Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Francesca R]

I don't understand that. Has the opposition in Parliament no function or purpose between elections?

As I wrote up the page (ETA page before this), part of an effective opposition requires it to be credible / electable.

 

[Francesca R]

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

Again see above. FPTP carries considerable baggage with it that severely neuters this nice idea of parties starting up all over the place and an extensive buffet table of policy preferences to select.

 

[Craig B]

As I wrote up the page (ETA page before this), part of an effective opposition requires it to be credible / electable.

No doubt that's "part". But the major part is to be opposed, I mean as a matter of policy or principle, not simply in personal or party rivalry for the fruits of office.

 

[Francesca R]

What you see as "personal or party rivalry for the fruits of office" I see as an effective check on power. I think you belittle it to the most socially unuseful terms. An "unelectable" opposition is not so effective.

 

[Darat]

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.

Yet they stuck with Milliband so it can't just be that.

 

[Tolls]

No this IS the media.

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

I think you mistake the media reflecting Corbyn's actual performance for it influencing people's view of it.

Seriously. He has a job to do as leader of the Labour party a large part of which, as Francesca says, is to look like a viable alternative. He is not managing to do that. And it's not the trouble with his MPs post-Brexit. They were trailing in the weeks prior to the referendum, though Corbynista's seem to have attempted to rewrite history on that one.

It seems that the PLP have decided that Corbyn's job is fighting a leadership election and he seems to be doing that capably.

Which is why Labour have been doing so well in the polls since he took over...oh wait.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

Well she did say she was a Lib Dem voter...

 

[JihadJane]

Which is why Labour have been doing so well in the polls since he took over...oh wait.

Before the Chicken Coup, Labour were pulling ahead in the polls.

 

[Darat]

I think you mistake the media reflecting Corbyn's actual performance for it influencing people's view of it.

Seriously. He has a job to do as leader of the Labour party a large part of which, as Francesca says, is to look like a viable alternative. He is not managing to do that. And it's not the trouble with his MPs post-Brexit. They were trailing in the weeks prior to the referendum, though Corbynista's seem to have attempted to rewrite history on that one.



Which is why Labour have been doing so well in the polls since he took over...oh wait.

If I recall correctly he took over after what has been described as a rather disastrous general election (for Labour).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As I wrote up the page (ETA page before this), part of an effective opposition requires it to be credible / electable.

And to be different than those they oppose, surely?

But the Labour Party members (those that pay their money and get a say) want the party to represent their views. Not the views of people who don't pay their money and don't get a say.

Perhaps these people don't care so much about being credible as actually being an alternative.

Again see above. FPTP carries considerable baggage with it that severely neuters this nice idea of parties starting up all over the place and an extensive buffet table of policy preferences to select.

In your world the SNP avalanche never happened then? Incidentally when the Tories were in opposition I don't remember anyone suggesting they should become more left-wing in order to be electable or that they had a responsibility to anyone but their own base.

What you see as "personal or party rivalry for the fruits of office" I see as an effective check on power. I think you belittle it to the most socially unuseful terms. An "unelectable" opposition is not so effective.

And an electable party that merely mirrors the government is not an opposition.

I think you mistake the media reflecting Corbyn's actual performance for it influencing people's view of it.

When people attack Corbyn with media talking points then the two things are one and the same. Corbyn was attacked by the media from day one in the job.

Seriously. He has a job to do as leader of the Labour party a large part of which, as Francesca says, is to look like a viable alternative. He is not managing to do that. And it's not the trouble with his MPs post-Brexit. They were trailing in the weeks prior to the referendum, though Corbynista's seem to have attempted to rewrite history on that one.

A viable ALTERNATIVE. Not a viable replication. And we have no idea if he's viable or not as we haven't been to a general election yet. Of course the media have decided he isn't viable but they would, wouldn't they?

Which is why Labour have been doing so well in the polls since he took over...oh wait.

Labour are a shambles and have been for some time. Perhaps if they had a credible alternative leader there would be a stronger case to be made to get rid of Corbyn but the wet tissues offered up are not credible either - so it's purely a case of Anyone But Corbyn.

 

[Lothian]

If I recall correctly he took over after what has been described as a rather disastrous general election (for Labour).

The 2015 election was the first in which Labour managed to increase their share of the vote since 1997. This followed three consecutive elections which each saw Labour losing an average of over 4% of the popular vote.

I guess it all depends on how you measure success.

 

[Darat]

The 2015 election was the first in which Labour managed to increase their share of the vote since 1997. This followed three consecutive elections which each saw Labour losing an average of over 4% of the popular vote.

I guess it all depends on how you measure success.

I actually agree that in many ways it wasn't a disaster but that's not how it is usually described.

 

[Tolls]

Before the Chicken Coup, Labour were pulling ahead in the polls.

No they weren't.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Go on, show the trend.

That's the ******** meme that Momentum has been trying to push, but it's as much arse as the £350 million was for the Leave campaign.

If I recall correctly he took over after what has been described as a rather disastrous general election (for Labour).

Yep.
And the polls were better in the run up to that election than they have been for pretty much the entire time since.

 

[Lothian]

No they weren't.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Go on, show the trend.

That's the ******** meme that Momentum has been trying to push, but it's as much arse as the £350 million was for the Leave campaign.

A better link perhaps.

 

[Tolls]

When people attack Corbyn with media talking points then the two things are one and the same. Corbyn was attacked by the media from day one in the job.

Any new leader is.
Corbyn was not attacked by the left leaning papers until it started to become apparent he was a numpty.

Of course, for the right leaning ones he was a ripe target.

A viable ALTERNATIVE. Not a viable replication. And we have no idea if he's viable or not as we haven't been to a general election yet. Of course the media have decided he isn't viable but they would, wouldn't they?

If his performance during the referendum is anything to go by, he won't do too well. But of course we do have the local elections. The ones which didn't exactly show sparkling success.

Labour are a shambles and have been for some time. Perhaps if they had a credible alternative leader there would be a stronger case to be made to get rid of Corbyn but the wet tissues offered up are not credible either - so it's purely a case of Anyone But Corbyn.

Except that a large number of labour supporters, those outside Momentum, fear that leaving Momentum in charge for too long will lead to irreparable damage. You have heard of all the deselection nonsense doing the rounds I take it? And the victory speeches of the new (pro-Corbyn) NEC members?

So yes, for them it is a case of "anyone but Corbyn" because they fear that the longer it takes to replace him then the harder it will be to sort things out at the local level. Many of these people remember Militant.

 

[Francesca R]

And to be different than those they oppose, surely?

Agree.

But the Labour Party members (those that pay their money and get a say) want the party to represent their views. Not the views of people who don't pay their money and don't get a say.

You don't half sound like you're from Citizens United. As above I believe the Labour party in the UK is a quasi public institution not only a private members' club and it has civic duties wider than obligations to its members and which should rank above obligations to its members. Obviously this is not an enforceable position and it evidently does not carry the day but I find your counters to it very weak. I am surprised you hold them really particularly this idea of paying for influence.

Perhaps these people don't care so much about being credible as actually being an alternative.

I suspect they do not. I think that is short sighted and self serving of them but that is an opinion.

Incidentally when the Tories were in opposition I don't remember anyone suggesting they should become more left-wing in order to be electable

That's odd because I think that's just what they did.

 

[Tolls]

That's odd because I think that's just what they did.

Indeed.
Cameron was hardly in the same league as IDS or Howard.
Even then it took an economic crisis to dislodge Labour, and that didn't even give the Tories a majority.

 

[Craig B]

What you see as "personal or party rivalry for the fruits of office" I see as an effective check on power. I think you belittle it to the most socially unuseful terms. An "unelectable" opposition is not so effective.

Yes, even rivalry between two equivalent sets of crooks is a very valuable thing in a political power structure, but that doesn't detract from the merit or even political utility attaching to principle and integrity.

Blair would have done better for his party and his country if he hadn't been a squalid spiv, and his capacity to win elections doesn't detract from that assessment.

The price of his opportunism is at the foot of the bill which is being presented to his party now; and that is a large sum, possibly unaffordable.

 

[Francesca R]

We are to blame Blair for Corbyn? Quite Zen-like. I understand the argument. But it does still mean the imperative today is not so much to blame Blair as to eradicate the poison that is Jezza

 

[Francesca R]

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

Well she did say she was a Lib Dem voter...

She has voted for both (not in the same election since that's not allowed) but she's never been a member of either.