Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Francesca R]

All Labour need at the moment is someone who doesn't sabotage the party and who is vaguely competent. They *really* don't need to have stellar performance.

Either party could move to the centre. But it seems like both are moving away creating a bigger void.

 

[Francesca R]

Too many animals. An Eagle., a Fox, a Crabb, and (in good Scots) a Cleg.

Bit of a conspicuous lack of fish there?

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes. She opted not to make the debate about motherhood by pulling out the motherhood card and playing it first.

Well what do you expect with two women candidates, it'll just be a bitch fight.

Whatever you think about Andrea, she certainly ain't no Mother Theresa.

 

[Craig B]

Bit of a conspicuous lack of fish there?

There's a marine invertebrate. For fish we must go North, where there are two big ones.

 

[Francesca R]

Whatever you think about Andrea,

She May have Led Some trading desk at Barclays but ain't no dream team.

 

[Francesca R]

What's the odds on a ruling that Corbyn would need and not get 51 MP nominations again. Anyone know?

 

[Darat]

From all accords I would hazard a guess that result would end up with a lot of MPs being deselected by their constituency parties. Also the MPs leading this attempt can't be too confident of such a result or they would have already gone down that route to force him out.

Apparently talks about a compromise have failed... hardly surprising since there could be no compromise position in this matter as there are only two states i.e. either he is the leader or he isnt!

 

[jimbob]

Interview with Neil Kinnock

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2016/jul/08/neil-kinnock-interview-brexit-corbyn-labour

Corbyn, of course, has not resigned. A leadership challenge will unquestionably therefore be mounted, according to Kinnock – and as the last Labour leader to have faced such a challenge, he has a lot to say about the rules. That it was Corbyn and some of his current team who led Tony Benn’s 1988 leadership challenge against Kinnock is an irony upon which he does not dwell, perhaps for fear of looking motivated by bad blood. The point, he says, is that Corbyn and his team are now trying to break the party’s own rules.

The rule book clearly states, he insists, that in order to be a candidate, Corbyn would be obliged to secure the support of 20% of the PLP. Corbyn’s team insist that as the incumbent, his name would automatically go on to the ballot paper. If that were true, argues Kinnock, why did he himself have to secure nominations when challenged by Benn? And why did Corbyn’s own supporters call for a change to the rule in March, when they acknowledged that: “The current Labour party rules do not clearly spell out that an incumbent leader is automatically on the ballot paper for leader in the event of a challenger securing the requisite nominations”?

As for how hard Corbyn was working for Remain:

Corbyn’s supporters accuse his critics of exploiting the referendum defeat, so I ask if this was a coup waiting for an excuse. He hoots. “Well, if it was, they kept it secret from me! And I mix and mingle.” What precipitated the revolt was not the referendum per se, he says – although “the fact that Jeremy did 10 events in six weeks is pretty conclusive evidence that either he, or people influencing him, really didn’t want to put too much effort in.”

 

[Francesca R]

there could be no compromise position in this matter as there are only two states i.e. either he is the leader or he isnt!

Clearly not schooled in the art of fudgy fudging

 

[ceptimus]

The election process was different when Kinnock was challenged - an electoral college rather than a vote by all the members.

Just because Kinnock did seek nomination by MPs doesn't mean that the rules required him to - he chose to do that to demonstrate that he had the support of the MPs.

And let us not forget that Kinnock was unelectable. He never managed to win an election for Labour, despite being allowed to try twice running. In contrast the MPs don't even want to allow Corbyn to try once, even though he received a huge mandate only ten months ago.

 

[jimbob]

The election process was different when Kinnock was challenged - an electoral college rather than a vote by all the members.

Just because Kinnock did seek nomination by MPs doesn't mean that the rules required him to - he chose to do that to demonstrate that he had the support of the MPs.

And let us not forget that Kinnock was unelectable. He never managed to win an election for Labour, despite being allowed to try twice running. In contrast the MPs don't even want to allow Corbyn to try once, even though he received a huge mandate only ten months ago.

Yes, but the alternative was disaster. Then as now.

Corbyn lacks the gravitas of Foot.

 

[Francesca R]

And let us not forget that Kinnock was unelectable. He never managed to win an election for Labour, despite being allowed to try twice running.

He would have got my vote except I was eight months too young. I cried after the 1992 result.

Anyway I think he brought the party towards the centre. Which paid large electoral benefit not realised until after his time had gone. Corbyn isn't doing the same regrettably.

 

[MikeG]

He would have got my vote except I was eight months too young. I cried after the 1992 result.

Anyway I think he brought the party towards the centre. Which paid large electoral benefit not realised until after his time had gone. Corbyn isn't doing the same regrettably.

Bar the crying bit, and the being too young bit, my name is MikeG and I endorse this message.

 

[MikeG]

Yes, but the alternative was disaster. Then as now.

Corbyn lacks the gravitas of Foot.

Indeed. Foot was a wonderful orator, and Corbyn can barely read the autocue. They do however share a penchant for political suicide.

 

[jimbob]

Indeed. Foot was a wonderful orator, and Corbyn can barely read the autocue. They do however share a penchant for political suicide.

Yes, I chose my words carefully...

 

[Darat]

Let's say that a new election is run and Corbyn is "allowed" to stand again and he wins by a large mandate again, what then?

 

[Francesca R]

Decent chance the party stays together with perhaps rebels hoping Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election?

(Though there may then be calls that the party simply didn't stop being tory lite enough under Corbyn)

 

[lionking]

The election process was different when Kinnock was challenged - an electoral college rather than a vote by all the members.

Just because Kinnock did seek nomination by MPs doesn't mean that the rules required him to - he chose to do that to demonstrate that he had the support of the MPs.

And let us not forget that Kinnock was unelectable. He never managed to win an election for Labour, despite being allowed to try twice running. In contrast the MPs don't even want to allow Corbyn to try once, even though he received a huge mandate only ten months ago.

In a political context this word usually means endorsement of an electorate, not a relative handful of party members.

Of course MPs would oppose someone who would lead their party to oblivion and unemployment for them.

 

[MikeG]

Let's say that a new election is run and Corbyn is "allowed" to stand again and he wins by a large mandate again, what then?

Well that won't be hard for the Tories to exploit, will it.

Front bench jobs not filled. Labour politicians don't co-operate with their "leader". Corbyn gets needle from his own side of the despatch box for the next 4 years. There's a campaign of deselection of anti-Corbynistas. The takeover of the hard left party-within-a-party is partial, and a mess. Annihilation awaits at the next general election. From the ashes arises a new centre-left leader and policy direction, enhanced by the catastrophe of the party following the Corbyn cult over the cliff.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's telling that none of the Labour 'Big Guns' will risk standing.