[erm]

Given how likely Corbyn is to be re-elected by a large proportion of the members, the constituencies are really going to have to bite the bullet and have a mass deselection of the PLP as it stands and select some candidates that can at least not actively oppose him.

Will he? Is he popular with Labour members? Of the people I know, the ones who support JC are the metropolitan left who are the £3 supporters, a lot of whom I guess can't vote in this election. The actual Labour members (i.e. the guys in my office, paid up labour members, would vote for anything with a red rosette etc) think he's a shite leader and want him out. I realise this isn't exactly a great sample but anything else is apparently anti-Corbyn media spin or Corbynistas preaching to the converted.

Which is also backed up by the results from the Labour leadership election 2015. As can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Result

Pill on top that despite the blurb on his part, and his supporters, there are plenty of party leaders that have pulled similar numbers and higher in the past.

[erm]

What strikes me as the madness is the fact that Corbyn stood in parliament as leader of the Labour party and voted against Labour party policy.

This then makes the PLP that don't support him the traitors to the party, despite voting along the lines set, democratically, by the party.... 

[Will Hunt]

Policy which was presumably set with input from the policy forums and the conference. So he talks the line about "betraying the membership" in defence of his continuing so-called leadership, and then won't do as they ask when the party asks him to do something which he personally doesn't agree with. Super duper.

I'm beyond despair with it all. His supporters gleefully ignore all the unpleasant truths about a parliamentary democracy - that you might have to compromise, that a party has to stick together and hold a consensus, that the majority of the party need to obey the whip the majority of the time. They'll all be shafted, but they'll be righteously shafted. And that's the important thing, isn't it?

Corbyn. as somebody with fringe views, belongs on the back benches, where he can influence the course of the party without sinking the ship.

[chris j]

Will he? Is he popular with Labour members?...
...It'd be fascinating if it didn't mean a Tory government without opposition for god knows how long......

It will be interesting to see how much the Labour party still belongs to traditional Labour supporters and also how many of the £3 supporters are prepared to stump up £25 tomorrow to register. I rather get the impression the Corbynists rank quite highly on the quasi-religious zealotry scale so are probably much more likely to vote than average.

[Bonjoy]

Corbyn. as somebody with fringe views, belongs on the back benches, where he can influence the course of the party without sinking the ship.

Out of interest, which of his views do you consider fringe?

[johnx2]

His views aren't the main reason the shadow cabinet resigned. This explains why one had to: http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members

[psychomansam]

What strikes me as the madness is the fact that Corbyn stood in parliament as leader of the Labour party and voted against Labour party policy.

This then makes the PLP that don't support him the traitors to the party, despite voting along the lines set, democratically, by the party.... 

What is the Labour party? Is it the PLP and their views? Is it the members and their views? It's both of course, but it's also something else. It's an idea. Plenty of people point out that the current Benn must make the last Benn turn in his grave. As if plenty of children don't have that effect on their parents? The only reason my old man isn't doing the jive of the dead is because he's still above ground! The relevance with the Benns though is that the former Benn held views which were true to the idea of Labour - a non-elitist party of the people, whose primary interest is in representing those who toil for a living and upholding the good for them - along with those who can't look after themselves. We're talking socialism here people. That's where they started, that's what got them to where they are. Yet we all know the current party has betrayed and abandoned that idea, along with the people whose good they once upheld. They're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher.

What do people like me do who have huge respect for the idea of Labour and for what Labour have done for the UK, yet despise what they represent today? Vote elsewhere, perhaps with a heavy heart? Vote for them as the lesser of two evils, following the unions? Either option can leave a bad tase.

With Corbyn at the top, the choice is rather different. Corbyn is very clearly one of the last few who still hold to the idea of Labour. One of the last few who hasn't betrayed what Labour has meant and stood for and achieved in the UK. He's actually rather socialist for fucks sake. For that, some call him a traitor. Some say, when the hopeful pile in to support him, that Labour now belongs to the elite, to the center, to the new capitalist neoliberals, that it belongs to those who've remained members for the last couple of decades and nodded their heads at the long decline of hope.

Those people are wrong.

[a dense loner]

Did you pull that straight from gladiator?

[johnx2]

 

They're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher.[\quote]

When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.

What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.

[tomtom]

There seems to be something of a competition to prove who is the purest/best socialist that's closest/near Labours 'ideals'/'Values'.

To me there's a strong whiff of bollocks about this. And has how a couple of other people have posted its not about what you believe in precisely (as leader) it's being able to LEAD a group of people (PLP and membership) who have a spectrum of views all in that general area!!!

There's an element of 'I'm the only gay in the village' about some of this (substitute socialist for gay in the sketch if you like)...

My word, smith is now being dissected for working as a lobbyist - but no one mentions how useful/important producing the Today program for 10 years (his previous job) might be for the LP's cause..

[galpinos]

They're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher. [\quote]

When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.

What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.

Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.

[slackline]

Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.

I'm going to hazard a guess that there is a degree of sarcasm in that....

Look at the shit the Lib Dems did when they compromised their principles manifesto pledges in order to try and effect a radical change to the political system.  Very much a case of...

Damned if you do [stick to your principles], and damned if you don't [even if its to try and make a huge change].

[psychomansam]

They're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher. [\quote]

When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.

What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.

Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.

Perhaps you interpreted my comment that way because you're projecting your own self narrative. Perhaps you genuinely think anyone who sees practical good in promoting socialism is a homeless raving maniac idealist with no sense of pragmatism. Perhaps.

Apparently Corbyn supporters should be more pragmatic. Corbyn has the biggest tidal wave of democratic support for any politician out there. The unions are behind him. Labour, under him, have held ground or gained in various by-elections. The man is better known and more recognisable than the current PM. Clearly, this makes him an unelectable joke. Be more pragmatic, you say! After all, new labour was a roaring success at the last election!

Get real. If I set up my own political party today, UKB4Fracking, I'd be more likely to be PM after the next election than Owen Smith - or anyone else from new labour for that matter. Perhaps you need to bend your center-left idealism a little and take a more pragmatic approach.

[johnx2]

Perhaps you genuinely think anyone who sees practical good in promoting socialism is a homeless raving maniac idealist with no sense of pragmatism. Perhaps.

How do you get that from what I wrote?

[galpinos]

Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.

I'm going to hazard a guess that there is a degree of sarcasm in that....

I'm afraid so, it's the slogan from a placard I've seem more than once at pro-Corbyn rallies and seems to be the sentiment of my pro-Corbyn friends. It misses the point that it's not his policies that are the problem.

Look at the shit the Lib Dems did when they compromised their principles manifesto pledges in order to try and effect a radical change to the political system.  Very much a case of...

Damned if you do [stick to your principles], and damned if you don't [even if its to try and make a huge change].

I think the Lib Dems did the right thing. They were naive going into the coalition and paid the price but I prefer the  coalition government to that which we have now.

[erm]

This is the current Labour party Clause IV:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.


The original did not mention socialism directly. The goal of the rewriting was set a standard that would last in time rather than a specific short term goal, but it was written by Blair and so must be wrong.

[Fultonius]

It's so difficult to sort the truth from the noise, spin and plain bullshit.

My conflicting views are:

• It does seem as if Corbyn has some serious leadership flaws, he was a Eurosceptic trying to lead a party who was Pro-EU. He is good at getting public support, but seems to be a poor team player and person-manager.
• He has the right "politics" for what labour used to, and should, represent.
• A large percentage of the PLP appear not to hold the true values of labour.
• Owen Smith is exactly what the labour party does not need another self-serving, too cosy with corporate Britain, anti-NHS, neo-liberal. He's even said he wants MORE austerity...even the tories are turning their back on that failed ideology!

I do think, as some have said, that Labour needs a much stronger leader.  But who would that be? There don't seem to be any credible alternatives. I look forward to corbyn winning and mandatory re-selection of MPs. Yes, this might confine labour to the doldrums for a while, but at the far end there might be some hope that the new raft of MPs might produce a few credible alternative leaders.

I do think he is a threat to the establishment and to the media's grip on power - that study by the LSE was pretty damming of the negative bias. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html

[slackline]

Look at the shit the Lib Dems did when they compromised their principles manifesto pledges in order to try and effect a radical change to the political system.  Very much a case of...

Damned if you do [stick to your principles], and damned if you don't [even if its to try and make a huge change].

I think the Lib Dems did the right thing. They were naive going into the coalition and paid the price but I prefer the  coalition government to that which we have now.

So do I, but many, including some here on UKB (e.g. tomtom  ) have written that they can not forgive them for reneging on their pledges such as not to raise tuition fees.

This is a shame because it fails to acknowledge they weren't the majority, that reforming the electoral system was also one of their manifesto pledges, and that they  took a gamble to effect a real and dramatic change to our political system and in doing so had to make compromises on other aspects.

This leaves politicians with no real choice, if they're pragmatic and make compromises to achieve realistic goals they get slagged off and lose support, if they stick to their principles then they are seen as being awkward and unable to be pragmatic.  They're in a lose-lose situation.

[erm]

• No - his support outside his own narrow constituency is small
• No - Labour is a broad church and his isn't
• No - See above
• Maybe - But I still want an effective opposition and Smith looks a lot more like it than Jesus

I do think, as some have said, that Labour needs a much stronger leader.  But who would that be? There don't seem to be any credible alternatives. I look forward to corbyn winning and mandatory re-selection of MPs. Yes, this might confine labour to the doldrums for a while, but at the far end there might be some hope that the new raft of MPs might produce a few credible alternative leaders.

 

[galpinos]

Perhaps you interpreted my comment that way because you're projecting your own self narrative. Perhaps you genuinely think anyone who sees practical good in promoting socialism is a homeless raving maniac idealist with no sense of pragmatism. Perhaps.

That sounds a little like you projecting your own self narrative?

I'll admit it, I'm pissed off. I'm pissed of with JC, but not because of his "fringe views" because they're not "fringe views", they're not even that far left, it's just our frame of reference for politics is slipping further and further right that what are moderate left views are seen as extreme. I'm pissed of with him because he has screwed up as party leader when we actually needed someone who was a strong leader in opposition.  Have you seen our new PM and her cabinet? (I've given up on the shadow cabinet, it's such an ephemeral thing under Corbyn I can't keep up). There's a fair few wrong'uns in their and they need to be held to account.

As per John's link to Lillian Greenwood's speech, he has screwed his colleagues over time and time again. The anecdotal stories I get from friends who are involved in politics back that up, there's no clear message to his shadow cabinet on the party line, let alone to the party, he ignores briefing notes and the info sent to him by his shadow cabinet, he undermines them on national TV, he's not a team player, let alone a team leader. I know you believe that they (the PLP) are trying to screw him over but do the Labour party really want to go through this?

I'm also pissed of that their isn't a viable alternative. Owen Smith won't be winning those votes back off UKIP. I don't know what the solution is so I'm just venting.

[erm]

Woops - I meant Jeremy. No allusion to him being the messiah or anything. That would just be insensitive!

[Fultonius]

• No - his support outside his own narrow constituency is small

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-support-rises-among-party-members/

• No - Labour is a broad church and his isn't
• No - See above
• Maybe - But I still want an effective opposition and Smith looks a lot more like it than Jesus

[/quote]

[galpinos]

So do I, but many, including some here on UKB (e.g. tomtom  ) have written that they can not forgive them for reneging on their pledges such as not to raise tuition fees.

This is a shame because it fails to acknowledge they weren't the majority, that reforming the electoral system was also one of their manifesto pledges, and that they  took a gamble to effect a real and dramatic change to our political system and in doing so had to make compromises on other aspects.

tomtom know's where his bread is buttered.........

The most depressing thing was that it turned out the nation didn't care about electoral reform. (30% turn out?) Farron is no Clegg either so that's not going to help them.......

[galpinos]

But is he popular with the Labour electorate who aren't party members? Those people who turned to UKIP, who voted out, who feel they don't have a voice, the working class who've been left behind by New Labour and the Tories?

(Genuine question, I don't know)

[Fultonius]

No idea, probably not. They have been winning by-elections and the London mayor, but how can we tell. Polls (ironic, since I just posted one) don't seem to  be very accurate these days.