Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Let's have more politicians suing Private Eye and others for defamation and the return of dozen-million damages, that'll learn that pesky fourth estate. They can go back to reporting on celebrities. As long as the celebs don't sue as well.

I'd actually quite enjoy it if the fourth estate went back to being journalists.

 

[jimbob]

Absolutely. If you look at what I responded to, the argument was that it didn't matter that someone wasn't given a chance or treated unfairly. We should just accept that 'reality' and accept it.

So if the collective media decide that Corbyn eats babies it doesn't matter whether its true or not, the Labour Party should simply accept it and get rid of him and find a candidate they will accept.

It's a pretty undemocratic position to argue. Do you agree with it?

The claim was that Corbyn didn't get a chance from his shadow cabinet. I would disagree with that claim*, but if was the case, he had selected the shadow cabinet. Also if he is unable to lead the parliamentary party, he's unsuitable as the party leader.

*There are several links upthread where former shadow ministers explained how they had been undermined by their leader for months before they resigned.

Corbyn has failed to convince his own parliamentary party. These people know the damage that a show of disunity causes, but have eventually decided that it's less bad than an ineffectual leader who keeps going off on one.

Proclaiming the competence and benefits of the Venezuelan regime had obviously been misguided for several years.

Attending a Cuban Solidarity Campaign meeting when the PM was being chosen shows a remarkable lack of focus on what is important to the electorate.

It wouldn't matter whether every policy Corbyn proposes is right if he manages to mangle his own message and will never get to implement any and he is so ineffectual that he can't successfully oppose any policies that the government wants.

The Tories have a wafer thin majority and a competent opposition would have plenty of opportunities for significant influence.

Corbyn is wasting all that.

 

[dudalb]

Why can't the Corbyn fanboys just admit he has been a lousy leader for Labor,and is thowing away a golden opportunity by his bad leadership?
Or they still don't get how important Leadership skills are to a Party leader?

 

[jimbob]

Why can't the Corbyn fanboys just admit he has been a lousy leader for Labor,and is thowing away a golden opportunity by his bad leadership?
Or they still don't get how important Leadership skills are to a Party leader?

From my Facebook feeds, because they think he's different. His ineptitude is not proof of a mediocre* mind but of his fundamental honesty and the fact that he's not** a career politician.

These people are pretty... earnest and are fundamentally good, probably seeing the best in others and are somewhat idealistic. I think that they were Lib Dem supporters previously.



*Achieving two E grades at A level whilst attending a sixth form crammer after a private education is possibly an achievement of sorts, but is hardly stellar performance. Ditto for failing to complete a degree at a polytechnic.


**I have seen that claimed, but can't quite square it with someone who has been in parliament for more than thirty years. My view is that he has spent most of that time in archetypal far left politics, where the way to internal popularity is to go to the left and where the basic assumptions*** are never challenged.


*** For example that America is wrong unless it is agreeing with Russia or the Soviet Union.

 

[ceptimus]

Laura Kuenssberg (BBC political editor) was ringing all the members of the shadow cabinet during the coup attempt trying to organize a list of who was going to resign and in what order and inviting one of them to resign live on BBC television.

I don't know why she is so anti-Corbyn, but she's hardly setting an example of the sort of unbiased factual reporting that the BBC is supposed to deliver.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why can't the Corbyn fanboys just admit he has been a lousy leader for Labor,and is thowing away a golden opportunity by his bad leadership?
Or they still don't get how important Leadership skills are to a Party leader?

Probably for the same reasons that May fanboys can't admit she's a xenophobic psycho itching to nuke someone or the Cameron fanboys can't admit he was an over-privileged idiot with the leadership skills of a baked potato.

i.e. they don't agree.

 

[dudalb]

I also see the "ideological purity is more important then actually winning elections" bit is in play here.

 

[Giz]

Laura Kuenssberg (BBC political editor) was ringing all the members of the shadow cabinet during the coup attempt trying to organize a list of who was going to resign and in what order and inviting one of them to resign live on BBC television.

I don't know why she is so anti-Corbyn, but she's hardly setting an example of the sort of unbiased factual reporting that the BBC is supposed to deliver.

A journalist tried to get a scoop? !!11!?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I also see the "ideological purity is more important then actually winning elections" bit is in play here.

As it should be. Political parties are there to represent their members positions not to adopt the positions that opinion polls tell them are popular. What you call ideological purity others call integrity and principles.

 

[jimbob]

As it should be. Political parties are there to represent their members positions not to adopt the positions that opinion polls tell them are popular. What you call ideological purity others call integrity and principles.

I disagree, if you ignore electability then your party has little influence.

 

[Darat]

And if you ignore the principles of what the party members want then there is no reason to have a party.

Which personally I'd rather see. I'd rather politics not be a matter of parties and ideologies but of pragmatism.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I disagree, if you ignore electability then your party has little influence.

Not much point getting elected to enact things you don't agree with.

We know the Tory Party manifesto is electable so presumably the Labour Party could just adopt that?

Public opinion is fickle. No point chasing it like a crisp packet in the wind. That's what got Labour to where it is now.

I don't agree with Corbyn on a great many things but it's not for me to decide what Labour should and shouldn't stand for.

 

[Tolls]

Absolutely. If you look at what I responded to, the argument was that it didn't matter that someone wasn't given a chance or treated unfairly. We should just accept that 'reality' and accept it.

So if the collective media decide that Corbyn eats babies it doesn't matter whether its true or not, the Labour Party should simply accept it and get rid of him and find a candidate they will accept.

It's a pretty undemocratic position to argue. Do you agree with it?

This isn't the media.
Media attacking the leader of the party opposed to a particular paper's position is something any leader has to put up with. The media "bullied" Ed.

This is not about the media. This is about an unprecedented number of the PLP actively opposing their leader because he has turned out to be singularly incapable of actually doing the job.

 

[Francesca R]

And if you ignore the principles of what the party members want then there is no reason to have a party.

Which personally I'd rather see. I'd rather politics not be a matter of parties and ideologies but of pragmatism.

That's very unlikely with FPTP / single winner by district. So under the current system the second biggest party has more of a civic role to be an effective opposition (which requires it to be credibly electable itself). This is a wider duty than representing members. Maybe no political party "asked for that" but I don't think that is reason enough to ignore it, as the Corbynistas seem to.

Under sensible systems like AV or proper PR it is quite viable. But Labour didn't want that when it came up for consideration.

It's odd because the more usual way for this sort of situation to have arisen and worked itself out would be for Corbyn to lead a splinter group split off like (for example) the EFF in South Africa (not comparing their ideologies). But via the peculiarity of Labour's own rules Corbyn commands the leadership position and so is not about to do that.

 

[Airfix]

The grassroots of the Labour party want Corbyn, he's untouchable (until he loses a General Election).

 

[Francesca R]

Which means among other things that Theresa May is "untouchable" for 5+ years. Yeah thanks, Labour members.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This isn't the media.
Media attacking the leader of the party opposed to a particular paper's position is something any leader has to put up with. The media "bullied" Ed.

This is not about the media. This is about an unprecedented number of the PLP actively opposing their leader because he has turned out to be singularly incapable of actually doing the job.

No this IS the media.

If the media tomorrow decided that Corbyn was great the PLP wouldn't have a problem with him.

It seems that the PLP have decided that Corbyn's job is fighting a leadership election and he seems to be doing that capably. Of course if the PLP would prefer that they are opposing Tory policy then perhaps some of these great alternative leaders should give it a try?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Which means among other things that Theresa May is "untouchable" for 5+ years. Yeah thanks, Labour members.

It's not up to Labour to represent YOUR particular political views. You don't like them, vote for someone else.

 

[Lothian]

It's not up to Labour to represent YOUR particular political views. You don't like them, vote for someone else.

How do you know she is not a Labour Party member?

 

[Craig B]

Which means among other things that Theresa May is "untouchable" for 5+ years. Yeah thanks, Labour members.

I don't understand that. Has the opposition in Parliament no function or purpose between elections? If it has none, then why will changing its leader make any difference? And if the election is the only issue, how will changing the leader of the opposition cause one to be held sooner. I would have thought, if Labour became "more electable" by changing its leader, the government would delay rather than bring forward, the next election.