That's the thing. These idiots see the 'fat cats' making money from these things but either ignore, or are oblivious to the fact that charities and the unions' own pension schemes hold this stuff.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Certainly not. I've no idea what CLP you're part of, but no CLP I've ever been in would consider deselecting an MP merely for not agreeing with the leader. The party just doesn't work like that, thank god.
Or Jarvis - even Umunna - I think its quite conceivable that Corbyn wins but within a year or two if the polls look even worse for Labour 47 MPs call a leadership election... and if one of Jarvis or Ummuna stood against corbyn and as I say polls were showing little prospect of Labour improvement under Corbyn I think its probable but certainly conceivable that they win and take over (possibly post EU refferendum if Corbyn makes a hash of that and gets caught on what most Labour voters see as the wrong side of the debate).
If Umuna won with say a shadow cabinet of something like
Reeves as Chancellor (former bank of england employee so arguably the most qualified)
Jarvis in Defence (again actual professional experience)
Coaker in Education (former deputy head and a member of the NUT)
Burnham in Health (done the job before so experience in that capacity)
Cooper as Home secretary (again done the job before)
Kendall as foreign secretary (I think she has come out of this election with some personal credibility in the way she has handled herself)
That would be quite a formidable team in the most senior positions
especially when you think a Corbyn shadow cabinet will probably be something as ludicrous as
Burgan as chancellor (former miner, arrested 7 times in the miners strike, hates blairites, has no tangible experience to be chancellor but would probably do anything Corbyn wants just to annoy the centrist elements of the party - sounds perfect)
Burnham in defence (so he can be made to publicly back axing trident and cripple his chances of ever leading the country)
Abbot in education (to abolish private schools like the ones she sent her kids to)
Mcdonnell in health (he supports homeopothy - it would be a total car crash in the media - yeah seems to fit)
Kauffman as Home Secretary (after saying english votes for english laws is racist and putting himself on the wrong side of public opinion)
Skinner as foreign secretary (so he can go somewhere that actually has pits left for him to talk about)
I feel so sad that the Labour party is about to make such a (in my opinion) monumental F*** up of it all - I only hope its as bad as I think so that it will be short lived before people come to their senses and they don't actually try and fight a general election with Comrade Corbyn in command.
But Ummuna or Jarvis for me are the two most likely people to take over next (infact with the Labour for the common good movement I think Ummuna is already plotting by putting himself in prime position as the longer term anti corbyn alternative)
Tbf its all about owning up and selling your policies too to the public. Labor last election was neither here nor there and had a leader who never convinced people or looked to have conviction.
I think the only one that can conceivably be natioalised without compensation would be the train operator franchises as they are time limited anyway so at the end of the current deal they revent to public ownership pending a re-tender whch of course they could elect not to do
The downside is that if train operators see that as likely they will invest nothing into the stock over the remaining period resulting in a railway that will need tons of money investing and one that will almost certain to be delivering a poor service so the reality is if you want a smooth transition you are going to have to agree something with the operators to buy them out early
How for example they think you can get the UK government to nationalise EDF is completely beyond me - and to do so without compensation... well you might as well just start a trade war with France and the rest of the EU as that's where it will end up.
Most operators have renewals due before 2020 and the franchies are longer than they were last time round (10 years minimum), so not many of them will be due to expire during the 2020-2025 Parliament. Corbyn will still have to consider how to rip up contracts if he wants to offer nationalisation in his manifesto for 2020.
That sounds absolutely horrific. Ummuna is an absolute thundercnut who has no backbone and the thought of him leading a cabinet full of people like Burnham, Kendall and Cooper would make me vote conservative. I do not trust any of them to be in roles where they are involved with the running of the country and I wager nor does the majority of the public.
I still cant see him staying in charge of the labour party long enough to have a 2020 manifesto
I'll take that wager
yeah - ex parra running the MOD
ex economist for the bank of england running the economy
ex deputy head running the education service
Burnham and Cooper have both done well in shadow rolls before.
Id love to see @Raees suggest a shadow cabinet who would be willing to work for Corbyn he thinks would be more electable to the general public...
To be fair I'd rather vote Tory than a Labour government led by the likes of Umunna and Kendall. At least they're the cnuts you know.
The ones in bold are not the ones I had a problem with. The rest though, Kendall has come out of this well? what are you even writing... Kendall is a laughing stock. Kendall Jenner would make a better foreign secretary.
Fair enough.
My CLPs have been in Leeds and Durham for what its worth. In Durham especially there is a degree of discontent with the PLP because our current MP was parachuted in by Blair in 2005 in lieu of a local member. In many places in the North East there are similar situations where Blair took advantage of safe seats to strengthen his position in the party, and in the event where local members got more power I can some of them have to fight to keep their positions. In those cases it wouldn't necessarily be a case of left vs. right, it'd be a case of ordinary members against members of a Westminster clique, it would just so happen that the latter tend to be towards the right of the party.
To clarify, when I say 'pro-Corbyn' and 'anti-Corbyn', I'm talking about their politics, not any personal like or dislike. If Corbyn gets into power it'll be telling of a shift in the party towards an anti-austerity agenda which is at odds with elements of the PLP. In that environment, empowering the CLPs to make MPs more accountable to the member would be a game changer in terms of MPs acting in the interests of their members. I agree that it'd be naive to believe that there'd be a wholesale clear-out of certain candidates but it's just as naive to expect business as usual to continue.
Just so you know where I stand, I don't necessarily want there to be a clear-out of the PLP according to their positions on a left-right spectrum. It'd be a pointless loss of experience. I just want the PLP to start listening to the members to whom they owe their positions as a general rule. I mean, really, if an MP isn't representing their CLP why should they keep their job? Why would it be a bad thing for MPs who aren't doing the job they were elected to do to be deselected?
I agree with this. Although I do like Jarvis, potentially the next leader imo.
on a personal basis I think she has come out well by not rising to the vitriol and she got a massive polling boost from women after her weight question response - her policies count against her (at the moment) but on a personal basis she has performed well.
Corbyn has of course surpassed all expectations and will rightly win this election - but it remains to see how he will do as a leader of a party - I suspect it will be a disaster - I think he will struggle to get a meaningful shadow cabinet, his policies will unravel under scrutiny and he will find it difficult to hold together a fractious party and ultimatley (within a coupld of years) will be consigned to history as a mistake of Michael Howard proportions. That said I didn't expect him to win the election so perhaps I will be proven wrong again but honestly I cant see anything other than a disaster.
Burhnam would be in every leadership candidates shadow cabinet - Corbyn included and I can actually see him being possibly the most experienced member of it in Corbyn's case.
If the conservatives want to play real politics they will call the EU referendum for November this year and make it a baptism of fire for Corbyn trying to hold Labour together through that. (I doubt Cameron can cobble together anything close to a perceived concession he can sell over the summer though).
Michael Howard lasted two years and one month - I will be surprised if Corbyn manages that long
For a very simple reason. The CLP are not elected, the MP is. For the CLP to try and force the MP to represent their wishes and not their constituents would be a grave misunderstanding of their role. Granted, many of the MPs votes are for the party and not the person, but still, CLPs rightly are wary of crossing that line except in extreme circumstances.
The only time a CLP can reasonably expect general agreement with failing to reselect is where there is overwhelming public opinion supporting them. The Iraq war and expenses scandal are the only two that come to mind. A personal disagreement over general politics & policy is simply not sufficient.
I don't really know what he stands for. Where is he on the spectrum? I'm sure he's better than that bellend Chukka either way.
I get your point, but I think you're underplaying the extent to which MPs benefit from the party system and ignoring the fact that the backing a candidate gets from being in a political party isn't a one-way street.
I'd wager the majority of voters know next to nothing about their MP except for the party they represent. As it stands, candidates get a huge boost to their electability from being able to put 'Labour' next to their name. But that's something the candidate has to earn - it comes with the additional responsibility of representing the party as well as their constituents. A disconnect has occurred there in recent years where 'representing the party' has come to mean following the lead of the party hierarchy, rather than representing the views of the local party membership. That's a shift Corbyn would work to correct if he is elected leader. I don't really see what's disagreeable about that. If an MP isn't acting in the interests of the local Labour Party, why should local Labour Party back them as its representative?
Anyway, deselection isn't some undemocratic death sentence. You don't have to be in a party to become an MP, although obviously it's a huge bonus (which somewhat proves my point). If current Labour MPs decide they don't want to be held accountable to the party that gets them elected that's their prerogative, but in that situation they can't expect to retain its support. That's called having your cake and eating it. They'd have to do what every other candidate who doesn't want to be accountable to a party has to do, which is to stand as an independent.
Last edited:
and then lets see how many seats labour actually win when their vote is split with people sticking with the incumbent mp as a name they know and trust and a new labour candidate - throw in a bit of a lib resurgence to take a few votes, assume post referendum some of the ukip vote will drift back to the conservatives and the conservatives are going to have the biggest majority ever... its a great plan
and then lets see how many seats labour actually win when their vote is split with people sticking with the incumbent mp as a name they know and trust and a new labour candidate - throw in a bit of a lib resurgence to take a few votes, assume post referendum some of the ukip vote will drift back to the conservatives and the conservatives are going to have the biggest majority ever... its a great plan
You're missing the point a little. This conversation started because I suggested that in the event of Corbyn winning 50%+ of the membership vote and him subsequently giving the CLPs more control over candidate selection, MPs will be more likely to work with him than the doom-mongers suggest because they'd have to do right by their CLP. I've said before that I don't want a situation in which MPs leave the party, rather I want a situation in which MPs realise that they have a responsibility to their members and act like it.
Anyway, holding off on strengthening internal democracy would be a disaster for the party and I'm surprised that anyone would argue against it. A more democratic Labour Party where the average member can contribute and make a difference is far more likely to inspire people than a continuation of the same politics which lost us 100,000 members and 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010. The small minority of members of the PLP who don't understand that wont be much missed in the grand scheme of things.
As corbyn voted against his own government 500 times based on his beliefs I think its optimistic in the extreme to think that the same MP's who saw him do that time after time are going to go against their own principals.
Labour became unelectable as soon as Millibad allied himself with Russell Brand
The next leader will probably join forces with Gary Glitter to give them a better chance
The next leader will probably join forces with Gary Glitter to give them a better chance
I think that's the least accurate analysis of the last election I've ever read.
Do you think Brand helped??
I think he had barely any effect at all on the outcome of the election if any.
Because at the heart of that statement is the belief that a CLP's members are largely representative of the wider constituency. They very rarely are. Indeed Labour has a problem at the moment with an increasing divide between the views of its voters and those of the rest of the public (http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labou...irrelevant-to-the-majority-of-working-people/). To promote a process that amplifies that problem is not in the party's interest.
MPs have to balance the views of many groups - the party's leadership, the PLP, the CLP, the general electorate, groups representing local people such as TARAs or Unions, hospitals, the local Chamber of Commerce, large businesses, small businesses, the local council, the local sports club and so on. An MP is there to represent or work with them all, and has to take a balanced view on what they all want, given that those may be very different things. Empower the CLP to deselect an MP for mere policy disagreements and they become by far the most powerful group on that list.
I think Brand epitomised what long time Labour voters hate about "New Labour" - the term "Champagne Socialists" is very apt - a bunch of rich muppets who have no connection with the ordinary people
Even the unions want no part of it
Tories in cheaper suits IMO and the voters saw that
Even the unions want no part of it
Tories in cheaper suits IMO and the voters saw that
Again missing the point. He voted against his government, not against his CLP. As an MP he's been incredibly diligent in consulting his CLP and he's had their backing throughout his time on the backbenches. He sees his mandate as a Labour politician as being provided by the members rather than the party hierarchy.
If party membership changed their mind on Corbyn I think he'd be the first to suggest stepping down, or calling another leadership election (in fact he's said Labour will have one before 2020 hasn't he?).
Do you think Brand helped??
Given that Brand's audience was non-voters, doing the interview with him after the deadline for voter registration had already passed was a daft move.
I thought Brand's audience were dyslexic slugs
I thought Brand's audience were dyslexic slugs
Why would people with dyslexia be any more likely to be interested in Russell Brand?
I didn't say people
I assumed that you weren't talking about literal slugs.
Nope real ones
Slugs don't watch YouTube, they don't have thumbs which are required to click on the links.
So the Chinese economy has been sunk by QE. Great timing for Ol'Jezza and his sales pitch.
I think there's an appreciable difference between what China's doing and what Corbyn's proposing, but in publicity terms its going to be difficult for him and Murphy.
So far the Telegraph/Mail have been saying that PQE could cause Zimbabwe/Venezuela style hyperinflation, but those countries are so different to the UK that the claims are hard to take seriously. However the line "Too much QE pushed the world's second largest economy into a financial crash" will resonate far more strongly and will be a simple line of attack for the Tories. Regardless of any actual differences.
how do you actually do peoples QE though - I mean the bank of England is independent and to the best of my knowledge Mark Carney has not proposed it so wouldn't you have to renationalise the bank of England - which is such a backwards step with governments setting interest rates out of political expediency rather than economic reality / necessity - it was always a right old mess before so why would it be any different now?
Setting aside the question of how, why would PQE be any different to QE in terms of the impact on inflation?
In a world where we are constantly hearing about Central Banks undershooting their inflation targets and falling commodity prices, can anyone really talk about Zimbabwe style hyperinflation and keep a straight face?
In a world where we are constantly hearing about Central Banks undershooting their inflation targets and falling commodity prices, can anyone really talk about Zimbabwe style hyperinflation and keep a straight face?
The simple reason QE caused no major inflation was because the economy was in a deflationary spiral. Plus most of the money went to financial institutions not into general circulation anyway.
Another important point is that QE could easily be stopped at pretty short notice, which is one of the key differences between it and PQE. If inflation rose too high for any reason, they could stop printing money. If PQE were used to fund a major programme of activity though, such as housebuilding, then you can't stop halfway through.
Richard Murphy claims that if inflation rises more than you want when you're building houses, you just stop building houses. In economic terms that's possible, but in political terms its not an option. If we employ tends of thousands of people to build thousands of new homes all over the country, and halfway through the money stops indefinitely, the political consequences would be severe.
Ending the independence of the BoE would be a really daft move imo, in anything other than the most dire emergency ie something worse than 2008. Even if PQE was just a straight up winner in every other respect I'd still be wary. But given the other risks its not worth it imo.
Im not blindly advocating Corbynomics as you will see if you look at my posts in this thread but this doesnt really ring true for me.
We've had - what - 3 massive bouts of QE in the US, and I think 3 more in the UK, amounting to £375bn here alone. The BoE is buying up to 70% of all UK government debt. And there has never even been a flicker of inflation of the traditional kind, never even the remotest possibility that we would have to suddenly stop. On the contrary, here we are, 6 years after the first QE purchases in the UK, still waiting for inflation to rise to its target.
This business about where the money ends up - maybe that is relevant in the sense that it determines what form the inflation takes. I was worried about inflation when this ultra-loose monetary policy started, it never materialised... or not how I expected it. Instead we have asset bubbles inflated way beyond where they were in 2007: houses above those levels, equity markets way above those levels etc etc.... and as soon as there is a hint that Central Banks are going to "remove the punch bowl" as Greenspan once put it, the markets start crashing. We saw it in 2013 with the Taper Tantrum and now we see it again with all this talk about US rate rises in September.
None of this really refutes what you are saying, I guess, except that I reject the idea that what Corbyn is proposing is reckless in a different order of magnitude to what others are doing now. I dont see how pumping the banks full of money is right - morally or practically - when spending money on actual people is dangerous. And reading arguments along those lines kind of pushes me towards him a bit. There are legitimate criticisms of him, and there is probably a credible argument to make against what he proposes, but I dont think the one you gave is it. Because if what he is proposing is dangerous, it is because what we are already doing is also dangerous.