try to become a leader of the party. Therefore I think that Corbyn may as well continue to be leader for the foreseeable future.

 

The Labour party need to find the people, the courage and the ideas that appeal to the electorate whilst remaining within a "socialist" framework. Until they do I don't mind them tormenting themselves and suffering.

 

It's time for a new party. 

 

edit: I don't think I prefer a blair copy over what May is promising now - and I never voted Conservative in my life.