Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Corbyn's is no doubt supported my a majority of Labor members. But I'll bet he is not supported by the majority of Labor supporters and voters. Relative few people are members of parties.

That's true. But it is not the supporters or voters who determine who is the leader of the party. If they so wish they can join the party and gain a vote for the princely sum of £3 apparently. Many people have done so in the past few days and apparently party membership is at record levels. Many have done so to support Corbyn.

Listen I don't think Corbyn is very good or very electable either but apparently many people want him to be there and I have to respect their opinion as much as I have to respect the people who voted to Leave the EU. Simply demanding change because you don't like the result of a democratic process isn't really the right way to go about it.

The people who back Corbyn deserve as much of a voice as anyone and if they are a majority of the party then the party should reflect that even if it means they don't get to form the government.

 

[The Don]

Corbyn's is no doubt supported my a majority of Labor members.

He certainly was at the point at which he was elected leader - whether the same is true now is less certain.

But I'll bet he is not supported by the majority of Labor supporters and voters. Relative few people are members of parties.

This poses an interesting question. Is it beholden on the Labour Party membership to select a leader who is acceptable to "supporters and voters" ?

Personally I think yes, but that led to Tony Blair

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

He certainly was at the point at which he was elected leader - whether the same is true now is less certain.



This poses an interesting question. Is it beholden on the Labour Party membership to select a leader who is acceptable to "supporters and voters" ?

Personally I think yes, but that led to Tony Blair

This seems like a question for the Labour party to answer though. The problem seems to be that a lot of people outside the party (and a reasonable number inside as well I grant) want the labour party to be something different than what it is and are getting upset because they refuse to bend to what they want.

It seems like a lot of people want to vote Labour despite disagreeing with Labour Party policy and principles. Which I find a bit odd. If you don't like Labour vote for someone else. That's what happened in Scotland.

 

[Tolls]

Handing the party over to Corbyn (in what was effectively a coup by this pressure group) is the equivalent, surely, of handing it over to Derek Hatton.

Corbyn's not Hatton.
That would be equivalent to suggesting that handing over the Tory leadership to one of the more extreme Euroskeptics in the party would be like handing it over to Farage (yes, I know he's not a Tory, but I ran out of steam).

But yes, Momentum and Militant do bear some striking similarities. But then see below:

Although apparently, some of them are SWP rather than Militant...

IIRC a lot of Militant moved to the SWP, at least initially.
And now they've moved back to Momentum...

 

[lionking]

Oh, jeez, I spelt Labour as Labor, just like Australia's party. I'm aware of the difference in spelling. Apologies.

 

[The Don]

It seems like a lot of people want to vote Labour despite disagreeing with Labour Party policy and principles. Which I find a bit odd. If you don't like Labour vote for someone else. That's what happened in Scotland.

If not Labour (and not Conservative or UKIP) then which party ?

At least Scotland had a left-wing party with a coherent message.

 

[Darat]

One thing to recall is that at the last general election the more "left" the party moved the more support it gained.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If not Labour (and not Conservative or UKIP) then which party ?

At least Scotland had a left-wing party with a coherent message.

Whichever party best represents your views I suppose. It seems like for a lot of the frustrated Labour supporters it's the Tories (or maybe the Lib Dems).

 

[lionking]

One thing to recall is that at the last general election the more "left" the party moved the more support it gained.

Which, of course, was nowhere near enough to win. We faced this dilemma in Australia. Have an ideologically pure Labor Party, or an electable one. The party decided on the latter, and will remain a force for many years. Will Labour, as it is now, be the same?

 

[MikeG]

One thing to recall is that at the last general election the more "left" the party moved the more support it gained.

Really? Nothing to do with the collapse of the Lib Dems, then, and their vote having to go somewhere?

Whilst you (Labour) experiment with the same old socialist stuff which has failed though all of the last 40 years, the Tories will trot along utterly unopposed. This might make you lot feel pure and untainted, but it's bloody awful for the governance of this country. If Foot wrote the longest suicide note in history, Labour are now actually putting the poison to their own lips.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? Nothing to do with the collapse of the Lib Dems, then, and their vote having to go somewhere?

Whilst you (Labour) experiment with the same old socialist stuff which has failed though all of the last 40 years, the Tories will trot along utterly unopposed. This might make you lot feel pure and untainted, but it's bloody awful for the governance of this country. If Foot wrote the longest suicide note in history, Labour are now actually putting the poison to their own lips.

Remind us why the Lib Dems collapsed again?

 

[Tolls]

Remind us why the Lib Dems collapsed again?

Because the people who voted for them didn't realise that a centrist party that had spent the previous two decades talking about coalition governments might actually form a coalition government.

Oh, and their bloody stupid move pre-2010 election of signing some daft "we will not budge on this" thing re: uni fees. Just handed people a stick to hit them with, for something they really were in no position to enforce.

 

[Darat]

Which, of course, was nowhere near enough to win. We faced this dilemma in Australia. Have an ideologically pure Labor Party, or an electable one. The party decided on the latter, and will remain a force for many years. Will Labour, as it is now, be the same?

That does not follow. The conclusion could be that they didn't move further enough to the left to gain more voters . Personally I dont think that there is a simple one dimensional explanation but it does show that being more left than labour was at the last election doesn't automatically mean they would lose voters. That is also I'd say part of the reason for the success of the SNP at the expense of Labour.

 

[ceptimus]

If the Labour MPs are serious about replacing Corbyn with a 'more electable' leader, why don't they tell us who that leader might be?

Surely no one believes that Angela Eagle is more electable than Corbyn? Who is this prospective inspiring leader they have waiting in hiding?

 

[Darat]

Really? Nothing to do with the collapse of the Lib Dems, then, and their vote having to go somewhere?

Whilst you (Labour) experiment with the same old socialist stuff which has failed though all of the last 40 years, the Tories will trot along utterly unopposed. This might make you lot feel pure and untainted, but it's bloody awful for the governance of this country. If Foot wrote the longest suicide note in history, Labour are now actually putting the poison to their own lips.

"you"? And no the research was not about the collapse of the Libdems.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Whilst you (Labour) experiment with the same old socialist stuff which has failed though all of the last 40 years, the Tories will trot along utterly unopposed. This might make you lot feel pure and untainted, but it's bloody awful for the governance of this country.

Maybe so. However, I think it wasn't exactly helpful for the governance of the country that the Blair / Brown incarnation of the Labour party simply left most of the electorate feeling that we had the choice between two different shades of Conservatism. Whether Corbyn is electable or not, it is at least possible to tell the difference between him and the Tory party. Meanwhile the reputation of Blair, the last electable leader the Labour party is known to have had, is not exactly at its highest this week.

Dave

 

[Lothian]

If the Labour MPs are serious about replacing Corbyn with a 'more electable' leader, why don't they tell us who that leader might be?

Surely no one believes that Angela Eagle is more electable than Corbyn? Who is this prospective inspiring leader they have waiting in hiding?

David Miliband would be my choice. If he stands at Batley and Spen I doubt you could get decent odds on anyone else being leader in a years time.

 

[lionking]

That does not follow. The conclusion could be that they didn't move further enough to the left to gain more voters . Personally I dont think that there is a simple one dimensional explanation but it does show that being more left than labour was at the last election doesn't automatically mean they would lose voters. That is also I'd say part of the reason for the success of the SNP at the expense of Labour.

You can't be serious. Where is the evidence of this left wing surge in the electorate?

 

[Lothian]

One thing to recall is that at the last general election the more "left" the party moved the more support it gained.

I think that is true however there has to be a point where it is going too far left and the new supporters added are outweighed by those lost. I suspect, were he be given his way fully, Corbyn would have crossed that line. There is also the individual x factor appeal that attracts people irrespective of the politics. I think Corbyn lacks that.

 

[ceptimus]

David Miliband would be my choice. If he stands at Batley and Spen I doubt you could get decent odds on anyone else being leader in a years time.

I agree with you (and I suggested this too, earlier in this thread or one of the other threads).

But he's not currently an MP and he may not stand. It's a bit depressing that there are no obvious candidates that are currently eligible.

Even if David Miliband does become an MP and Labour Party leader, if Labour is then elected to government they would need to appoint a Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and so on from this uninspiring crowd of nobodies. Where are the Labour politicians of substance like the ones we had before the 1980s?