I've kept away from this thread, as I'm sure many other have. My 2p on the labour leadership.Many would argue that Smith's compromises - like abstaining on the welfare reform bill vote, which was explicitly about trying to look financially responsible to appeal to the electorate and was completely contrary to what the Labour party are supposed to represent - are compromises too far. I'd agree with them.
Some more of my views...I also put this on Facebook the other day.I have always voted Labour and even modestly donated to the party at the last election. I strongly believe Jeremy Corbyn must be replaced as leader before the next election. If he isn't, then I could not vote for the party. Here's why.1) Policies. I've written this paragraph first because for many people these will be the main, or even only reason on which to determine their choice in a forthcoming Labour leadership election. In fact for me there are other more important reasons in this particular case - see (2/, (3) and (4) below. On the pure policy front, I am personally strongly opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, but otherwise I think most of his individual policies are good ideas. A problem for me here is that I just think he wants to do too much at once for the general public to 'bite', especially once the right wing Press get their teeth into it. A National Investment Bank, National Education Service, nationalisation of the railways (and energy companies?), much higher minimum wage and a complete turnaround of many aspects of foreign policy - some of these I think are great individual ideas, but people will be nervous about voting for so much change all at once at a General Election (and will be scared off by the 'papers). It needs to be done more gradually, focusing on a much smaller number of these major changes, with lots of detail behind them so that they can be defended against those who would portray them as idealistic, backward or extreme. [It's also very questionable whether a Government and their civil service would be capable of implementing this level of change in 5 years anyway, especially in parallel with sorting out the situation with the EU.] Hopefully an alternative leadership candidate could keep some of the Corbyn policies that have had the most positive feedback, but detail them up to ensure they are workable and then bring other major changes forward once the first few have had some success.2) Inability to compromise and put the country before himself. Any leader of any organisation needs to be able to show pragmatism and to compromise on his/her principles occasionally for the good of the organisation (in this case, the country). Corbyn can't do this because his principles are too strong - they appear more important to him than the actual results of his actions. One example is stating outright that he would never use the nuclear deterrent (note: the whole point in it is that a potential aggressor never knows for sure; there was simply no need for him to answer this question, and there is nothing to be gained by doing so.) Another example is his unwillingness to share a platform with the main 'Remain' campaign in the EU referendum. Many other politicians bit the bullet and talked together with their usual opposition to try to achieve the outcome they all felt was right for the country. But the main Labour party under Corbyn couldn't. On occasions he seemed more interested in highlighting how different he was from Cameron. At best, what he did was inadvertently dilute the 'Remain' message by confusing the electorate with a different set of reasons to stay, and then not standing firmly enough behind them. (I'm going to assume positive intent here and believe that he did in fact want to stay in the EU, and wasn't deliberately doing a half-job.)I strongly believe that whatever your position on Trident or on the EU, the above examples demonstrate an inability to understand the true consequence of his actions, or to direct them towards the best end outcome. He is too driven to follow the principles he has held for many years without compromise, and without thinking enough about the outcome.3) Communication (in)competence. He has said too many things in public that could be interpreted the wrong way, and communicated too weakly on important subjects, for it to be bad luck - he clearly lacks the ability to think on the spot and get things reliably right. The most recent example of this was comparing the Israeli Government to 'those various self-styled islamic states or organisations', widely interpreted to mean IS. Whether he meant it or not, his team were left to pick up the pieces, with Jewish leaders publicly condemning him. And this was all at an event supposed to address accusations (hopefully unfounded) of anti-semitism. The country simply cannot afford to have a Prime Minister prone to this sort of gaffe. It would be a disaster waiting happen (in the modern world of social media on top of the traditional TV and Papers, maybe even more so.) So if you want to have a Labour Government, he can't be the Labour leader either. [To be clear, I do not mean that we need another PM who is more concerned with their image than anything else - they just need to be competent in the role.]4) Practicalities of MP support. The simple fact is that even if party members vote to keep him now, he has too little support amongst his MPs to actually lead a credible opposition. After the last set of resignations, I understand he had too few people left to even form a full shadow cabinet. That implies that Labour are no longer a realistic prospective party of Government, and that we are moving towards a one-party state, which we must avoid. Notwithstanding that, he will also be unable to command his party well enough to form a strong opposition block to the Tories when voting in Parliament on any remotely controversial or difficult issues (even with SNP support, which Labour must avoid relying on). Therefore, now that so many of his own MPs have declared other allegiances, he simply can't lead the party, and in my view has to go, even if you discount my other points above. And when people talk about his democratic mandate from the last Labour leadership election, remember that those MPs have all been voted for, despite an overall weak Labour performance, by their local voters of all types in the last General Election. That is the mandate that is really most important.Overall I think Corbyn should be commended for his strong principles, most of which are genuinely about creating a more equal world, his willingness to be 'different' and his ability to raise passionate support amongst his admirers. But ultimately for the reasons above I think he is only suited to being a vocal back-bench MP or to leading a protest group, not a party of Government. For the sake of the UK, Labour must make itself a realistic party of Government again.
If you switched out, en masse, the vast majority of the current crop of MPs, especially in "safe seats"
As their reasons for no confidence have been systematically debunked, the PLP just seem to invent new ones. It’s this inconsistency, and their urgency, which suggests they have an agenda beyond what they’re saying publicly.To me, him being too big a threat to the establishment and the ‘special relationship’ should he win, rings much truer than anything the PLP have come out with so far.
Quote from: Somebody's Fool on July 22, 2016, 12:30:45 amAs their reasons for no confidence have been systematically debunked, the PLP just seem to invent new ones. It’s this inconsistency, and their urgency, which suggests they have an agenda beyond what they’re saying publicly.To me, him being too big a threat to the establishment and the ‘special relationship’ should he win, rings much truer than anything the PLP have come out with so far. You don’t think it’s mostly for the simpler reason that they see how the media works in this country and they know how little most voters are willing to look beyond what they are told by it - as such they don’t believe JC can win? This is not a reason that can be easily/honestly laid out, given you're telling people they are thick, lazy and manipulated and trying to use the very means of that manipulation as your voice.
And so Twitter and FB can be manipulated - actually manipulated more than newspapers as you have far more control over where your news/ads go to... Also - the old school media (BBC, itv, and newspapers) are behoven to tell both sides of the story. And despite he bias - there is a professionalism and a requirement to check out the accuracy of reports. The newer digital media are partly behind the new post factual situation - where anyone can make up or selectively choose parts of their story without being held to account. Look at the Canary for example - or the huff - or most of the blog post pages posted up here and in other places. No accountability, no responsibility... Plus by select what you want to hear (which is harder wig the BBC for example) you reinforce the echo chamber effect outlined above. If the media are 'against' you - tough shit - you still have to deal with them. Sure you can see a utopian future where there is no media bias - but no matter what form of reporting there is then you've got to deal with it. You have to get on today in the morning, then 5 live, then this morning, then breakfast etc... Dishing out the soundbites, smiling to the camera, being nice and welcoming... THATS THE GAME - you've got to play it. Talking to a room of trade union members, or your close supporters, stuck out on YouTube doesn't have the same effect. It might in the future - but as the referendum showed - those above 60 nearly all vote - and have a big influence... You don't see grandma snapchatting very often... Anyway - even if JC hates all this shit he should be getting someone from his junta to do it for him - organise some reponses, some soundbites, some shadow ministerial statements. But we've had next to nothing over the last year - despite all the gaping opportunities to do so.
The newer digital media are partly behind the new post factual situation - where anyone can make up or selectively choose parts of their story without being held to account. Look at the Canary for example - or the huff - or most of the blog post pages posted up here and in other places. No accountability, no responsibility...
Anyway - even if JC hates all this shit he should be getting someone from his junta to do it for him - organise some reponses, some soundbites, some shadow ministerial statements. But we've had next to nothing over the last year - despite all the gaping opportunities to do so.
Trump is indeed a narcisisstic policy void who just seems to say what a subset of crazy Americans want to hear. Johnson has an opinion for every day of the week and is happy to pick and choose from them to suit his own ends. They are populists in the "demagogue" sense of the word. They talk up the sense that "ordinary folk" are being oppressed by "the elite" and then they offer solutions that I think a lot of people feel are based on either lies or right wing fanaticism and appeals to people's baser instincts.
By the textbook I suppose Corbyn is indeed a populist in that he makes the same argument but in contrast offers solutions that are socialist but rational, based on proper policy positions which are aimed at decreasing inequality and seem popular with the public (renationalising railways for eg), and which he has been historically very consistent in advocating. But he isn't a demagogue. I guess the point I'm making is that I can't imagine Corbyn arguing for say recently arrived EU citizens to be forced to leave or have reduced rights even if the public at large wanted it. I can see Johnson doing that, and Trump if he was in UK. Perhaps my fault for not being clearer by using populist instead of demagogue. I don't see how anyone can argue Corbyn is a demagogue! Although you did try!
Taking your comparisons:the leader without a firm grip on policy - are you seriously arguing Corbyn is as policy light as Trump???
the desire to quash any and all internal opposition - evidence? Labour are having a leadership election due to internal opposition, which Corbyn welcomed. I doubt Erdogan will be taking tips from Corbyn on quashing dissent.
the inability to be a team player - OK from what you hear there may be an element of truth to this. However the question then is is Owen Smith more so? And is that what the PLP want? A lot seemed happy with Blair and he took us into a war pretty much on his own decision!
the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.
and the junk science - ???
and the aggressive followers - still yet to backed up with strong evidence but yes I'm sure a few are fanatical. Hardly riots at Trump rallies, or a phalnx of blackshirts though is it?
and the Putin loving and EU-hating - again not much evidence for the first. The second is a bit strong, he did say he was 7/10 for the EU which although not president of the EU fan-club is hardly hating it.
hi Guy - wasn't aimed at you or anyone just a general media (it's not just about the bias) rant
Quote from: Nigel on July 21, 2016, 06:49:39 pmthe chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability.
Quote from: seankenny on July 22, 2016, 12:52:41 pmQuote from: Nigel on July 21, 2016, 06:49:39 pmthe chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability. The "coming out of the woodwork" bit is my problem. If this is genuinely the case why didn't they say that in the first place rather than this "unelectable" bollocks people might have been more sympathetic, I certainly would - now it just looks like somebody is lying and I don't know who.
Then why are we getting two stories ? Firstly he's unelectable - now unworkable with.I can see some genuinely believe the first - but I'd say that after 2 lost GEs on a r-wing ticket it's time to try something else.
