This article in the new statesman makes for a decent read on why Corbyn went for the 3 line whip.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...emy-corbyn-committed-labour-voting-article-50
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
This article in the new statesman makes for a decent read on why Corbyn went for the 3 line whip.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...emy-corbyn-committed-labour-voting-article-50
Yeah Ive heard speculation about this, that he hoped people would resign over it to save him from a difficult decision on deselections.
Not suprising as i said above he's fallen on his sword in a way with the direction he's taken Labour over A50, his base strongly disagree with him.. The alternative was Labour to take the hit by being seen to block it.
If there was a credible candidate available now would be the perfect time for him to resign and hand over the responsibility of addressing brexit to someone who can mould an image of fighting the terms of Brexit.
Very true. Could be a masterstroke for Labour if they could pull it off.
Its not going to happen is it. He isnt going to loosen his grip until there is someone from the Momentum wing to hand over to, is there anyone? Nobody I know about anyway.
The way things are going we will be reapplying for EU membership before Labour get their act together.
The way things are going we will be reapplying for EU membership before Labour get their act together.
They've really misjudged Labour voters and crucially Labour activists. There was a good pieice by John Curtice pointing out that although a majority of Labour constituencies voted Leave, even within those constituencies 60+% of Labour voters supported Remain
I think he's a narcissist. That's the only reason I can give, for him not to have resigned. He genuinely believes he can win the next GE.
To be fair there is a better reason than that. If he gives up the leadership and a Blairite or other centrist (what he would call Red Tory) replaces him they will change the rules again, get rid of the "one member one vote" rule that lies that the root of this whole fiasco and the left of the party will be back out in the cold, and you can be damn sure they will never get another chance like this to take the party back.
If you are a conviction politician you may think a battle for the soul of your party is worth having, even if the timing of it is inconvenient and you understand you are doing short term damage to your election prospects.
Im not saying I agree he should stay. But I dont think he is staying because he's a narcissist.
Id say so what to that really. Its more about Labour not losing any other demographics and winning back those that have already left for UKIP.
I dislike it but its obvious that had Labour actively blocked A50 they'd have lost too many to be relevant.
I really don't think that glumly accepting we had no choice but to trigger A50 is going to win back many UKIP voters tbh.
It won't you're right but the opposite would lose voters in a significant number and push some away forever.
It's the reason why I've started to reach the view that Corbyn should resign so someone who can now win votes can step in untainted by it all. I don't think Corbyn was a mistake but circumstances dictate what's better going forward here.
I had recently the pleasure to attend a speech of Ann Pettifor. She is a a british economist, who is part of the Economic Advisory Committee. They are imo not really particularly important and don't meet at the moment due some resignations. Anyway. The economic ideas that she voiced were truely terrifying. She ended up frequently refering to China as example as an example of how some policies should be done.
Q: How do you make sure that capital is simply not leaving the uk?
A: Well, capital controls. China can do it.
Q: Really? China's capital controls don't work particularly well. (ignoring the elephant in the room that China is an autoritarian dictatorship)
A: yeah, but they could do it.
Q: How?
A: I don't know but they could do it. There are a lot of smart heads out there who could figure it out.
If thats the level of economic advise, that the current labour party is getting, they better shut down the whole opperation.
Q: How do you make sure that capital is simply not leaving the uk?
A: Well, capital controls. China can do it.
Q: Really? China's capital controls don't work particularly well. (ignoring the elephant in the room that China is an autoritarian dictatorship)
A: yeah, but they could do it.
Q: How?
A: I don't know but they could do it. There are a lot of smart heads out there who could figure it out.
If thats the level of economic advise, that the current labour party is getting, they better shut down the whole opperation.
I had recently the pleasure to attend a speech of Ann Pettifor. She is a a british economist, who is part of the Economic Advisory Committee. They are imo not really particularly important and don't meet at the moment due some resignations. Anyway. The economic ideas that she voiced were truely terrifying. She ended up frequently refering to China as example as an example of how some policies should be done.
Q: How do you make sure that capital is simply not leaving the uk?
A: Well, capital controls. China can do it.
Q: Really? China's capital controls don't work particularly well. (ignoring the elephant in the room that China is an autoritarian dictatorship)
A: yeah, but they could do it.
Q: How?
A: I don't know but they could do it. There are a lot of smart heads out there who could figure it out.
If thats the level of economic advise, that the current labour party is getting, they better shut down the whole opperation.
I mean to be fair to Labour, the only economic advice the government is currently getting is the sound of Brexiters with their fingers in their ears chanting "Will of the people"
He's done, its getting ridiculous now. His entire appeal was always supposed to be that he was a deeply consciencious guy who held his morals above politics. Instead he's flip flopped around on Brexit, managing the quite incredible task of pissing off BOTH sides of the debate (something which most people would have found close to impossible). He opposes the government when no-one cares about the issue, and disappears when it's something everyone cares about. Single worst leader of the Labour party in my memory, and I remember Kinnock ffs.
Surely this in itself is quite a narcissistic approach, though? He's essentially willing to piss off a massive portion of the electorate in order to cling onto a position that fits his own viewpoint but is ultimately never going to get him anything more than token, dwindling opposition.
If he's that concerned about the gradual erosion of the left-wing Labour contingent then he should throw his hat in with the Greens or form a new party. I've wanted to like him from the start but at this point his stubborn refusal to accept he'll never get in is allowing the government (who's he supposed to oppose) to do whatever they want.
Sack Corbyn, Sell McDonnell, Sign Jess Phillips from Twitter.
How so? I know its banded around a lot but i really disagree with the assertion that under him Labour have been less of an effective opposition than it was under previous leaders. Being the opposition is always quite a limited role you can only do so much.
I'll caveat the above that i barely remember John Major so perhaps my viewpoint is born of ignorance.
I'm flipping on Corbyn. He's just painfully shit in opposition. It doesn't help that Labour is so crap that they couldn't get anyone decent to oppose him in what must be the worst coup attempt in British history.
That is true. I was very interested what Corbyn would do, because I knew nothing about him. I certainly like his focus on the party base. He took over in a very difficult situation but in the end he really doesn’t seem to have the skills to lead a party.
The way I see it is, that social democratic parties face the same problems all over Europe. You had the classic decade(s) after WWII, where they were closely connected to unions, but in the 70s/80s this ideology came into crisis, because it failed to solve various problems. In the 90s/00s social democratic parties reemerged and took power with a reformed program (3rd way). In the second half of the noughties, the 3rd way came into internal crisis, because it started to alienate parts of the traditional voter base, but it wasn’t replaced by anything that is able to unite the center-left. All you can see nowadays is a power struggle between centrists, who want to continue with the policies of Blair/Schröder/Zapatero and people who want to turn back to policies that labour promoted after WWII. Social democrats need to find common ground again, but struggle to formulate such a vision in a globalized world.
In defense of labour: This women is a fairly respected economist. Yet it was empty talk. I think her answers reflects this struggle to find new ideas.
The most basic thing about opposition is that, if the Government thinks you might replace them, it has to start winning over the voters you're winning over. What we've seen under Corbyn is that the Tories know Labour aren't going to win. So while they occasionally bat their eyelashes at disgruntled Labour voters, their main strategy has been to close off the threat of UKIP. Hence we get this major lurch to the right.
The opposition may not be able to actually change or alter policy, but if they have a significant presence and poll in strong numbers, then they effectively force the governing policy to work harder to entice people from that party to vote for them instead. Hence why someone like Cameron often wanted to try and appeal to the electorate as a more moderate Tory.
Right now, there's no reason as to why May should reconsider or halt any policy she wants to implement because Corbyn's Labour aren't even a remote threat to her parties position in power. I doubt you'd have seen the government so unwilling to consider Brexit amendments, for example, had they been behind Labour in the polling.
Im not sure if I agree. Which is not to say I strongly disagree, Im kind of ambivalent about it. I mean, looking at the US, which I have been doing a lot more for the last couple of months, it seems clear that the Democrats have moved too far to the right. The whole New Democrats / New Labour thing, it worked for a period but it has gone too far and/or outlived its usefulness, given how things have changed since the 90s. So when I look at the battle for the soul of the Democratic party, it seems like a fight worth having. Having the Republicans, and then another party representing basically the same corporate interests, with very little to distinguish itself from the Republican mainstream, at least on the economic side, seems to me a big reason why the Democrats have been practically wiped out.
And then I look at the UK and while things arent quite so stark here, we dont have the same kind of legalised corporate bribery here, but still there is a question about what Labour actually stands for. Maybe the whole Tory Lite thing is a bit overdone but there is a grain of truth in it. OK that made some sense in the period leading up to 2007 but in the last few years there seems to be space for a left wing voice in parliament.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe what you are suggesting, that there is this glass ceiling, that there is just no real demand for a socialist voice in England and wales. People can argue that all day long, but what you are suggesting is that he himself knows or believes that to be the case. I dont think he does. If I am right he isnt being narcissistic, he is fighting for the soul of his party in the belief that he has right on his side and he has a massive section of the electorate behind him and the real obstacle is these MPs who are living in the past.
I dont think it is anywhere near as clear cut in the UK as in the US but at the same time I think Corbyn's real problem is far more about style than substance. I think a charismatic leader would be able to whip up a lot more enthusiasm and meaningful opposition without having to make wholesale changes in terms of policy. He just needs to communicate better. I want to say he flip flops on things like his stance on Europe but I cant even say that because he doesnt communicate enough to even know whether he has changed his opinion. He is just invisible. That's it for me, its not that he represents the wrong things, its just that he is completely MIA.
Electorally, there really was little choice for them. Now though, Labour ought to be picking its battles and adapting, not making gestures on A50 and FoM fit only for the Liberal Democrats. There are still important economic questions out there for an opposition, issues which transcend Brexit. At times Corbyn has attempted this, although he struggles to communicate his message to a wider audience IMO.
If you take a policy area like immigration for example, why isn't Labour trying to lead on the precise nature of our future points system and the fees therein? Because EU FoM has become almost a religion for many on the traditional Left? I think they'd be considered more seriously if the language used actually carried some relevance. Emily Thornberry saying that they're not going to die in a ditch just comes across as the same old spin.
Labour could also speak to such concerns through education policy, yet here again there is a New Labour legacy with which to contend. For while many within the party are probably quite proud of increased university attendance, i'm not sure whether it has been best for the students and the nation over the longer term. Certainly our skills shortage hasn't improved greatly.
We even saw with an issue as inflammatory as wage inequality, that the sentiments if not the detail of Corbyn's plans, received broad approval. This would tie in with the prevailing anti-globalisation/greedy corporates narrative.
Ahhhh... Hypocrite Corbyn giving written warnings for those that voted with conscience and defied the whip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38856992
How many times has he done that himself... The article says over 400 but has anybody got an exact figure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38856992
How many times has he done that himself... The article says over 400 but has anybody got an exact figure?
From the above article:
His response is to go for a written warning. In the event that he didn't want them to resign or be sacked, couldn't he speak to them. He comes across as incredibly weak in almost everything he does. He's not a leader and he never will be.
His response is to go for a written warning. In the event that he didn't want them to resign or be sacked, couldn't he speak to them. He comes across as incredibly weak in almost everything he does. He's not a leader and he never will be.
Stoke byelection: Lib Dems alert police over text urging Muslims to vote Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...olice-over-text-urging-muslims-to-vote-labour
Leaflet says Tory win in Copeland will 'cost mums their children'
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-cost-mums-children-labour-gillian-troughton
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...olice-over-text-urging-muslims-to-vote-labour
Leaflet says Tory win in Copeland will 'cost mums their children'
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-cost-mums-children-labour-gillian-troughton
The first one isn't really a Labour issue, it's Pakistani Islamic culture. If he substituted Muslims or Islamic Community for Islam and didn't mention 'hell' it's pretty accurate.
Neither is the second unless there's some link to the campaign which that article doesn't seen to state.
Both of these local elections seems to be full of crackpots
20 years ago...
Just quit ffs!
Some delicate snowflakes in here
I cringe seeing these terms come into everyday language. There was a Guardian article yesterday about Blair that started with a trigger warning for those who get angry at Blair discussion. That was a journalist ffs, balanced argument is long dead.
Coincidently they then went on to defend Blairs timing of his speech amongst the by-elections by saying no cares about Blair, so much so they had to repeatedly mention how much he angers people.
20 years ago...
I get that Labour are in the shits at the moment but I find it slightly odd that there is a need to look back on the Blair years. The Blair government was fecking rubbish at best and at worse downright dangerous.
Give me a failed election over a Labour government hell bent on blowing the shit out of the middle east(This is all without mentioning most if not all the problems we face now are down to that government and it's brand of politics.).
yeah because when labour fail at the election Theresa May wont just follow trump into blowing shit up as well
... the only real difference will be the lack of policies like minimum wage, tax credits, civil partnerships etc etcYou prefer the Tories to Labour?
He comes across as incredibly weak in almost everything he does. He's not a leader and he never will be
This argument is pathetic.
The first most people knew of Corbyn is that he was some crazy leftie crackpot who'd been nominated as some kind of joke. This theme continues to today, where he is being attacked relentlessly from all sides of the media and, worse, from within his own party. That the labour party is filled with right wing(not centrist - Liz Kendall anyone?) remnants of the Blair days is both the reason for his support and the cause of most of his difficulties. Anyone vaguely left-leaning has felt compelled to support Corbyn because the only alternative, outside of Scotland, was the greens. The right of the party are so desperate to keep the status quo that they brief against him and sabotage any attempts of progress. With even the temerity to wail like children then pre-empt any fallout with cries of 'authoritarianism'.
It's not funny.
Thing is though. For years the bbc and others have decried the problems with 'personality politics'. Yet, when polled, most people in the UK support many of Corbyn's policies. Surely that is where the focus should be? Not that he lives in a shabby terraced house, or wears jackets that make him look like a geography teacher. Personally I really don't want years of tory governments saying one thing and doing almost the polar opposite.
I get that he's not a fantastic speaker. He hasn't been groomed to be a PM and, horror, he actually tries to answer questions honestly. We aren't used to that and I guess it must scare some people. But it has to be said, against all of that, the labour party has grown to have quite incredible membership numbers. Maybe not everyone is being taken in by the hatchet job sponsored by Murdoch and co.
He'll get my vote when the time comes. Even if he doesn't win, I suspect the proper spotlight of a general election will once again give some light to the arguments of the left(fiscally more than socially, the left has been allowed to win many of the social inequality arguments tbf). Many of the disillusioned of the country who, for some bizarre reason, have turned to the far right for their answers, may just find that the left has been trying to look out for them all along and that they need support against the might of the financially backed right.
This argument is pathetic.
The first most people knew of Corbyn is that he was some crazy leftie crackpot who'd been nominated as some kind of joke. This theme continues to today, where he is being attacked relentlessly from all sides of the media and, worse, from within his own party. That the labour party is filled with right wing(not centrist - Liz Kendall anyone?) remnants of the Blair days is both the reason for his support and the cause of most of his difficulties. Anyone vaguely left-leaning has felt compelled to support Corbyn because the only alternative, outside of Scotland, was the greens. The right of the party are so desperate to keep the status quo that they brief against him and sabotage any attempts of progress. With even the temerity to wail like children then pre-empt any fallout with cries of 'authoritarianism'.
It's not funny.
Thing is though. For years the bbc and others have decried the problems with 'personality politics'. Yet, when polled, most people in the UK support many of Corbyn's policies. Surely that is where the focus should be? Not that he lives in a shabby terraced house, or wears jackets that make him look like a geography teacher. Personally I really don't want years of tory governments saying one thing and doing almost the polar opposite.
I get that he's not a fantastic speaker. He hasn't been groomed to be a PM and, horror, he actually tries to answer questions honestly. We aren't used to that and I guess it must scare some people. But it has to be said, against all of that, the labour party has grown to have quite incredible membership numbers. Maybe not everyone is being taken in by the hatchet job sponsored by Murdoch and co.
He'll get my vote when the time comes. Even if he doesn't win, I suspect the proper spotlight of a general election will once again give some light to the arguments of the left(fiscally more than socially, the left has been allowed to win many of the social inequality arguments tbf). Many of the disillusioned of the country who, for some bizarre reason, have turned to the far right for their answers, may just find that the left has been trying to look out for them all along and that they need support against the might of the financially backed right.