[Sidehaas]

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.

[36chambers]

Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?

Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25.

[galpinos]

Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?

Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25.

Ha! That's cheered me up.....

[psychomansam]

Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?

Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25.

Ha! That's cheered me up.....

Well whoever wins is going to have a good fighting fund at least.

[Footwork]

Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?

Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25.

 

[Will Hunt]

Lolz.

On FB, Nathaniel, you said that JC was the only thing worth saving in the Labour party. If the rest of the party other than those who back Corbyn fully, including the 80% or so of the party's democratically elected MPs (each with their own individual mandates from their constituencies), are not worth saving, then why offer any support to the party at all? If centre-left doesn't suit you then why not support left-left (probably the Greens). One Messiah figure on their own does not make a political party or an opposition.

I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.

[Nigel]

Well whoever wins is going to have a good fighting fund at least.

Quite!

Although I should think that those who were already members but who were excluded by the 6 month rule should probably have their £25 offered to be refunded, whoever wins. Perhaps an email to these folk with two buttons, one saying "Obviously it was a fucking outrage we asked you to pay £25 when you were already a paid in member promised a vote. Here have it back" and the other saying "Obviously it was a fucking outrage we asked you to pay £25 when you were already a paid in member promised a vote. Click here to donate the money to help the Labour Party".

[joeisidle]

The Labour Party does not belong to the Unions, the Members or the affiliates, they are just custodians for a movement who's sole purpose is to make better the lives of the poor, disposed etc. The most important people probably barely know who Jeremy Corbyn is and it makes no odds to them whether the affiliate fee is £3 or £25 as they won't be joining regardless, however it is them that should be shaping the Labour Party as they need a party in power (or at least a strong opposition) far more than the Labour Party needs unwavering ideals. When Kier Hardy started the Labour Party I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking 'If I don't get exactly what I want then fuck it, I'll sit here with my ideals and hope I get elected anyway' and nor should today's Labour Party. To be in any way effective the Labour Party needs to get elected by whatever means possible and to enact whatever policies it practically can. Common sense tells us this will be a watered down version of the ideal but it needs to engage in realpolitik. If people want to posture like a bunch of sixth former socialists then they should fuck off to the SWP, it's what it was invented for isn't it?

It doesn't matter that JC is a good and principled man, there are fucking millions of them, what we need is someone credible. This is the most unprincipled, amoral govt. we've had since the 19th century and JC has not landed a glove on them. It's no good whinging on about the media being unfair etc., it was ever thus from Foot's donkey jacket through the Welsh Windbag and on to Ed's bacon sandwich, once a narrative has been created around someone it's impossible to reverse and JC has long since passed that point, he doesn't seem credible so it's time for someone else to try. It might not be successful but we won't get anywhere with JC. Much as we might wish it otherwise politics is all about personality and charisma (q.v. the rise of Donald Trump, and the Brexit campaign) and JC has neither. I'm not saying anyone else does either but we are right up a creek and Owen Smith is the only vaguely paddle shaped thing around.

+1 to all that.

++1, I'm voting for the vaguely shaped paddle

[Fultonius]

I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.

Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...

[seankenny]

I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.

Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...

He doesn't have to be "The Man". He merely has to be "The Man that doesn't lead the Labour Party to utter electoral ruin and hand the Tories a majority of 95". Also perhaps "The Man that ensures MPs aren't threatened with deselection for the crime of not supporting the leader, so they can get on and maybe formulate some policies and try to win over the electorate by looking vaguely competent." Being "The Man that can actually field a shadow cabinet" would also help.

[Fultonius]

I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.

Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...

He doesn't have to be "The Man". He merely has to be "The Man that doesn't lead the Labour Party to utter electoral ruin and hand the Tories a majority of 95". Also perhaps "The Man that ensures MPs aren't threatened with deselection for the crime of not supporting the leader, so they can get on and maybe formulate some policies and try to win over the electorate by looking vaguely competent." Being "The Man that can actually field a shadow cabinet" would also help.

But what if he's the man that continues the drift of the party towards the party they're trying to oppose? Who does this help?

[Will Hunt]

Ideological chameleon? What's that founded on? It sounds to me like you're calling him out for being willing to compromise.

ATTENTION CORBYN FANS! IF YOU WANT TO GET WHAT YOU WANT IN POLITICS YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPROMISE AT SOME POINT
Unless you want to live in a dictatorship. This is because opinions are as varied as people.

[Nigel]

Normally wouldn't reply here but the dislikable big red letters made me!

I can't speak for whoever made the ideological chameleon comment, but to me that clearly is a pop at popularism i.e. being a weathervane, not a signpost. We have seen where that leads - Trump, Brexit. The second of which you in particular seem happy to attack on the other thread so to some extent you actually agree with the premise. Whether Owen Smith has a tendency to flip flop his policies on the breeze of popular opinion remains to be seen as the leadership contest develops. It may well not be fair comment, but that isn't the point you made.

Willingness to compromise is an essential part of politics but does not equate to being an ideological chameleon and is straw man which you've set up and tried to knock over with your big moving red train of letters. Willingness to compromise is getting some of what you want, not all of what someone else wants.

[Fultonius]

What Nigel said.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm even involved, I should just leave you lot to the festering Westminster pseudo 1-party state with ToryMAX and ToryLITE fighting it out over who gets to suck off Murdoch, as we sail away on our oil renewables and whisky fuelled ship into the glory days of Scottish independence (some irony intended).

Now we have the great excuse of "brexit" for any economic woes that might come along with the split up of the UK. 

And P.S. what meant by "Ideological Chameleon" is that he is portraying himself as one thing to try and win the leadership election, when his voting record and past history appear to point in a different direction. pointless link that will probably get ripped to pieces for some reason or another

[Duncan campbell]

When Kier Hardy started the Labour Party I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking 'If I don't get exactly what I want then fuck it, I'll sit here with my ideals and hope I get elected anyway' and nor should today's Labour Party. To be in any way effective the Labour Party needs to get elected by whatever means possible and to enact whatever policies it practically can.

I disagree with this in part. I think when Kier Hardy started the Labour party he probably wasn't thinking "Well if I don't get my way I'll keep edging towards the right and away from what is best for the working classes until there isn't much in between us and the Conservatives." Yes he was probably willing to compromise, but only to a certain extent. Is Corbyn quoted anywhere to say he won't compromise full stop? Or is this just a way of using his principles against him?

I totally agree there has to be some compromise. I do feel strongly however that there is a limit to how much you can compromise and shift your ideals as a party because the more you do that, the less of an opposition party you become. I feel this is an issue because New Labour isn't a left wing party anymore, in fact I've never voted for them for this reason. This is important because currently they aren't giving the option for a different way, if that makes sense? To my mind it is better that there is the tory party to the right for if people want to vote for that then its there. But if people want to vote for a more left-wing/socialist way of governing the country old labour gave them that option. New Labour just banked on one of the most stupid aspects of our voting habits, where people vote for the party they've always voted for, and chases those people who are pretty central but aren't right wing enough for the tories. Then those old-school labour voters get pissed off that labour didnt represent them properly and now we are in a right old mess!

Then there is the additional shambles where no-one is willing to vote Lib Dem because of some belief that they'll never get in. Well yes with that attitude + habitual voters who only vote one way they won't.

I sort of feel like Proportional Representation could be a good way to shake up these voting habits, though they could give power to more right wing parties also. Maybe that is a necessary evil. I'm unsure at the minute.

[36chambers]

And P.S. what meant by "Ideological Chameleon" is that he is portraying himself as one thing to try and win the leadership election, when his voting record and past history appear to point in a different direction. pointless link that will probably get ripped to pieces for some reason or another

But all that's important is beating the Tories right? So who actually gives a damn about what he stands for. Have I got that right Will???

[seankenny]

I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.

Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...

He doesn't have to be "The Man". He merely has to be "The Man that doesn't lead the Labour Party to utter electoral ruin and hand the Tories a majority of 95". Also perhaps "The Man that ensures MPs aren't threatened with deselection for the crime of not supporting the leader, so they can get on and maybe formulate some policies and try to win over the electorate by looking vaguely competent." Being "The Man that can actually field a shadow cabinet" would also help.

But what if he's the man that continues the drift of the party towards the party they're trying to oppose? Who does this help?

This is a myth, a popular myth, but a myth neverthless. In the last two elections there were really clear differences between the two major parties. Looking just at 2015 and their spending plans - given the Tory-lite/austerity lover accusation so often levelled at non-Corbyn Labour - the IFS has this to say when it compared the parties' spending plans:

"The differences between the Conservatives on the one hand, and Labour and the SNP on the other, are substantial."

(http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN170.pdf)

On the BBC the IFS were quoted as saying: "the difference between the two approaches was the biggest since 1992."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739)

Labour have actually been drifting away from the Conservatives and the centre ground. Of course you could argue that austerity isn't needed at all, and that this should be an option and Corbyn is the man to give us it. Fair enough for the first part, but the second is laughable. And if you want to argue about the non-Labouriness of New Labour, do remember that the Labour govt of the late 70s introduced what we'd call austerity today (yes, that would be the govt with Tony Benn in cabinet) and it was New Labour who managed to stop the ever-increasing inequality in the UK.

[seankenny]

I can't speak for whoever made the ideological chameleon comment, but to me that clearly is a pop at popularism i.e. being a weathervane, not a signpost. We have seen where that leads - Trump, Brexit.

There's only one problem with this analysis. Look at all the negative things about Trump: the leader without a firm grip on policy, the desire to quash any and all internal opposition, the inability to be a team player, the chaos and the shambles and the junk science and the aggressive followers and the Putin loving and EU-hating - and it's clear there are two politicians following - in a more English style - this mould in the UK. One of course is Boris Johnson. And the other... well I'll leave you to have a guess who that might be.

[tomtom]

Christ - not this Tory lite stuff rearing its head again... That's just as daft as me saying Corbyn is Trot lite :D

Ffs - the LP would become like an episode of Citizen smith if he gets in again...

[tomtom]

To take us to the other side of the pond - this cracked me up.. A little instillation art on trumps hall of fame Hollywood star :D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/tiny-wall-appears-around-donalds-trumps-star-on-hollywood-walk-o/

[slackline]

To take us to the other side of the pond -

Donald Trumps Ghostwriter Tells All


Abridged version...

Art of the Deal Ghostwriter Says Trump Is a Sociopath Who May Cause Nuclear War

[Nigel]

I can't speak for whoever made the ideological chameleon comment, but to me that clearly is a pop at popularism i.e. being a weathervane, not a signpost. We have seen where that leads - Trump, Brexit.

There's only one problem with this analysis. Look at all the negative things about Trump:  One of course is Boris Johnson. And the other... well I'll leave you to have a guess who that might be.

I can see the attraction of that analogy, but I don't fully accept it.

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.

[nic mullin]

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.

As far as electability goes, Labour have fucked it by falling apart entirely in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, despite being pretty much united on the issue, while tories shut up and got on with it and had a new leader installed and doing things despite the whole mess being of their own making and the party being split down the middle. Labour are still two months away from sorting this out, and will most likely either split or carry on arguing over the result well into next year. This utter shambles, on its own, completely independent of policies, who is the Labour leader or any of that shit will probably keep labour out of office for a good few years.

I like Corbyn and a lot of his policies. I like his nicer, more inclusive politics, which has engaged a lot of people. His history of voting against the party means he can't enforce any kind of discipline within it, and he doesn't have his shit together. Smith is an identikit wannabe PM type, seems to be on the morally flexible side, would probably be good at trading insults at PMQs, will most likely be good at making his MPs toe the party line and is media-savvy, but I think a lot of that alienates a lot of people. With the general disillusionment with politics and appetite for moving away from "establishment" politicians at the moment, I don't think Smith will win.

Overall it was a really, really, really stupid time for Labour to have an identity/leadership crisis. The fact that it happened is the bit people will remember and vote on the basis of at the next GE. Whoever gets the job most likely won't be there long (either because Labour will split or because the whole thing will repeat itself, or both) and will be extremely unlikely to get Labour into government.

[psychomansam]

Labour won a landslide in 1997 with PR in the manifesto and then chickened out.

+1 for PR*
I'm hoping the situation with Scotland might have some impact here in one of a few possible ways. One would be for labour to decide they'd like to have some representation north of the border.



*I despise the current hegemony of representative democracy. But we can at least try to improve it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-reject-bill-to-change-britains-voting-system-to-proportional-representation-a7146676.html
 

[Somebody's Fool]

The EU referendum position he took was that although the EU has faults, it was better for the majority of people to stay in because of the protection of workers rights. It was a considered, nuanced position which a lot of people could relate to. But because it treated people like grown ups and didn’t come with a slogan full of conviction, apparently it was 'lacklustre'.

Anyway the argument has moved on from this now. 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.

Also, the PLP have set the tone of discourse very low. The smears have been histrionic and personally insulting. They don’t have any evidence for their claims, just innuendo and tearful interviewees who are short on specifics. And the irony of the bullying accusations is almost too much. Are we supposed to believe this guy is leading a campaign of intimidation against these poor MPs? Is his relentless reasonableness a mere façade for an evil that lurks beneath? I suspect the reality is they’re getting a lot of angry emails because they’re using their position of power to wrestle democracy from the membership. It’s why they daren’t show their faces at their own CLP meetings.

Corbyn divides opinion, but at least he’s popular with some people.  This lot are coming across as an incompetent, scheming rabble, who’ll be lucky to appeal to anybody.