Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[MikeG]

I can't see the Lib Dems taking over while they have little Timmy Farron at the helm. He's even more useless as a leader than Jeremy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...farron-liberal-democrats-revolt-a7464371.html

In one way I agree with you. He doesn't represent me. I can't vote for his brand of Liberalism, and that despite voting Liberal or Lib/Dem almost my entire adult life. Hell, I voted for Jeremy Thorpe. I now hover, metaphorically, on the left wing of the Conservative party hoping their dreadful right wing continues to waste away, because that's the only option left for a socially-liberal economically-conservative voter. However, I also recognise that just because the Lib Dems no longer represent my views as well as they did, that doesn't mean the current direction of the party isn't a good one. Their policy direction may well be wise (I don't know), and lead them into fertile electoral territory, but just not speak to people of my ilk. Ho hum. I wish them well, and I'll keep a watching brief.

Let me make it clear that I am not too bothered about the personalities of any of the leaders. I don't much care whether I like or loath them, in terms of determining where I cast my vote. I am only interested in policy direction. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable, as I probably said on the first page of this thread, not because of who he is and how he is, but because of what he stands for: old fashioned tax and spend socialism and class warfare. Tim Farron may have left me behind, but he might be slotting nicely into a progressive modern centre-left role with a healthier chunk of the electorate to aim at, on ground vacated by the Labour Party. I'd say it was too early to be certain of the latter.

 

[lionking]

In one way I agree with you. He doesn't represent me. I can't vote for his brand of Liberalism, and that despite voting Liberal or Lib/Dem almost my entire adult life. Hell, I voted for Jeremy Thorpe. I now hover, metaphorically, on the left wing of the Conservative party hoping their dreadful right wing continues to waste away, because that's the only option left for a socially-liberal economically-conservative voter. However, I also recognise that just because the Lib Dems no longer represent my views as well as they did, that doesn't mean the current direction of the party isn't a good one. Their policy direction may well be wise (I don't know), and lead them into fertile electoral territory, but just not speak to people of my ilk. Ho hum. I wish them well, and I'll keep a watching brief.

Let me make it clear that I am not too bothered about the personalities of any of the leaders. I don't much care whether I like or loath them, in terms of determining where I cast my vote. I am only interested in policy direction. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable, as I probably said on the first page of this thread, not because of who he is and how he is, but because of what he stands for: old fashioned tax and spend socialism and class warfare. Tim Farron may have left me behind, but he might be slotting nicely into a progressive modern centre-left role with a healthier chunk of the electorate to aim at, on ground vacated by the Labour Party. I'd say it was too early to be certain of the latter.

Hey that's me (or how I describe myself anyway). In Australia I vote for the Australian Labor Party, which has set aside its historic socialist roots and is very electable. Many would argue that there are few differences between the ALP and the Libs, but the differences are important to me. UK Labour could look at the ALP model, but I know they won't.

And I absolutely agree that it is not Corbyn, but what he stands for which makes him unelectable.

 

[JihadJane]

Hey that's me (or how I describe myself anyway). In Australia I vote for the Australian Labor Party, which has set aside its historic socialist roots and is very electable. Many would argue that there are few differences between the ALP and the Libs, but the differences are important to me. UK Labour could look at the ALP model, but I know they won't.

And I absolutely agree that it is not Corbyn, but what he stands for which makes him unelectable.

Evidence?

 

[The Don]

So what if the membership are at odds with the public? It's their party.
They get to have their views represented and the public vote on it.

You're right, they are perfectly entitled to do what they want.

Momentum have hijacked the party and are turning it into what their predecessors, Militant, wanted it to be back in the 80's.

IMO the PLP are also entitled to fight to wrest control of their party back from these interlopers.

The public can vote Tory if they want Tories. If these unhappy plp MPs don't like it form their own party.

Sure they could run away, or they can do what adults do, stay and fight for their party. If you don't like the current government then IMO your first reaction shouldn't be to leave the country.

The BBC article hinted that the PLP's efforts may be starting to yield results. According to the article, the active membership (the ones who actually turn up to meetings, take part in candidate selection, go to conference and so on) are less extreme than the membership as a whole. It seems that a lot of Corbyn's supporters aren't prepared to make any investment in the party past casting an electronic vote in the leadership election.

If that's the case then there is some hope for the party but then again if Corbyn just talks about his own policies, in defiance of official party policy determined at conference (which tbh has been his MO for decades), Labour could be heading towards a constitutional crisis.

Labour have been an opposition in name only far longer than Corbyn has been in charge.

I disagree.

 

[The Don]

Tim Farron may have left me behind, but he might be slotting nicely into a progressive modern centre-left role with a healthier chunk of the electorate to aim at, on ground vacated by the Labour Party. I'd say it was too early to be certain of the latter.

His policies certainly seem to be aimed at the likes of me - Labour members and supporters who are alarmed by the leftward lurch of the Corbynites and the way in which Momentum have hijacked the party.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You're right, they are perfectly entitled to do what they want.

Momentum have hijacked the party and are turning it into what their predecessors, Militant, wanted it to be back in the 80's.

IMO the PLP are also entitled to fight to wrest control of their party back from these interlopers.

Then at least acknowledge that the fight is responsible for making the party look like a shambles to those on the outside.

Sure they could run away, or they can do what adults do, stay and fight for their party. If you don't like the current government then IMO your first reaction shouldn't be to leave the country.

Nor should it to be to insist that the voters can just be ignored and we will just run the country into the ground for now until the government give up.

The BBC article hinted that the PLP's efforts may be starting to yield results. According to the article, the active membership (the ones who actually turn up to meetings, take part in candidate selection, go to conference and so on) are less extreme than the membership as a whole. It seems that a lot of Corbyn's supporters aren't prepared to make any investment in the party past casting an electronic vote in the leadership election.

Just as most electors vote and then do nothing more. Remember that the voters you want to shape the party around are the ones who wouldn't even pay their money to vote in that leadership election. Remember as well the rather shameful efforts of the PLP to disenfranchise members because they didn't vote the way they wanted them to.

If that's the case then there is some hope for the party but then again if Corbyn just talks about his own policies, in defiance of official party policy determined at conference (which tbh has been his MO for decades), Labour could be heading towards a constitutional crisis.

I just don't see it. Corbyn is far from the left wing firebrand he is portrayed as. He is a rather boring, grey individual who seems to be doing very little indeed.

A constitutional crisis is probably exactly what Labour need instead of lurching around looking for a focus group to tell them what to think this week.

I disagree.

I don't see how you can disagree with that to be honest. Do you think Milliband led an effective opposition? Was jumping on the let's bash the immigrants bandwagon being an effective opposition to the Tories? What Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling conspired with Cameron to deceive the Scottish people on independence was that them being effective in opposition?

 

[The Don]

Then at least acknowledge that the fight is responsible for making the party look like a shambles to those on the outside.

IMO the vast majority of the "blame" belongs to Corbyn. He's the one who has singularly failed to provide leadership, hasn't attempted to proffer the olive branch and who has repeatedly ignored party policy and instead substituted his own views.

Nor should it to be to insist that the voters can just be ignored and we will just run the country into the ground for now until the government give up.

...and yet that has been Corbyn's policy - capitulation at every turn. Whether it's voting in favour of Brexit (against the wishes of 2/3 of Labour Party voters) or just failing to provide any kind of coherent opposition to the government's policies which continue to transfer the burden of austerity from those who can afford it most (like me) to those who can afford it least.

Just as most electors vote and then do nothing more. Remember that the voters you want to shape the party around are the ones who wouldn't even pay their money to vote in that leadership election. Remember as well the rather shameful efforts of the PLP to disenfranchise members because they didn't vote the way they wanted them to.

If the BBC article is to be believed, there seem to be two separate groups here. The "slacktivitsts" who took advantage of Miliband's expansion of the Labour Party and whose only contribution will be to repeatedly vote in unelectable leaders and a smaller group of Labour Party activists who attend the meetings, go to conference and so forth. The latter is deadly dull (I know I did it for the best worst part of two decades) but means that you get to influence party policy.

Corbyn seems to be cutting out the latter (who seem to be less in favour of him) in favour of the former. In so doing he's making the party even less electable. Apart from him feeling good, I cannot see how that helps anyone.

I just don't see it. Corbyn is far from the left wing firebrand he is portrayed as. He is a rather boring, grey individual who seems to be doing very little indeed.

I don't think many people think he's a firebrand, as you point out he's far too boring and bland for that. Instead he's replaying the class struggles of the 1970's like some Leeds United supporter pining for the glory days.

A constitutional crisis is probably exactly what Labour need instead of lurching around looking for a focus group to tell them what to think this week.

...and yet you criticise the PLP for forcing the issue

I don't see how you can disagree with that to be honest. Do you think Milliband led an effective opposition? Was jumping on the let's bash the immigrants bandwagon being an effective opposition to the Tories? What Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling conspired with Cameron to deceive the Scottish people on independence was that them being effective in opposition?

Miliband was less ineffective than Corbyn because, Corbyn and his immediate cronies aside, at least the Labour Party tended to sing from the same sheet.

I don't recall the highlighted portion - are you indulging in a little hyperbole there ?

 

[lionking]

Evidence?

You are asking for evidence of an opinion? Good luck with that.

This is politics. When I say that somebody is unelectable, do you think I am speaking ex cathedra? It's an opinion, and I don't think I'm obliged to say each and every time I say something in politics "it is my opinion that....." It's bloody obvious what I am saying. I don't think Corbyn is electable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

IMO the vast majority of the "blame" belongs to Corbyn. He's the one who has singularly failed to provide leadership, hasn't attempted to proffer the olive branch and who has repeatedly ignored party policy and instead substituted his own views.



...and yet that has been Corbyn's policy - capitulation at every turn. Whether it's voting in favour of Brexit (against the wishes of 2/3 of Labour Party voters) or just failing to provide any kind of coherent opposition to the government's policies which continue to transfer the burden of austerity from those who can afford it most (like me) to those who can afford it least.



If the BBC article is to be believed, there seem to be two separate groups here. The "slacktivitsts" who took advantage of Miliband's expansion of the Labour Party and whose only contribution will be to repeatedly vote in unelectable leaders and a smaller group of Labour Party activists who attend the meetings, go to conference and so forth. The latter is deadly dull (I know I did it for the best worst part of two decades) but means that you get to influence party policy.

Corbyn seems to be cutting out the latter (who seem to be less in favour of him) in favour of the former. In so doing he's making the party even less electable. Apart from him feeling good, I cannot see how that helps anyone.



I don't think many people think he's a firebrand, as you point out he's far too boring and bland for that. Instead he's replaying the class struggles of the 1970's like some Leeds United supporter pining for the glory days.



...and yet you criticise the PLP for forcing the issue



Miliband was less ineffective than Corbyn because, Corbyn and his immediate cronies aside, at least the Labour Party tended to sing from the same sheet.

I don't recall the highlighted portion - are you indulging in a little hyperbole there ?

This is the kind of thing I am talking about in the highlighted bit

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe

 

[The Don]

This is the kind of thing I am talking about in the highlighted bit

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe

Controlling immigration != immigrant bashing IMO, YMMV

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Controlling immigration != immigrant bashing IMO, YMMV

Yeah that's what UKIP and the EDL say too. It's as transparent when Labour do it too.

The linked article makes a great point that Brexit was fostered by Labour deciding that immigration was à bad thing and siding with the Tories. Those seeds were sown before Corbyn.

Labour abandoned the left a long time ago and gave up opposing effectively not long after. Two cheeks of the same backside now.

 

[MikeG]

Controlling immigration != immigrant bashing IMO, YMMV

Is this a new notation of which I am not aware? Or =/=, perhaps?

 

[dudalb]

Yeah that's what UKIP and the EDL say too. It's as transparent when Labour do it too.

The linked article makes a great point that Brexit was fostered by Labour deciding that immigration was à bad thing and siding with the Tories. Those seeds were sown before Corbyn.

Labour abandoned the left a long time ago and gave up opposing effectively not long after. Two cheeks of the same backside now.

Or maybe the hard left simply does not have that much support with the British public?

 

[jimbob]

Is this a new notation of which I am not aware? Or =/=, perhaps?

It's "not equal" in some programming languages (I can't recall which, as I am about as far from an expert as it is possible to be

 

[imodium]

A couple of days back repeat offender Jeremy Hunt was caught looking a bit silly again for his NHS failings, the headlines at 6 o'clock and on the morning rags however covered a month old blog from McDonnell about a soft coup.
A couple of weeks back when it came out the conservatives offered bribes to their own mps, again including Hunt, the headlines and morning papers lead with Corbyn about to be ousted.
The conservative election fraud is being ignored too.

No wonder the tories are so popular, every time they screw up the story is forgotten, immediately.

 

[MikeG]

It's "not equal" in some programming languages (I can't recall which, as I am about as far from an expert as it is possible to be

Thanks.

 

[MikeG]

....The conservative election fraud is being ignored too.........

I've no doubt that when the police decide whether there is actually a case to answer that the press will cover the story in full. Until then, it is fraudulent to call it "the Tory election fraud" as if that were a thing. It is also fraudulent to describe the allegations as being ignored, too, as the article you cite is in a national newspaper. We're talking about allegations of overspending in a constituency during an election: not good, but not what most people would understand as fraud.

 

[baron]

Yeah that's what UKIP and the EDL say too. It's as transparent when Labour do it too.

Yet here we have a situation where the government had just been defeated on pushing through A50 at this time on the grounds that there needs to be an amendment securing the futures of existing EU citizens in this country, something that the left and most of the right agree with. Now maybe Corbyn has spoken about this but I haven't seen him do so; I would have expected him to be up in arms about such a serious issue and relentlessly putting pressure on the government and speaking publicly to garner support, but what do we get? ...tumbleweed. What a pathetic man he is.

 

[MikeG]

Yet here we have a situation where the government had just been defeated on pushing through A50 at this time on the grounds that there needs to be an amendment securing the futures of existing EU citizens in this country...........

That won't stick. The Commons will bounce it back to the Lords who will have to acquiesce.

 

[baron]

That won't stick. The Commons will bounce it back to the Lords who will have to acquiesce.

That could well be the case, but the point I'm making is that if Corbyn can't forcefully protest this highly important issue that is having a negative effect on tens of thousands of people, families and businesses in the UK right now, then what is he good for?