Labour party civil war

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

Tom Watson and Maria Eagle are crap candidates. Lisa Nandy and Owen Smith ruled themselves out but they would have been much better. Best soft left candidate by far is Clive Lewis. Ethnic minority, grew up on an estate, former TA officer with tours, journalist with media savvy, articulate and well presented but he stayed loyal. Fully expect to be JC's successor in a few years.

[The Horse's Mouth]

I swear David Miliband is the Alan Curbishley of politics 

[The Horse's Mouth]

With Eagle and Watson being candidates you genuinely might as well stick with Corbyn. I thought Benn would've got in on this

[Guest MattP]

Clive Lewis? The guy who called Wes Streeting a turd on Twitter and tried to start a fight after the Syria vote? Sorry but he's as far from leadership material as you can get. I agree on Owen Smith, very impressive, wouldn't let Lisa Nandy walk my dog.

It has to be Watson from what's on offer, let him beat Corbyn, clear the loonies out the party then move towards Chuka Umanna or Dan Jarvis and you are in a position to win.

Do people also really believe David would have done any better than Ed? David lost to Ed for a start and the SNP/Labour coalition option was still there for voters to fight against. He was an absolutely disastrous foreign secretary as well.

Cheer up as well. Chilcot report in a few days.

[Alf Bentley]

I kinda think JC has had a rough baptism.

 

The wider party was all for him but the Cabinet not so much which I think has impeded him on a number of levels.

 

I'm no JC advocate particularly but it seems he's also got much less media attention than other shadow prime ministers since his appointment.

 

I also note that the more left wing publications inclusive of the Guardian who had a new editor a while back seems to lack support for JC and have an agenda which I'm sure has contributed to this.

 

I think he wants to shake up the part but his views are not supported so he needs his own staff if he has a hope of achieving any of his goals.... whatever they are when they become clear!

 

He needs to lead now - this is his chance the coming couple of weeks will be pivotal as to wether he stays/goes or the party splits.

 

 

I think you're being very generous to Corbyn there.

 

However, your comment about his goals "whatever they are, when they become clear" is telling.

He's been leader for 9 months, we've just had arguably the most important vote of our lifetimes, you're obviously an intelligent bloke with a strong interest in politics....and you're unclear what his goals are!

I'm the same. I'm aware of certain of his policies (and often agree with them) but I'm unclear what his goals are. If he's not even getting through to people like us, what hope has he got of getting through to disillusioned people who pay little attention to politics, people who might be frustrated at their lack of opportunities and low quality of life, who might be alienated traditional Lab voters tempted by UKIP or people alienated from all parties or all politics?

 

It's true that he gets much less media attention than past opposition leaders have done - less useful attention, anyway. But isn't that largely his choice? Yesterday, someone posted an ITV interview with Emily Thornberry in which Piers Moron said that during the referendum campaign they'd tried to get Corbyn to do an interview 7 times and he'd only agreed once. I know Moron isn't 100% reliable, but I doubt he'd spout blatant lies about his employer on live TV. Corbyn did less than the bare minimum of media campaigning throughout the referendum. If he was being excluded by the broadcasters, he could have complained loudly and would have had the status for it to make headlines. He didn't. For whatever reason, he opted for a low profile during the most important national debate in decades. That alone is a sacking offence in my book. I wouldn't even have minded if he'd been making a left-wing case for Leave, as there is a good case - and that would have opened the debate up to what the EU does, good and bad, development & rights v. forced austerity & lack of accountability. Instead, his silence meant that the debate was overwhelmingly Fear & National Business (Cameron) v. Lies & Immigration (Boris/Farage).

 

I suspect that Corbyn just feels more at home among people who already agree with him, developing and discussing ideal left-wing policies. Apart from representing his constituents, no doubt that's what he's spent most of his career doing. But something very different is required of a party leader. He needed to be seizing the agenda - and getting his goals across to people well beyond his loyal supporters and well beyond people like you and me. Nothing wrong with organising local activist meetings and sending right-on messages via Facebook, but he needed to be getting through to disillusioned, uncommitted and non-political voters via TV. The referendum was an ideal opportunity for that, but he opted out - and I partly blame him for the outcome with all the entirely predictable consequences that we're now starting to see.

 

He doesn't need to lead NOW, he needed to lead BEFORE now. The next couple of weeks are not his chance, the last couple of months WERE his chance - and he blew it big-time, with massive potential consequences.

 

As someone who would have reluctantly voted for him last year (I was deprived of a vote), I now think he must do the decent thing and go. The Labour Party's future might depend on it. Countless millions of people risk having their lives made a misery if there is no viable opposition party on the left. They're much more important than however many thousand people constitute Corbyn's mandate and support base. 

[Nick]

I think you're being very generous to Corbyn there.

 

However, your comment about his goals "whatever they are, when they become clear" is telling.

He's been leader for 9 months, we've just had arguably the most important vote of our lifetimes, you're obviously an intelligent bloke with a strong interest in politics....and you're unclear what his goals are!

I'm the same. I'm aware of certain of his policies (and often agree with them) but I'm unclear what his goals are. If he's not even getting through to people like us, what hope has he got of getting through to disillusioned people who pay little attention to politics, people who might be frustrated at their lack of opportunities and low quality of life, who might be alienated traditional Lab voters tempted by UKIP or people alienated from all parties or all politics?

 

It's true that he gets much less media attention than past opposition leaders have done - less useful attention, anyway. But isn't that largely his choice? Yesterday, someone posted an ITV interview with Emily Thornberry in which Piers Moron said that during the referendum campaign they'd tried to get Corbyn to do an interview 7 times and he'd only agreed once. I know Moron isn't 100% reliable, but I doubt he'd spout blatant lies about his employer on live TV. Corbyn did less than the bare minimum of media campaigning throughout the referendum. If he was being excluded by the broadcasters, he could have complained loudly and would have had the status for it to make headlines. He didn't. For whatever reason, he opted for a low profile during the most important national debate in decades. That alone is a sacking offence in my book. I wouldn't even have minded if he'd been making a left-wing case for Leave, as there is a good case - and that would have opened the debate up to what the EU does, good and bad, development & rights v. forced austerity & lack of accountability. Instead, his silence meant that the debate was overwhelmingly Fear & National Business (Cameron) v. Lies & Immigration (Boris/Farage).

 

I suspect that Corbyn just feels more at home among people who already agree with him, developing and discussing ideal left-wing policies. Apart from representing his constituents, no doubt that's what he's spent most of his career doing. But something very different is required of a party leader. He needed to be seizing the agenda - and getting his goals across to people well beyond his loyal supporters and well beyond people like you and me. Nothing wrong with organising local activist meetings and sending right-on messages via Facebook, but he needed to be getting through to disillusioned, uncommitted and non-political voters via TV. The referendum was an ideal opportunity for that, but he opted out - and I partly blame him for the outcome with all the entirely predictable consequences that we're now starting to see.

 

He doesn't need to lead NOW, he needed to lead BEFORE now. The next couple of weeks are not his chance, the last couple of months WERE his chance - and he blew it big-time, with massive potential consequences.

 

As someone who would have reluctantly voted for him last year (I was deprived of a vote), I now think he must do the decent thing and go. The Labour Party's future might depend on it. Countless millions of people risk having their lives made a misery if there is no viable opposition party on the left. They're much more important than however many thousand people constitute Corbyn's mandate and support base. 

 

 

You may well be right - I agree with much of this, however I guess my gut feeling is that his more prominent and visible colleagues don't and won't agree with his direction and politics so he's been working inside the party for change rather than publicly speaking out - which may be wrong in terms of leadership but maybe smart too in terms of waiting for the tides to turn on him and being ready to respond - now that's happened, I guess we'll see in the next few weeks. Doesn't look like he's quite yet ready to go quietly though...

[Alf Bentley]

I swear David Miliband is the Alan Curbishley of politics 

 

 Correct!

 

Corbyn loses no confidence vote, 172-40. Pretty tragic.

Watson or Eagle to stand against him, not a great selection to say the least from a party that has Umanna, Jarvis and Johnson but obviously better than Corbyn.

 

Correct! 

 

Even 40 presumably overstates Corbyn's support among MPs, as some of them will be MPs unhappy with Corbyn but who feel he has a mandate from members or who think it's the wrong time for a challenge.  

 

Watson and Eagle aren't inspiring but would be vaguely competent - and acceptable to many on the left, apart from the real hard-liners. No reason why Umunna, Benn, Jarvis & Johnson couldn't be prominent front benchers or media representatives under a Watson or Eagle leadership.

 

You really think this Labour party membership of 2016 is going to vote for a Blarite centrist candidate? Absolutely no chance unless all the hard left decide to leave.

Liz Kendall stood on that and got less than 5% of the vote.

 

Correct!

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

Owen Smith? Right. He is fvcking useless. A narcissist and full of his self importance. Analyse what he says in detail.

[Alf Bentley]

You may well be right - I agree with much of this, however I guess my gut feeling is that his more prominent and visible colleagues don't and won't agree with his direction and politics so he's been working inside the party for change rather than publicly speaking out - which may be wrong in terms of leadership but maybe smart too in terms of waiting for the tides to turn on him and being ready to respond - now that's happened, I guess we'll see in the next few weeks. Doesn't look like he's quite yet ready to go quietly though...

 

 

If there had been a Remain vote and no prospect of an election until 2020, there might have been a case for such an approach. Maybe that was his working assumption? If so, he was seriously complacent about the referendum and UK political stability.

 

Even then, one of Miliband's major errors was not to get his vision/goals across to uncommitted voters between 2010 and 2015. Corbyn needed to learn from that, but hadn't done so.

 

The only tide that I can foresee if Corbyn stays and there's an early election is a tide of disillusioned former Labour voters or non-voters heading to UKIP and thereby handing lots of marginal seats to the Tories under our stupid election system. Ironically, that scenario is all the more likely if it becomes apparent to the electorate that the Tories aren't going to meet their expectations for an immediate large reduction in immigration, a better NHS and secure employment.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Corbyn will fight the leadership election by presenting a vision that convinces such people. Or maybe an alternative candidate will benefit from the exposure of a contest and make a splash. The danger is that Corbyn presents a platform to appeal to left-inclined party members, not voters - and wins. The Labour Party would surely have to split then, and would presumably be annihilated at an early election. Of course, there are ample reasons why the Tories might end up in a civil war or massively unpopular with the public - but the latter will probably take longer than a few months and the former might not happen at all.

[theessexfox]

On what grounds can an early election be called? Given the FTP Act 2011?

 

Edit: Had a look myself, either a vote of no confidence or 2/3 of MPs voting for it, I guess 2/3 of MPs could benefit from a snap election in one way or another. 

[Alf Bentley]

On what grounds can an early election be called? Given the FTP Act 2011?

 

Edit: Had a look myself, either a vote of no confidence or 2/3 of MPs voting for it, I guess 2/3 of MPs could benefit from a snap election in one way or another. 

 

 

That's an interesting point, Essex.

 

It's actually quite possible that it might NOT be in the interests of 2/3 of MPs to vote for it. The presumption now seems to be that the new Tory leader would want to obtain an electoral mandate (not inevitable - Major & Brown didn't). But they'd need a substantial number of Labour MPs to vote for an election, which they might not want to do if the party was still in a mess. For strategic reasons, Labour might also want to leave the Tories in power for a while to be discredited if the economy turns bad and/or the EU doesn't offer a Brexit deal that appeals to the public. There'd be obvious dangers in Labour ending up in power and having to handle a major recession or an intransigent negotiating stance from the EU.

 

Even support from the SNP, Lib Dems & N. Ireland wouldn't take the Tories to 2/3 of the MPs, would it?

 

I suppose, as the Tories have a majority, they could call a vote of confidence and then vote against their own government! 

[johnny the fox]

angela fookin eagle.. the gift that keeps on giving..

[Nick]

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Corbyn will fight the leadership election by presenting a vision that convinces such people. 

 

 

 

 

Well, I guess my point is that it's now or never!

[Alf Bentley]

Well, I guess my point is that it's now or never!

 

 

Can't argue with that. I suppose that I'm just massively pessimistic about the likelihood of Corbyn suddenly starting to convince the wider electorate - and about the consequences if he runs again and wins without doing so.

 

I'm also still very angry that he seemed to opt out of what may prove to be the biggest political decision of my lifetime (possibly the most damaging, too, though that's not certain - the EU is quite capable of fvcking up, too!).

[Guest MattP]

To add to Alf's media point, Seema Malhotra also said to Andrew Neil at the weekend the press were to blame for not giving Corbyn enough coverage and he replied that they had asked him on at least 8 occasions to appear during the campaign on Daily or Sunday politics and he never accepted one.

That's one of the things that annoys me, nothing ever seems to be his fault.

Very interesting point from Essex fox, 2/3 is a hell of a lot of votes to get to force a General Election. Not certain by any means.

[johnny the fox]

I'm hearing Labour are preparing a bid for stephen crabb... good signing?

[Jimothy]

To add to Alf's media point, Seema Malhotra also said to Andrew Neil at the weekend the press were to blame for not giving Corbyn enough coverage and he replied that they had asked him on at least 8 occasions to appear during the campaign on Daily or Sunday politics and he never accepted one.

That's one of the things that annoys me, nothing ever seems to be his fault.

Very interesting point from Essex fox, 2/3 is a hell of a lot of votes to get to force a General Election. Not certain by any means.

He's never been in the media enough for an opposition leader. He told Marr to do one the day after we won the leadership election, that should have been the day he was strutting his stuff, getting his message out to all. Blokes an idiot, I knew he'd struggle as soon as he did that. He's somehow managed to be in the media even less in this campaign

[Nick]

Can't argue with that. I suppose that I'm just massively pessimistic about the likelihood of Corbyn suddenly starting to convince the wider electorate - and about the consequences if he runs again and wins without doing so.

 

I'm also still very angry that he seemed to opt out of what may prove to be the biggest political decision of my lifetime (possibly the most damaging, too, though that's not certain - the EU is quite capable of fvcking up, too!).

 

 

Me too. Only he knows why he didn't stand up for a 'Leave for the left' vote - I guess either he felt it wouldn't benefit the party or he realised that after leading the party for a number of months it was all a bit more complex than he originally thought and decided not to look hypocritical. 

 

I'm hoping he now has a masterplan. I'm hoping he comes out of his shell and produces some manifesto-esque philosophy that inspires and reaches audiences.

 

But by God, looking at the candidates across all parties at the moment, until the NHS can successfully do 'Charisma Bypasses' - it's looking like dull old politics repackaged by even duller personalities - with the exception of BJ who's arguably just Donald Trump in disguise.

[purpleronnie]

I have to plead ignorance on this one.  Corbyn has lost a vote of confidence but its meaningless as Corbyn isn't resigning.  So does this now trigger a new leadership contest?  If it does Corbyn will win again....then what?, we wait for a general election and lose and then he resigns?

 

It's incredible just as the Tories are split we have the weakest opposition leader in 60 years.

[Guest MattP]

Just 40 MPs backed him today so what actually happens if he wins the leadership election regarding his cabinet?

He has to fill 110 shadow posts (57 juniors, 29 ShadCab, 20 PPSs) - does he literally try and fight a General Election with a less than half empty shadow cabinet?

I remember that regarding Marr Facecloth, very strange. The worst one now though (especially in hindsight) was missing the Labour Stronger in Europe day of action to speak at a CND rally, surely that could have waited?

[Alf Bentley]

I have to plead ignorance on this one.  Corbyn has lost a vote of confidence but its meaningless as Corbyn isn't resigning.  So does this now trigger a new leadership contest?  If it does Corbyn will win again....then what?, we wait for a general election and lose and then he resigns?

 

It's incredible just as the Tories are split we have the weakest opposition leader in 60 years.

 

 

My understanding is that the vote of confidence does NOT trigger a leadership contest. However, if an alternative candidate gets the support of about 50 MPs, then that DOES trigger a contest. That will happen, I'm sure.

 

Whether Corbyn would win again would depend on the campaign. Wouldn't like to guess that one....but I suspect that the party would have to split somehow or other if it came to that.

 

However, some are saying that Corbyn's name wouldn't automatically be on any new leadership ballot (he believes that it would be). If not, he'd also be obliged to get nominations from 50 MPs, which he'd almost certainly fail to do.

Apparently, when Tony Benn challenged Kinnock in 1988, Kinnock had to get the support of a minimum number of MPs - which he did, and he won. Some are seeing that as setting a precedent obliging Corbyn to have 50 MPs behind him....

[Guest]

To add to Alf's media point, Seema Malhotra also said to Andrew Neil at the weekend the press were to blame for not giving Corbyn enough coverage and he replied that they had asked him on at least 8 occasions to appear during the campaign on Daily or Sunday politics and he never accepted one.

That's one of the things that annoys me, nothing ever seems to be his fault.

Very interesting point from Essex fox, 2/3 is a hell of a lot of votes to get to force a General Election. Not certain by any means.

 

66%. Seems reasonable. Even more so for a referendum victory.

[Alf Bentley]

Very interesting articles here, suggesting that there is clear evidence that Corbyn and his allies deliberately sabotaged the Remain campaign. Some of them might have axes to grind, but very specific evidence is cited - and it certainly tallies with my impression of an unbelievably half-hearted level of engagement.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/young-put-jeremy-corbyn-in-now-should-push-him-out

 

"They pulled out of critical media appearances at the last minute, or else passed up media opportunities to make the case against Brexit; they removed pro-EU lines from speeches; they repeatedly diluted the official Labour position of support for in.At those moments of the campaign when Labour was to be given the floor, the party had either prepared nothing or used its platform to attack the Tories fronting the remain campaign, rubbishing George Osborne’s warnings of the economic consequences of Brexit for example. Accompanying Labour canvassers in Yorkshire 10 days before the vote, I saw the effect for myself: Labour voters were still unclear whether their party was for remain or leave, and they were certainly not getting the unmistakable message that a vote to leave would be catastrophic for them in particular".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/corbyn-must-resign-inadequate-leader-betrayal

 

"He himself issued a note to all MPs on 17 September 2015 telling them that Labour would campaign to remain in the European Union. And yet he decided to go on holiday in the middle of the campaign. He did not visit the Labour heartlands of the north-east and instead raised esoteric issues such as TTIP which had no resonance on the doorstep.

This leads to me to the greatest betrayal and the final straw for many MPs. I have been told and shown evidence by an overwhelming number of unimpeachably neutral Labour remain staff that Corbyn’s office, for which he must take full responsibility, consistently attempted to weaken and sabotage the Labour remain campaign, in contravention of the party’s official position. For example, they resisted all polling and focus group evidence on message and tone, raised no campaign finance, failed to engage with the campaign delivery and deliberately weakened and damaged the argument Labour sought to make".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36633238

[MPH]

Sounds quite damning and indeed points to alterior motives by Mr Corbyns team...

[Webbo]

To add to Alf's media point, Seema Malhotra also said to Andrew Neil at the weekend the press were to blame for not giving Corbyn enough coverage and he replied that they had asked him on at least 8 occasions to appear during the campaign on Daily or Sunday politics and he never accepted one.

That's one of the things that annoys me, nothing ever seems to be his fault.

Very interesting point from Essex fox, 2/3 is a hell of a lot of votes to get to force a General Election. Not certain by any means.

The tories have more than half the seats and most would vote as told, then you'd dare the opposition parties to keep the tories in power. I can't see that happening.