• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

Has it occurred to people like Jamie Reed that while Corbyn may be rubbish, that is what his party wants. If he doesn't like it then maybe he is in the wrong party. Strangely enough he had reached the conclusion that the parliamentary Labour Party is out of step with its voters because Corbyn has poisoned them. It's actually not true. Most Labour Party members prefer Corbyn to the people he is most like.

Party activists are voters but the vast majority of Labour supporters and voters are neither party activists nor members.

The stupid £3-membership rule is what caused the problem. I know of several self-proclaimed Conservative supporters who claim to have voted for Corbyn in order to make Labour unelectable.

The MPs represent their constituencies, and realise that Corbyn can only lead their party to electoral oblivion.
 
Has it occurred to people like Jamie Reed that while Corbyn may be rubbish, that is what his party wants. If he doesn't like it then maybe he is in the wrong party.

This is basically what it comes down to really.

If these MPs disagree with the party then find a new party.

Of course if they weren't Labour MPs they'd be nobodies so I understand their reluctance.
 
Party activists are voters but the vast majority of Labour supporters and voters are neither party activists nor members.

The stupid £3-membership rule is what caused the problem. I know of several self-proclaimed Conservative supporters who claim to have voted for Corbyn in order to make Labour unelectable.

The MPs represent their constituencies, and realise that Corbyn can only lead their party to electoral oblivion.

It seems like the solution for these non-member supporters is obvious.

Join the Labour Party for £3 and vote him out then.

Or stop moaning and vote for another party that better represents your views.
 
There is a seriously unpleasant side to some of the Corbyn supporters, which isn't too surprising for anyone who saw some of the SWP student politicians at university in the 1980s or 1990s.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tics-not-game-words-of-hate-have-consequences

ETA:

But when a leader holds rallies where people feel comfortable turning up in T-shirts saying “exterminate the rightwing Blairite vermin”, then the fire is already burning. Words have consequences. Bad people feel emboldened to act. Good people have to do more than simply say they deplore all violence, while failing to root it out.

And that’s why there’s something grotesque about the vocal minority of Corbynites whose response to death threats boils down to “whaddaboutery”. Yeah, bullying’s wrong – as if that playground word covered “having to ring 999” – but what about the mean things MPs said to Jeremy at a meeting! Yeah, but Corbynites get abused on social media too! Yeah, but Tony Blair’s a war criminal! Yeah, but feelings are running high! As if nothing mattered but the right to share your every feeling with the world, even the ones better left unsaid; as if feelings publicly expressed couldn’t coagulate horribly with other much wilder feelings in those who don’t know where to stop.

But while it’s distressing to be unfairly accused on Facebook of being a Trot or entryist, it’s wilful blindness to suggest equivalence between that and the sort of thing that leaves Labour MPs needing police protection. If you can see rightwing hate speech for what it is – fertile earth in which terrifying things grow – then don’t make excuses for what Shirley Williams once called “fascism of the left”. If you can’t defend your corner without resorting to talk of vermin, filth and “blood on your hands”, then something is wrong with your corner.
And yes, what’s happening to Corbyn is cruel. But it’s what happens to leaders in the end stages. Having watched close up the downfalls of over half a dozen party leaders, I never failed to feel sorry for them on a personal level, however deserved their fate. Charles Kennedy, hands shaking, as his alcoholism was brutally exposed to the world; Iain Duncan Smith fighting tears as people in his own office smeared his wife to force him out; Gordon Brown’s bewildered-looking little boys, clutching his hand as they left their home in Downing Street. There is always betrayal, crushing rejection, rough justice – although usually behind closed doors, not laid out in resignation letters.
 
Last edited:
I know it's off topic here (report away if you want) but it's bloody close in Australia. Governments are usually given two terms, but Labor is in front! Too early, but a massive, and brilliant, upset on the cards.
 
Seems there is a tug of war between Corbynites and the rest of Labour supporters (Which group is bigger? Consensus wisdom is that it it the latter) over who gets to be the real Labour party.

Probably doesn't matter, just get on with it and split.

I think the idea that Labour MPs should fall into line with an electorally insignificant group of people called "Labour party members" is fanciful. But legally the members may be able to call dibs on the name.
 
The name is obviously important, but the main worry for the MPs is the funding - which mostly comes from the Trade Unions.

If a trade union wished to transfer all or part of its funding to a new 'splitter' party - whether that new party is the Corbynite left wing or the MP right wing that would take time and might lead to further splits within the unions.

So both sides in this fight want to remain the 'official' Labour party and have the other side be the splitters. The problem for the MPs (right wing) is that they are the ones who don't want to play by the current democratic party rules.
 
Seems there is a tug of war between Corbynites and the rest of Labour supporters (Which group is bigger? Consensus wisdom is that it it the latter) over who gets to be the real Labour party.

Probably doesn't matter, just get on with it and split.

I think the idea that Labour MPs should fall into line with an electorally insignificant group of people called "Labour party members" is fanciful. But legally the members may be able to call dibs on the name.
A shame that, Eh? Better if the whole show were run by the Labour MPs. :D

They might not be numerous, but they are "electorally significant". Question: where did this significance come from? Being selected by Labour Party members, and then winning majorities in a popular vote? Or kissing hands with the Dear Leader?
 
Not sure what you are getting at. Can you expand?




This video series ought to be required viewing in all schools imo.

CGPGrey is an ex schoolteacher, turned video maker who produces short educational videos, and this series on voting systems is one of his better ones.
 
Has it occurred to people like Jamie Reed that while Corbyn may be rubbish, that is what his party wants. If he doesn't like it then maybe he is in the wrong party. Strangely enough he had reached the conclusion that the parliamentary Labour Party is out of step with its voters because Corbyn has poisoned them. It's actually not true. Most Labour Party members prefer Corbyn to the people he is most like.

I'm sorry but this is no different from seeking to legitimize Trump because a lot of people supported him in the primaries. People voted for both of them because they are unhappy with the status quo and voted for an 'outsider', without really knowing much about what he really stood for or considering how any of their promises would actually work in practice.

As demonstrated with the Anti-Semitism report Corbyn can't go 5 minutes without putting his foot in his mouth.
 
They have in common that their utterances were made wthout expectation that one day they might be contending for leadership of their nations. Their relationships with their respective political parties are peculiarly uncommon.

And like Trump Corbyn still can't stop making stupid statements even when he is in a position of responsibility.
 
Party activists are voters but the vast majority of Labour supporters and voters are neither party activists nor members.

The stupid £3-membership rule is what caused the problem. I know of several self-proclaimed Conservative supporters who claim to have voted for Corbyn in order to make Labour unelectable.

The MPs represent their constituencies, and realise that Corbyn can only lead their party to electoral oblivion.

It seems that Jamie Reed is not arguing that Corbyn is there because of Conservative entryism.

He is arguing that Corbyn has somehow managed to convince the Labour Party grassroots that he better represents their interests than the Labour MPs:

In the short time you have been Leader, along with the Shadow Chancellor, you have sought to inject an unprecedented poison into our party. You have actively worked to divide Labour MPs from the Labour Party membership.

To which I can only repeat that maybe the Labour Party members actually prefer Corbyn to these MPs.

Is he using this as an excuse ahead of time for why the Labour Party may still elect Corbyn instead of any other leadership contender?

Why is it that Hilary Benn, Jamie Reed and various others don't put themselves forward instead of the sheep in sheep's clothing that is Angela Eagle? Is it perhaps that they would lose?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom