Again, expecting moderate Labour MPs to be loyal to people with the records of Corbyn and McDonnell is wishful thinking at its absurd best. Particularly when so many of the more audible Corbyn supporters divide their time between calling them Red Tories and advocating their deselection.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
They don't have to be blindly loyal, but when you hear stories about plots and people saying "He's got 2 years" it's a beyond a piss take.
Or his lack of policy on the matter, rather.
Or do you believe everything the media cram down your throat?
First paragraph: I would say it's different from the norm to an extent. Isn't much different from what Milliband faced though. Not sure Farage ever had to face a front page headline about how he eats sandwiches. His party could have been treated a lot worse by the press considering the amount of dodgy statements and views coming from it.
Second paragraph: We're a week in. When does anything more than soundbites happen in QT?
If there's clear evidence by that point that he's going to make Labour perform worse in 2020, making the Tories likely to win not only that election but 2025 as well, then you'd have to be thick not to get rid of him.
Do you not think their own actions are at least part of the reason people find labour off-putting? I certainly don't want to vote for a party full of Mandelson clones.
They should be loyal to their own fecking members who overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn. The sheer arrogance they are displaying is disgusting. I for one will be loathed to vote Labour if things carry on like this and Corbyn gets undermined before he has proper chance and forced out.
This is the most important point, really. For all of Corbyn's own rebelling against the party, it's quite clear that those who care enough about the Labour party to vote want Corbyn as leader, and by a considerable distance as well.
I don't see how it'll end well for Labour at all. Corbyn will struggle to appear electable at all if he stays in power, but if he's forced out then there's going to be a fairly large disconnect, with the party fracturing, many voters abandoning it for other alternatives, and probably some of the traditionally socialist MP's finally forming their own breakaway.
It's not full of Mandelson clones, most of them are hardworking MPs who knock on thousands of doors and hear what their constituents want from a Labour party in order to vote for them. They don't want the Labour party to be unelectable and allow the Tories untrammelled power for the next decade. They aren't taking a dislike to Corbyn because they don't like men with beards, it's because they think he'll be a disaster, and that's not something you just willingly accept.
Corbyn and McDonnell should've been loyal to their fecking members (and compatriots) who overwhelmingly voted for Blair then, right?
How is such a blatant feck you to the members going to make Labour more electable?
Did Corbyn and McDonnell openly plot to overthrow Blair?
Most of us understand that. It's likely that a high number of MP's are incredibly hard-working, but the ones who are likely to be in power (Burnham, Cooper, Kendall type figures), are just extremely vapid, have very little of interest to say, and come across as constantly changing their opinion at a whim if it's likely to make them appear more electable. Burnham's probably the worst for it out of that lot for it, admittedly, but the other two quite clearly didn't reflect what the Labour membership wanted.
And you could argue that Corbyn was loyal, in that he didn't abandon the party despite the fact that it had almost entirely changed its beliefs/politics from when he'd first joined. Things could've gotten a bit trickier for Labour in the Blair era if Corbyn and other socialist MP's had abandoned the party for a socialist alternative. Corbyn's main disloyalty was generally his more principled opinions. Should he have willingly agreed with the Iraq War, for example, because Tony Blair told him to?
The fact of the matter is that Corbyn was overwhelmingly chosen by Labour members to be their leader. Attempts to undermine him and remove him from power are attempts to undermine the majority of Labour members who voted.
You keep trotting out this argument but it's not as simple as that.
You're talking about a couple of backbenchers dissenting - political parties will always have that and to an extent need it.
What's happening at the moment is high ranking labour figures are trying to dig a grave for Corbyn. Thing is they are digging so hard that the grave will be big enough to fit the entire party in by the time they're done. You will probably argue that he's already doing some digging himself, but if that's the case then they shouldn't be helping him as they are.
Alex Salmond said the other night, one thing that will always hold true is a party that is fragmented will never win an election. I think he was right on the mark there.
What Labour should be doing at this early stage is either getting behind him or keeping quiet. Not briefing reporters constantly and creating an even bigger perception of rifts in the party than there needs to be.
If he bumbles about for a few years, then maybe I can understand forcing him out before the election.
What's happening now is a complete joke though.
I'm sure others will feel the same way as me about never wanting to vote for such a party again.
McDonnell's been trying to arrest him for the past decade or more.
As to your first question, of course actually deposing him now would be dumb and pointless. Which is why they'll wait a couple of years for the reality to dawn. This works fine for everybody - if Corbyn's as great as his supporters think and wins over the rest of the country, he'll be doing well in the polls and so no overthrow would get off the ground. If he's doing as crap as the moderates think he will, then the membership will probably agree it's for the best to try something else. In the meantime, the right of Labour needs to think of new ideas and ways of appealing not just to centrists but also to those on the left of the party as well, because I agree in the past it has been massively taken for granted.
Corbyn was loyal to his own ideals, not the party. Which is fine, but he chose to stand on a Labour platform, as you said. If he'd joined the SWP or something and stood for them in the same constituency, he'd have lost. You're allowed to vote how you want in partliament so if he was fairly elected as the candidate for Islington North and won his seat there, he can be as disloyal to the whip as he wants and I won't argue. Just don't pile on this bullshit about the rest of the party being expected to fall in line behind him.
The membership result put paid to any gravedigging. He has a clear mandate, people from across the party have agreed to serve in his shadow cabinet and aren't going to actively try and destroy the party's chances when it's their own jobs on the line (a great deal of moderate MPs are from marginals, a great deal of Corbyn's supporters are not). The thing that set off most of the annoyance recently was McDonnell getting shadow chancellor, which was essentially a slap in the face of most of the PLP. Sure, he's perfectly entitled to do it. It may have even been the most authentic course of action for him to take. But he knew what the consequences of such an appointment were likely to be, and he'll have to live with them.
I think that time has passed, to be honest. There's still a bit of a taint on the party from the Blair era, and it appears that more and more voters have become disillusioned with the centrist/right approach from Labour: that's partly why the other candidates struggled in comparison to Corbyn. Labour will probably move back to the centre at some point, but it'll almost definitely be at the expense of the left element of the party, who will break-away, with some joining a new Socialist Labour type party, and others moving to alternatives like the Greens. It's bound to happen at some stage, and the Corbyn leadership will probably be the catalyst for it.
Seems to me like a fair few are and the last part of your post suggests you agree with me.
If they aren't keen on improved public services and having a government that doesn't reflexively try and cut the welfare state, they are entitled to do so, as long as they know the result will be perma-Toryism. In an ideal world we'd have PR so plurality of options would be a thing, but we don't and the Tories will never introduce it. Umunna, persona-non-grata on here these days, would.
Umunna backed out of his own accord, what relevance does he have?
That the public aren't going to let someone easy to paint as an IRA sympathiser be in charge of the Treasury? If that's your argument, then sure.
He's a moderniser that is one of the likely candidates to succeed Corbyn. Relevant to the discussion myself and Cheesy were having.
You went from saying that the party aren't actively trying to do anything to saying they are because of McDonnell.
It's something that Labour should adopt as policy, whether that be with Corbyn, whoever follows him. Of course, I imagine the party still won't because they'll still want to get majorities, but if Labour took a stand and supported PR then the Tories would be the only particularly relevant UK party against it, which would make their case for it a lot weaker considering they'd be the ones benefiting from it against all other parties.
The problem is though that those who would abandon Labour clearly don't feel that Labour in its centrist approach is really all that better than the Tories, which is obviously where the whole Tory-lite tag comes in. Some people would rather support a party which genuinely reflects their own beliefs, instead of sticking with one merely to get rid of an even worse party.
Why would you want to sink the ship? The man in just not electable. It is what the centre left, Tories and Labour pragmatists have been saying all along but the ideologues would not listen as they thought they knew best, dreaming and talking themselves into a different political landscape than actually exists. Even Owen Jones admitted as much without saying it and was very tacitly sceptical. If you want to change the conversation, Corbyn is absolutely the last man capable of doing it.
For the record. I am one of the 20% that would vote Tory over a Corbyn Labour. It saddens me as I despise the Tories and their ideological cuts that affect the weakest in society, but dealing with the world in terms of foreign policy is way way beyond the capabilities of a Corbyn Labour government IMO. Cameron, whilst you might not agree with his specifics has shown himself to be a strong leader. I have been disappointed with Germany and their pragmatic refugee policy that they expect us all to swallow. I am pleased that the Tories pushed back on that among the hysteria.
You despise the Tories so much you're going to vote for them? You're either lying or using the wrong language here.
Cameron has failed hard on foreign policy with many things (like Syria for instance).
In hindsight Corbyn has been proven correct on foreign policy when people doubted him at the time, on multiple occasions.
Any comment on the article I posted @Ubik?
You're talking about them as if it's some small group of people. This is the majority of those who voted in the Labour leadership contest. It's hardly a small band of ideologues like you're making them out to be.
And...eh, what? The Tories were quite clear at first that they weren't going to be particularly welcoming to refugees, yet that immediately changed after some fairly light, brief media pressure, when they then extended it to 20,000. The Tories have allowed their opinions on the matter to change on a whim. It's hardly rock solid conviction from them.
Ironic use of words considering we're still 5 years away from the election and nothing has been proven yet apart from the fact that Corbyn has won every election he's ever taken part in (as far as I know).
Re: Moderate Labour MPs
The vast majority of regular Labour voters are neithrr members of the party nor this category of "supporter", serving their interests is also part of being an MP.
I can't say that i recall any articles about Farage and food, although there was that one which mocked Cameron for using a knife and fork to eat a hot dog or a burger. Such stories are silly and a bit childish, i would doubt that anyone is shaping their voting choices around them.
So far as policy goes, the substance for much of the reporting can be found in Corbyn's own statements or those of key advisers. We've not witnessed mass distorting of his beliefs IMO.
Whilst QT can be a bit of a circus at times, it remains the only sample from which to draw. Corbyn has just swept to victory in the Labour leadership election, what happened to the platform that got him there?
The vast majority of regular Labour voters are neithrr members of the party nor this category of "supporter", serving their interests is also part of being an MP.
I can't say that i recall any articles about Farage and food, although there was that one which mocked Cameron for using a knife and fork to eat a hot dog or a burger. Such stories are silly and a bit childish, i would doubt that anyone is shaping their voting choices around them.
So far as policy goes, the substance for much of the reporting can be found in Corbyn's own statements or those of key advisers. We've not witnessed mass distorting of his beliefs IMO.
Whilst QT can be a bit of a circus at times, it remains the only sample from which to draw. Corbyn has just swept to victory in the Labour leadership election, what happened to the platform that got him there?
Let me say that I believe that we should have taken the quota. Germany saw the opportunity to solve a declining population by opening the borders to low paid workers and of course, as the leader of the EU, making the other states take the rest of the refugees. All this created a mad scramble of the refugees, risking their lives and encouraging people trafficking, often run by ISIS. Instead of crumbling to the liberal group think of opening borders willy nilly, Cameron took safest option for all involved (although he should have accepted a higher number) and agreed to take only refugees from official camps.
How was this the wrong decision?
We will find out over time, it's clear he's facing a lot of dissent from his own MPs at the moment which I would guess is slowing things down in terms of putting a solid agenda together for the whole party to follow.
That's not to say he hasn't been doing interviews. He has. Thing is he seems to have to spend most of his time in them answering questions over the national anthem rather than his actual policies.
I'm talking about the decision he took 2 years ago.
I actually think the revised conservative policy on the refugees isn't that bad, even though we should be taking more than 20,000. Taking them directly from the camps does seem quite wise to me on the face of things.
No, I said he'd have to live with the consequences. The consequences will be a public that don't take him seriously and a party that treats him with disdain. They will not be actively trying to destroy the party's chances, but he could've got a lot more of them onside without that particular appointment. They will not want to defend their shadow chancellor (nor would I), this is not a good state to be in for the opposition to the government.
I agree it should be policy, and it's actually the moderate MPs who've been most vociferous on it. With the decamping of Scotland from Labour, it's now incredibly hard for Labour to get a majority at all, let alone a big one. So it actually becomes more pragmatic (and moderate MPs are very much this) to espouse a system where you need only be the largest party to be in government - Labour can now be the largest party in votes and still be well behind Tories in seats.
On the second point - I agree it's a hard sell, and for that reason they need to go and think hard about how they'll proceed. But I don't believe that large parts of the Labour vote (general election vote that is, not membership and registered support) will agree that they'd rather be in opposition than government. The moderates need arguments as to how they'll increase social justice, make those at the bottom better off, enhance equality of opportunity for every kid regardless of locale, gender or race and keep the economy strong for everyone that has a part in it. There's winning arguments to be found there, and whilst there will be plenty on the far-left who'll still call them Tory scum, the vast majority will not.
I think I did a mini-statistical analysis in the midst of the old thread that showed the Labour-Tory axis was the one that lost and gained seats most easily. Crux - if Labour loses support to the Tories at the next election (any, let alone 20%), they'll lose a lot of seats. There is one seat to be won from the Greens, and to be honest I'm fine with Caroline having it. There are 8 Lib Dem seats left. Most SNP seats have such large majorities it would take a comparable landslide to the one they benefited from to take many back.
Plus, that article only takes into account the fifth of support that goes directly to the Tories. If they're comparing like-for-like, as they seemingly want to by including Greens, UKIP and the SNP, they should be looking at the total figure that say they're less likely to vote Labour, which is 37%.
I don't know if you've seen this article from the Guardian:
Ukippers, cybernats, Corbynistas – are you with me? If not, I despise you
The party is publicly treating him with disdain and briefing against him. If that's not actively trying to destroy the party's chances I don't know what is.
I'm not sure where that 37% comes from as it's mentioned at the start of the article and never again. But you should be noting the fact that it says "less likely", which at this early stage of his leadership doesn't really say much.
So what do you think about the entire article, not just the that is bolded?
Guardian are Tories, Nick. Love Marina Hyde though.
It usually takes the form of actively rallying around an alternative candidate, resigning from the frontbench (after being appointed), non-anonymous comments and articles explaining why the leader's doing shit, getting hatchet men like Damien McBride (and the current Deputy) to systematically destroy your support base. All that's going on at the moment is sulking because they lost. He'll be there for a couple of years yet, unless things get much worse sooner than expected.
Resigning from the frontbench before being appointed isn't much better is it?
Anonymous comments are the same as non-anonymous comments, just more cowardly.
The way things are looking now, it looks like they want to ensure that in a couple of years time they have an excuse to get rid of him.
I did note that, in that post you quoted. I'd agree it's still a fluid figure with plenty of provisos and will more than likely change over the course of the parliament, but it's a terrible starting point. And it fits in with every other piece of evidence I've seen, saying that he will more likely than not win less votes than Miliband, which will be a disaster.
37% comes from this chart:
More lies from the Sun?