Labour party civil war

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, IrememberBobHazell said:

I think there would be a fair few within the Labour party who look at the way the Tories do their elections and wonder if they have a better system. By this I mean the MP's whittle it down to 2 (thereby weeding out any candidates who cannot be worked with) and then present it to the membership. Well, if it isn't sorted out by then.

 The trouble is the totally open nature of the competition and then the ones who are effectively given a vote from the bottom of a cornflake packet. I know true blue Tory members who joined up to get Mr Corbyn the job last year. I wouldn't do that, I can't recall a more sinister force in British politics.

 

I'm sure you're right about the Tory system being better. It's not infallible as I suppose you could get 2 final candidates who had the support of 95% and 5% of the MPs, respectively, and the membership could then support the 5% candidate. 

Still less flawed than the current Labour system, though.

 

The previous Labour leadership voting system wasn't bad: after getting a minimum number of nominations, the voting was weighted 1/3 for the membership, 1/3 for the MPs and 1/3 for union members who paid the political levy. Some might say that 1/3 for union affiliates is too high, but you could always adjust that: say, 40%-40%-20%. That way, any successful candidate would need substantial support among both MPs and party members.

 

To be fair, some elements of this fiasco are only evident with hindsight. Who would have predicted that Corbyn could attract so many new members (though if the one-year minimum membership rule had still applied, they wouldn't have been able to vote for a year)? Certainly not the centrist MPs who got him over the nominations threshold... And who would have predicted that a leader could have 3/4 of his shadow cabinet resign, could lose a vote of confidence by 80%-20% and still carry on as leader?

[Guest]

Why do you feel that the small number of MPs should have as big a say as the large number of members?

 

That doesn't seem very democratic.

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure you're right about the Tory system being better. It's not infallible as I suppose you could get 2 final candidates who had the support of 95% and 5% of the MPs, respectively, and the membership could then support the 5% candidate. 

Still less flawed than the current Labour system, though.

 

The previous Labour leadership voting system wasn't bad: after getting a minimum number of nominations, the voting was weighted 1/3 for the membership, 1/3 for the MPs and 1/3 for union members who paid the political levy. Some might say that 1/3 for union affiliates is too high, but you could always adjust that: say, 40%-40%-20%. That way, any successful candidate would need substantial support among both MPs and party members.

 

To be fair, some elements of this fiasco are only evident with hindsight. Who would have predicted that Corbyn could attract so many new members (though if the one-year minimum membership rule had still applied, they wouldn't have been able to vote for a year)? Certainly not the centrist MPs who got him over the nominations threshold... And who would have predicted that a leader could have 3/4 of his shadow cabinet resign, could lose a vote of confidence by 80%-20% and still carry on as leader?

The speed of it has been impressive but plenty of people accurately predicted what an absolutely omnishambles this would be, you can't have a leader who simply isn't very bright, isn't in touch with middle England and is quite simply, a political extremist and ask him to run a potential party of government. It was never going to go well.

 

Alarm bells should have started ringing as soon as hundreds if not thousands of right leaning voters started all parting with their hard earned money to vote for him.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Why do you feel that the small number of MPs should have as big a say as the large number of members?

 

That doesn't seem very democratic.

 

Because we have a parliamentary democracy - representation of the entire electorate in parliament. The party leader isn't just a delegate of party members.

 

The role of the leader is to effectively promote the broad aims of the party to the whole electorate, so as to win power - and then to effectively implement those broad aims as policy in parliament, insofar as possible.

 

Full-time MPs working under the party leader are better able to judge a leader's effectiveness in parliament and in policy development than party members. They also have more contact with a wide range of the electorate, so will have a better understanding of voters' concerns and attitudes to policies. It makes sense for party members to have input into broad policy and leadership selection, but for MPs to do a lot of the policy detail and also have input into leadership selection.

 

It's not very democratic that the LCFC board appoints the LCFC manager or that the manager appoints the captain (maybe after considering the views of senior players). It would be much more democratic if we had a FoxesTalk poll to decide such things.

If we'd done that 10 years ago, we'd have never had Pearson or Ranieri. We'd have appointed Steve Walsh (the player, not the coach) as manager, Iain Hume as captain and we'd be playing in League 2!

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Why do you feel that the small number of MPs should have as big a say as the large number of members?

 

That doesn't seem very democratic.

Do we get to elect the members then?

 

What Alf said.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The speed of it has been impressive but plenty of people accurately predicted what an absolutely omnishambles this would be, you can't have a leader who simply isn't very bright, isn't in touch with middle England and is quite simply, a political extremist and ask him to run a potential party of government. It was never going to go well.

 

Alarm bells should have started ringing as soon as hundreds if not thousands of right leaning voters started all parting with their hard earned money to vote for him.

 

 

I've never seen any figures, but suspect that the effect of right-wingers on the 2015 leadership election was minimal. Corbyn won among full members, too, so unless lots of Tories took out full membership, most of the new members/supporters were not right-wingers. Still a stupid risk to run, though - and one that would have been avoided if there had been no £3 memberships and a 1-year qualifying period before members could vote in such elections.

 

Re. Corbyn: Part of the problem was that the other candidates were so poor or unsuitable last time - either too centrist or too uninspiring or both. It was obvious in advance that some of his policies would be unpopular with many MPs and with the public. What was less obvious was that he and his team would make such a poor job of promoting those policies to the electorate, or that he'd launch a personality cult attracting hundreds of thousands of social media freaks - or that he'd insist on staying in post after most of his colleagues had left his shadow cabinet and 80% of his MPs had passed a no-confidence vote.

 

It was also not known that we'd be leaving the EU or might face the prospect of an early general election.

 

I imagined that it would be a shambles at times, but that some decent political ideas would also be presented to the public and the debate opened up. Not so! I also imagined that he wouldn't survive until the 2020 election, but would go voluntarily after a couple of years, after a few failures but a few successes, handing over to a more competent, electorally appealing leader with a centre-left policy platform (not Corbynism, but not Blairism).  

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Watching more of Owen Smith the more I like him. Don't really care about the Pfizer thing people have got to work for someone but cannot help wondering who is propping him up in the background and whether he is a stopgap for a Dan Jarvis/Chuka Umunna later down the line.

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

Why do you feel that the small number of MPs should have as big a say as the large number of members?

 

That doesn't seem very democratic.

Are you suggesting you're a disciple of democracy?   

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

4 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Watching more of Owen Smith the more I like him. Don't really care about the Pfizer thing people have got to work for someone but cannot help wondering who is propping him up in the background and whether he is a stopgap for a Dan Jarvis/Chuka Umunna later down the line.

Watch a more bit more then. A slimy snake oil salesman and a charlatan. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Because we have a parliamentary democracy - representation of the entire electorate in parliament. The party leader isn't just a delegate of party members.

 

The role of the leader is to effectively promote the broad aims of the party to the whole electorate, so as to win power - and then to effectively implement those broad aims as policy in parliament, insofar as possible.

 

Full-time MPs working under the party leader are better able to judge a leader's effectiveness in parliament and in policy development than party members. They also have more contact with a wide range of the electorate, so will have a better understanding of voters' concerns and attitudes to policies. It makes sense for party members to have input into broad policy and leadership selection, but for MPs to do a lot of the policy detail and also have input into leadership selection.

 

It's not very democratic that the LCFC board appoints the LCFC manager or that the manager appoints the captain (maybe after considering the views of senior players). It would be much more democratic if we had a FoxesTalk poll to decide such things.

If we'd done that 10 years ago, we'd have never had Pearson or Ranieri. We'd have appointed Steve Walsh (the player, not the coach) as manager, Iain Hume as captain and we'd be playing in League 2!

I can understand the argument for MPs deciding who should be their parliament leader, but as has been said elsewhere MPs supposedly represent everyone in their constituency and therefore not the Labour Members. So in essence they get chosen by labour members and then if elected - by labour supporters  - turn their backs on them (for the greater good of the country?). I think that's the argument for banning parties and just having independant mps standing. If you want to go the way you're suggesting then why bother giving members any say at all in the choice of leader?

 

 

15 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Do we get to elect the members then?

 

What Alf said.

What?

 

The members ARE the labour party - not the Mps, not the general public. Why would you get the chance to elect anyone in the labour party when you're a tory?

 

Either I don't understand what you mean here or that's a really dumb comment.

 

 

13 hours ago, Thracian said:

Are you suggesting you're a disciple of democracy?   

Again I don't understandyour statement at all. I've never even intimated such. As I've said before our Democracy is a tremendous failure of a system which isn't really democracy at all, it just happens to be better than some of systems we've tried. Dictatorships can be much better if you have the right dictator.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

The members ARE the labour party - not the Mps, not the general public. Why would you get the chance to elect anyone in the labour party when you're a tory?

 

Either I don't understand what you mean here or that's a really dumb comment.

The Parliamentary labour party has a responsibility to those who voted for it, not just to those who join the party.  The idea that millions vote for a Labour MP who is then part of the official opposition which is then rendered completely useless due to a small member group electing an idiot to be in charge is beyond stupid.  The quicker they change the system the better. 

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

What?

 

The members ARE the labour party - not the Mps, not the general public. Why would you get the chance to elect anyone in the labour party when you're a tory?

You shouldn't, which is way is it so strange for £25 that you can.

 

(And why is what even stranger last year you could for £3)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The Parliamentary labour party has a responsibility to those who voted for it, not just to those who join the party.  The idea that millions vote for a Labour MP who is then part of the official opposition which is then rendered completely useless due to a small member group electing an idiot to be in charge is beyond stupid.  The quicker they change the system the better. 

I agree.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

You shouldn't, which is way is it so strange for £25 that you can.

 

(And why is what even stranger last year you could for £3)

Again I agree but I meant why would you if you believe in democracy, the British system and you're a tory.

 

As you've said many times a strong opposition is important in our form of government so why be an idiot and vote against that when you don't even believe in the man you're voting for.

[Guest MattP]

Tories now have a 16 point lead in latest ICM poll.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/opinion-polls/news/77679/conservatives-take-16-point-poll-lead-labour-slumps-lowest

 

Quote

 

The ICM survey puts the Tories on 43% - four points up on a fortnight ago - and Labour down 2 points to 27%.

Ukip are in third place on on 13%, with the Liberal Democrats behind them on 8%, and the SNP and Greens both on 4%.

The Conservative and Labour numbers are respectively the highest and lowest recorded in an ICM poll since October 2009.

“Clearly, the relative calm associated with the handover of power from David Cameron to Theresa May, allied to the current Labour leadership challenge weighs heavily on electors’ minds,” said ICM’s Martin Boon.

Although Labour leads among 18 to 34-year-olds, the Conservatives hold a big advantage among over-35s, and are a staggering 35 points ahead of Labour with pensioners.

The Tories lead in Wales, the North, the Midlands and the south of England, with the SNP top in Scotland.

The figures will add to the pressure on Jeremy Corbyn, who is being challenged for the leadership by Owen Smith after a revolt by his own party.

 

 

Now I'm heading towards thinking May must surely be thinking about an early election, she'd be on course for a 120 seat majority.

[IrememberBobHazell]

I've seen it all. A discussion on politics where one contributor stating dictatorships can be good if you get the right one! Good grief, is that what we have come to?

 Our system of democracy and brought something totally underrated- stability. No, it isn't sexy but don't you think Turkey wouldn't want a bit of that right now?

 Moving on the fixed term parliament act means 66% of MP's would need to approve and the Mrs May doesn't have that many. Labour wouldn't go for it for the foreseeable, especially if Mr Corbyn wins again and I am not sure the SNP would either. I mean, they have about as many MP's as they are ever likely to get and their whole tactic seems to be go for independence and blame everything on the Tories. You can't moan about the Tories if they are not in government.

[Alf Bentley]

17 hours ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Watch a more bit more then. A slimy snake oil salesman and a charlatan. 

 

 

You clearly have a strong disliking for the bloke. What specifically has he done to make you so hostile?

 

That's a genuine question. I knew almost nothing about him before, so am curious. 

 

I saw him interviewed on Newsnight last night and thought he came across very well. An ambitious professional politician, yes, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

 

In the current climate, he's likely to lose, but seemed to be positioning himself in the only place that will give him a slight chance of winning and unifying most of the party as an effective opposition and credible government: more radical than New Labour, but more electable than Corbyn, and prepared to address difficult issues like immigration. He spoke well, too - with a bit of dynamism and urgency, not avoiding questions like so many politicians do and with an apparent yearning to get into power to change a few things - unlike Corbyn, who seems happy to just proclaim a list of pure beliefs and get them approved as Labour policy even if none of them are ever implemented.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, IrememberBobHazell said:

 Moving on the fixed term parliament act means 66% of MP's would need to approve and the Mrs May doesn't have that many. Labour wouldn't go for it for the foreseeable, especially if Mr Corbyn wins again and I am not sure the SNP would either. I mean, they have about as many MP's as they are ever likely to get and their whole tactic seems to be go for independence and blame everything on the Tories. You can't moan about the Tories if they are not in government.

 

You may well be right about May being unable to get enough votes to dissolve parliament for an early election. I wonder, though....

 

If the Tories presented a motion calling for an early election, could Labour really vote against or abstain without looking weak and ridiculous? What reason could they credibly give for effectively keeping the Tories in power at such a crucial time? Plus, if the leadership did take that stance (under Corbyn, presumably), would backbenchers necessarily abide by that? Some might even see it as a good way of getting rid of Corbyn quickly before his crew completely take over the party with mandatory reselection of MPs: i.e. sustain a defeat that would cause the membership to get rid of Corbyn?

 

Also, one for any constitutional experts on here: if Labour insist on opposing a motion for an early election, is there anything to stop the Tories staging a vote of no confidence in the government and whipping their own MPs to vote against? As I understand it, a simple majority on a confidence vote would also trigger an early election....and the Tories have the votes for that (and would presumably have the support of their MPs, provided they were convinced that it wasn't a ruse to avoid Brexit and that it would give them a bigger majority and May a personal mandate for 5 years).

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You clearly have a strong disliking for the bloke. What specifically has he done to make you so hostile?

 

That's a genuine question. I knew almost nothing about him before, so am curious. 

 

I saw him interviewed on Newsnight last night and thought he came across very well. An ambitious professional politician, yes, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

 

In the current climate, he's likely to lose, but seemed to be positioning himself in the only place that will give him a slight chance of winning and unifying most of the party as an effective opposition and credible government: more radical than New Labour, but more electable than Corbyn, and prepared to address difficult issues like immigration. He spoke well, too - with a bit of dynamism and urgency, not avoiding questions like so many politicians do and with an apparent yearning to get into power to change a few things - unlike Corbyn, who seems happy to just proclaim a list of pure beliefs and get them approved as Labour policy even if none of them are ever implemented.

Therein lies my or rather his problem. He ditches principles as suits his purpose. He is not left of New Labour whatsoever. Look at his jobs and political record which will tell you that. But in pursuit of his personal ambition he is prepared to put that stance and idea forward. Moreover, he is hugely egotistical. I have hsd the misfortune to see him in action

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Therein lies my or rather his problem. He ditches principles as suits his purpose. He is not left of New Labour whatsoever. Look at his jobs and political record which will tell you that. But in pursuit of his personal ambition he is prepared to put that stance and idea forward. Moreover, he is hugely egotistical. I have hsd the misfortune to see him in action

 

Re. his jobs/political record, all I've seen is that he used to be a lobbyist for Pfizer and that 10 years ago he said that he had no objection to a PFI scheme or to the private sector providing some services to the NHS, if they couldn't be provided publicly and provided that the NHS remained a public service. I don't see the Pfizer job as important, so long as he's not promoting their interests now (indeed it could give him valuable insight into big pharma & the private sector). PFI has been a massive waste of money, but is a political dilemma - because the alternatives are (a) to invest less in infrastructure; or (b) to raise certain taxes to fund such investment....I'd favour the latter, but can understand why someone might want to compromise on that.

 

Has he done anything worse than that?

 

As for being egotistical, that applies to a lot of top politicians (and many other high-flyers, including footballers). Robin Cook was one of the few politicians I've admired, but I've met people who knew him who told me that he was a vain egotist, too. Frankly, I wouldn't care about that, if the politician in question was capable of achieving some of the things that I want achieved. I mean, I've no idea whether Vardy or Mahrez are egotists...if they are, I'm not terribly bothered, provided they perform. 

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Re. his jobs/political record, all I've seen is that he used to be a lobbyist for Pfizer and that 10 years ago he said that he had no objection to a PFI scheme or to the private sector providing some services to the NHS, if they couldn't be provided publicly and provided that the NHS remained a public service. I don't see the Pfizer job as important, so long as he's not promoting their interests now (indeed it could give him valuable insight into big pharma & the private sector). PFI has been a massive waste of money, but is a political dilemma - because the alternatives are (a) to invest less in infrastructure; or (b) to raise certain taxes to fund such investment....I'd favour the latter, but can understand why someone might want to compromise on that.

 

Has he done anything worse than that?

 

As for being egotistical, that applies to a lot of top politicians (and many other high-flyers, including footballers). Robin Cook was one of the few politicians I've admired, but I've met people who knew him who told me that he was a vain egotist, too. Frankly, I wouldn't care about that, if the politician in question was capable of achieving some of the things that I want achieved. I mean, I've no idea whether Vardy or Mahrez are egotists...if they are, I'm not terribly bothered, provided they perform. 

Your choice at the end of the day perhaps not mine to make. If I was a Labour member I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.

 

This is fairly accurate: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/entirely-fake-owen-smith/

 

Then today this...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-owen-smith-refuses-dismiss-too-many-immigrants-questions-corbyns-a7156096.html

 

He said it about the Valleys in South Wales too. Not true. 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Your choice at the end of the day not mine. If I was a Labour member I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.

 

He should get plenty of scrutiny over the next few weeks, so we'll see... 

 

He'd have to be very bad indeed to be a worse option than the weirdly trivial yet sinister Corbyn cult, though

[Guest MattP]

19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I saw him interviewed on Newsnight last night and thought he came across very well. An ambitious professional politician, yes, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

 

In the current climate, he's likely to lose, but seemed to be positioning himself in the only place that will give him a slight chance of winning and unifying most of the party as an effective opposition and credible government: more radical than New Labour, but more electable than Corbyn, and prepared to address difficult issues like immigration. He spoke well, too - with a bit of dynamism and urgency, not avoiding questions like so many politicians do and with an apparent yearning to get into power to change a few things - unlike Corbyn, who seems happy to just proclaim a list of pure beliefs and get them approved as Labour policy even if none of them are ever implemented.

I'm amazed at the reaction to his Newsnight interview, he's been roundly criticised and I thought he was very good, put across a socialist case but in a more realistic way, was eloquent and concise in his answers, I also don't get the feeling Smith is going to be caught sat next to a Holocaust denier or crowing about a corrupt socilist government in South America, he also has a huge advantage of not being tainted by the Iraq War. He's quite clearly the better candidate in every way, shape and form so I fully expect the Labour membership to reject him.

 

If the worst people have on him is that he worked for a company who tried to make a profit whilst trying to produce drugs that made ill people better then I don't think he has anything to worry about, anyone who seriously thinks Britain can go forward without having private companies developing medicine is devoid of any reality anyway and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Guest MattP]

Just doing quick mathematics (taking the 260,000 odd who elected him) it's looks like for every member Corbyn has gained the Labour party he is managing to lose about ten voters, for his sake these Corbynistas better be good on the doorsteps.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millions-labour-voters-would-theresa-8500523

 

Quote

 

More than 2.5 million Labour voters would prefer Theresa May as Prime Minister than Jeremy Corbyn , a devastating poll has revealed.

A survey of people who voted Labour in 2015 showed the Tories with a 12 point lead over Labour.

Some 40% of voters said they would vote Conservative , and just 28% backed Labour, according to the YouGov poll for the Times.

When asked to choose between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn as Prime Minister, 29% of Labour voters opted for the Tory leader.

 

 

The Jeremy4PM Facebook page is a tremendous read, The Mirror (despite this poll being conducted by Yougov) is now the "Tory Press".

[Guest MattP]

I don't know if anybody bothered to watch Owen Smith's speech this morning they should do, he put forward more policy in fifteen minutes than Corbyn has in nearly a year, anyone who says the latter hasn't had the time can't really be taken seriously after this if Smith can knock it up in a few weeks.

 

He says he would introduce a wealth tax on the richest 1% in society to fund the NHS and tackle inequality in Britain.

 

Mr Smith - who is challenging leader Jeremy Corbyn - said the "equality-busting" move would raise £3bn a year.

He also vowed to reinstate the 50p tax rate, strengthen workers' rights and end the public sector pay freeze, as he promised a workplace "revolution"

 

He also proposed:

• Reintroducing Wages Councils, abolished by former Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher, across different sectors of industry - to boost pay above the minimum wage in sectors such as retail and care
• Minimum guaranteed working hours and the abolition of zero hours contracts
• Scrapping trade union reforms that curb the ability of unions to call strikes
• To abolish the Department for Work and Pensions, replacing it with a Ministry of Labour and a Department for Social Security
• Build 1.5 million homes over five years
• Reverse cuts to capital gains tax and inheritance tax
• No more cuts to corporation tax
• Same rights for agency workers as full time workers
• Workers to be placed on company remuneration committees
• £200bn to be pumped into modernising Britain's schools, hospitals, railways and road network, funded by increased borrowing