The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[darrenm]

Has anyone got anything against Corbyn other than they think he'll lose badly in an election? Because whoever planted that acorn is a genius.

I was speaking with a friend who doesn't like Corbyn this morning. The conversation went:

him: "No-one likes Corbyn. Labour will get decimated if there's an election."

me: "But the vast majority of the membership of the Labour party voted him in and a record number joined in a short space of time to support him"

him: "Doesn't matter about them, his MPs are all against him."

me: "Why are they against him?"

him: "Because he'll lose the next election and Labour will get decimated"

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What if the rules are so poorly written they don't cover what to do with a sitting leader?

I believe (but haven't checked) that fantastic middle of the road Ed Milliband changed the rules and specified that all challengers must have the backing of 20% of the MP's.

But Corbyn isn't a challenger is he. He's the very popular incumbent leader that would very likely win if 'allowed' to stand. Ed's parting gift there, some fudge.

I think Ed M's change was just to increase the threshold from 15% to 20%. I don't think he's responsible for the challenger/incumbent thing otherwise Kinnock's stuff about 1988 wouldn't have any relevance (though whether it actually does is arguable).

[HanoiVillan]

31 minutes ago, hippo said:

The Banners at the keep Corbyn protest. ?

That isn't actually proof that SWP members made a meaningful difference in the leadership election, which is the context for the question. It does prove that some (probably many) SWP supporters are happy with Corbyn, but that's not the same thing at all. 

 

[hippo]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What if the rules are so poorly written they don't cover what to do with a sitting leader?

I believe (but haven't checked) that fantastic middle of the road Ed Milliband changed the rules and specified that all challengers must have the backing of 20% of the MP's.

But Corbyn isn't a challenger is he. He's the very popular incumbent leader that would very likely win if 'allowed' to stand. Ed's parting gift there, some fudge.

Agreed. 

What I don't get is how it can be legally challenged (either way) - If the Labour NEC say the rules says he can't stand - on what basis can that be challenged legally ?  - its not breaking any uk law ? 

[hippo]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That isn't actually proof that SWP members made a meaningful difference in the leadership election, which is the context for the question. It does prove that some (probably many) SWP supporters are happy with Corbyn, but that's not the same thing at all. 

 

no of course - Fair point.

[hippo]

26 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Has anyone got anything against Corbyn other than they think he'll lose badly in an election? Because whoever planted that acorn is a genius.

I was speaking with a friend who doesn't like Corbyn this morning. The conversation went:

him: "No-one likes Corbyn. Labour will get decimated if there's an election."

me: "But the vast majority of the membership of the Labour party voted him in and a record number joined in a short space of time to support him"

him: "Doesn't matter about them, his MPs are all against him."

me: "Why are they against him?"

him: "Because he'll lose the next election and Labour will get decimated"

For a leader of a parliamentary party thats one hell of a drawback though 

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, hippo said:

Agreed. 

What I don't get is how it can be legally challenged (either way) - If the Labour NEC say the rules says he can't stand - on what basis can that be challenged legally ?  - its not breaking any uk law ? 

As a registered political party, might their constitution be covered by electoral law? (I don't know).

I'd have thought that the letters to the NEC would suggest what kind of legal action may be taken.

[dAVe80]

44 minutes ago, hippo said:

The Banners at the keep Corbyn protest. ?

Give them to option of Corbyn or Tory lite, they're always going to back him. Doesn't mean they have any kind of influence over him, or the direction he takes the Labour Party.
 

1 hour ago, hippo said:

But it isn't attracting support - yes we have a few members than under Blair - so what ? they are £3 members - so no real financial boost,  recent reports suggest many joined, voted, and haven't done anything since. Take away vindictive Tories, and the SWP - and you will find the Corbyn pull is overstated.

Yes you have to offer something different - but not that different - people don't like change  (I know a good number of people who voted leave - always with the security we would stay)

He doesn't have to capture the disenfranchised under class - sadly he has to capture Tory voters - and he won't do that make speeches to left wing students....

 

I don't buy this at all. There may be an element of this, but it's a miniscule amount in comparison to real Corbyn supporters. 130,000 plus more have joined, after the coupe. I don't know of anyone who has joined (and I personally know of around 30 people who have), who have done so to be vindictive. These are a wide range of people too. Business owners, nurses, solicitors, call centre workers, unemployed, etc, of all ages and gender.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, and I accept that and fully respect your point of view. I just don't think people realise how sick of current politics people are, and how a large proportion of people are looking for something new. It may not be electable, it may not grab Middle England, it almost certainly won’t sway Tories, but people want it. It is different. It isn't going to be universally accepted. It is going to shake things up though.

[hippo]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

As a registered political party, might their constitution be covered by electoral law? (I don't know).

I'd have thought that the letters to the NEC would suggest what kind of legal action may be taken.

Sure they can get a legal opinion - but can any judge of the land impose on the labour party "yes or No" as to whether he should be on the ballot. What bit of law would they cite ?  - unless as you say there is electoral law  

[villaglint]

43 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Has anyone got anything against Corbyn other than they think he'll lose badly in an election? Because whoever planted that acorn is a genius.

I was speaking with a friend who doesn't like Corbyn this morning. The conversation went:

him: "No-one likes Corbyn. Labour will get decimated if there's an election."

me: "But the vast majority of the membership of the Labour party voted him in and a record number joined in a short space of time to support him"

him: "Doesn't matter about them, his MPs are all against him."

me: "Why are they against him?"

him: "Because he'll lose the next election and Labour will get decimated"

I agree that the assumption he will do badly in an election is rarely challenged.

However to answer your question I think he needs to work a hell of a lot on his PR/presentation. From when he became leader to now I have to work very hard to see him on anything and I'm someone who is interested in what he has to say. His message is really struggling to get through, it feels like he is always fighting the news cycle rather than dictating it. A lot of that is driven by the media of course but he is doing nowhere near enough to play that game. Like I said Bernie Sanders has done it in America which is much more right wing than here so it is possible.

Edited July 12, 2016 by villaglint

[chrisp65]

worth checking out Labour membership numbers

Trainspotters Porn

Quote

A few months before the 1997 general election, in January 1997, Labour membership passed 400,000. But, far from sustaining this momentum and achieving the 500,000 plus target that had been set by Tony Blair, membership peaked soon after at around 405,000 and then started to decline

Pre election, 'new' Labour got membership up to 400,000 once in power they impressed so much that they lost 60% of their members, finally getting the figure down to just 156,000. But not to worry, those missing 244,000 Blairites have recently been replaced, apparently, by a quarter of a million trotskyite infiltrators and mischievous tories. 

----

then when you're done with the stats, it's worth checking out Frankie Boyle's column this week....

Quote

Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them.

 

[sharkyvilla]

The thing is they just got beaten by the Tories in Scotland and they just had the worst results for an opposition party in the first council election after a GE in decades.  I don't think an increase in membership in the age of Internet bandwagons is enough when the UK is still very middle class and will vote for the party that holds the centre ground the best.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Sure they can get a legal opinion - but can any judge of the land impose on the labour party "yes or No" as to whether he should be on the ballot. What bit of law would they cite ?  - unless as you say there is electoral law  

This may be something to do with electoral law or it may be a civil case. Either way, the parties involved would be asking a court to make a judgement on the matters at hand.

[hippo]

4 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Give them to option of Corbyn or Tory lite, they're always going to back him. Doesn't mean they have any kind of influence over him, or the direction he takes the Labour Party.
 

I don't buy this at all. There may be an element of this, but it's a miniscule amount in comparison to real Corbyn supporters. 130,000 plus more have joined, after the coupe. I don't know of anyone who has joined (and I personally know of around 30 people who have), who have done so to be vindictive. These are a wide range of people too. Business owners, nurses, solicitors, call centre workers, unemployed, etc, of all ages and gender.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, and I accept that and fully respect your point of view. I just don't think people realise how sick of current politics people are, and how a large proportion of people are looking for something new. It may not be electable, it may not grab Middle England, it almost certainly won’t sway Tories, but people want it. It is different. It isn't going to be universally accepted. It is going to shake things up though.

I disagree - I think most people don't give a toss about politics

[dAVe80]

12 minutes ago, hippo said:

I think most people don't give a toss about politics

And there in is the reason why Corbyn is good for politics, because people are starting to care. It may only be 130,000 plus people, but it's 130,000 plus people who have been moved to join a polical party (many for the first time). That's got to be a good thing?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

So how does Corbyn get Tory voters on board?

I see lots of people criticise Corbyn with rhetoric but never anything factual or objective. e.g.

"he just wants to preach to those who already agree him" - I don't understand. In practical terms, what does this mean please? And I don't mean with more rhetoric or buzzwords; what actually do you mean?

"JC will never even try to do that " - Again, what does this mean? He doesn't want anyone who isn't already a Labour voter to vote Labour? Are you sure? And how do you know that?

The only things I seem to read on here against Corbyn are very similar to what gets planted in the media. I'd like someone to tell what he's actually done wrong which hasn't been spun by the media.

I think I've posted quite a few things that I think demonstrate his dreadful leadership. But rather than go back through old posts, here's a quick distillation of a few thought. *disclaimer I'm not and never have been a tory.

So on your question about how to win back tories

Yesterday that Theresa May said some stuff when she got made the new king of the tories. She said stuff about how she would tackle the imbalance between boardroom exec pay and ornry people pay. She said stuff about helping disadvantaged people in society, she said stuff about immigration needing controlled...

Now all those things you could say the tories have failed on, and I'd agree. But two thoughts come from that straight away:

1. Why the heck has Labour, not pointed out that it's massively hypocritical?

2. Why has Labour not been banging on about the problems the tories are creating - Doctors strikes, imposition of Doctors contracts, NHS in funding crisis, teachers on strike, leaving the EU, plummeting pound, Scotland probably leaving the UK, the failure of the tories to meet any of their pledges on the economy, on debt, on immigration...

Corbyn is the "leader" of a party (and the man who does PM QTs) that utterly fails to get the message out there that they are capable of even noticing the mess, let alone sorting it out if they get in.

Theresa May, a bloody tory, is doing a better job of pointing out the flaws of the Gov't, and she's responsible for some of them!

Next,contrast what May said yesterday about Brexit means brexit. She was on a a side of an argument and that argument was lost. She has accepted the decision and will now work with people who were on the other side of the argument to get things done.

Contrast that with Corbyn and Trident, say. As I wrote the other day, trying to rig and scheme his way to change a decision taken by the majority, and refusing to compromise his own views to get things done it's an exact example of "wanting to preach to people who already agree with him". And not only that of then trying to marginalise those who don't agree with him. And it's completely futile because the majority of parliament will vote to renew it anyway - so he's wasting time , energy and goodwill on a forlorn and futile cause, because of a failure and unwillingness to recognise reality. It might be principled, but it's also stupid for a leader to do that.

My perception of JC is that he essentially says "this is my outlook, beliefs and principles" then people can either choose to support/vote for him or not. Of course a million or maybe 2 or 3 million people might share those views and enthusiastically vote for "him" in a general election. Trouble is that about 20 million others don't buy into his viewpoint and because he is so unwilling to concede an inch of ground to the views of his colleagues, he will never be able to persuade enough people that Labour is the next Gov't in waiting.

The stuff about anti-Semitism, his judgement on Ken Livingstone, Dianne Abbot etc. terrible, terrible leadership.

Nice bloke, good local MP, a higher level of integrity than many politicians, perhaps, but from my perspective he shows almost none of the characteristics of a good leader, and that matters.

There are what, 220 odd labour MPs. How can it be that so many of them, who work with him are in utter despair? It's not a roughly 50-50 split, with a chunk of undecideds - it's nearly all of them think he's useless.

If you wanted someone to persuade an undecided voter, or a discontented tory to vote Labour only a fool would pick Corbyn to be that someone. Passionless, inflexible, a poor communicator, unwilling to change, unwilling to compromise to find a route ahead, unable to persuade even his fellow labour MPs, never mind tory voters or Liberals or SNP...

This is the most catastrophically inept Gov't there has been for decades and decades, and they're ahead in the polls of Labour led by Corbyn.

I agree with a number of his views, I'm not talking about those, it's about his lack of abilities as a leader.

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think I've posted quite a few things that I think demonstrate his dreadful leadership. But rather than go back through old posts, here's a quick distillation of a few thought. *disclaimer I'm not and never have been a tory.

So on your question about how to win back tories

Yesterday that Theresa May said some stuff when she got made the new king of the tories. She said stuff about how she would tackle the imbalance between boardroom exec pay and ornry people pay. She said stuff about helping disadvantaged people in society, she said stuff about immigration needing controlled...

Now all those things you could say the tories have failed on, and I'd agree. But two thoughts come from that straight away:

1. Why the heck has Labour, not pointed out that it's massively hypocritical?

2. Why has Labour not been banging on about the problems the tories are creating - Doctors strikes, imposition of Doctors contracts, NHS in funding crisis, teachers on strike, leaving the EU, plummeting pound, Scotland probably leaving the UK, the failure of the tories to meet any of their pledges on the economy, on debt, on immigration...

Corbyn is the "leader" of a party (and the man who does PM QTs) that utterly fails to get the message out there that they are capable of even noticing the mess, let alone sorting it out if they get in.

Theresa May, a bloody tory, is doing a better job of pointing out the flaws of the Gov't, and she's responsible for some of them!

Next,contrast what May said yesterday about Brexit means brexit. She was on a a side of an argument and that argument was lost. She has accepted the decision and will now work with people who were on the other side of the argument to get things done.

Contrast that with Corbyn and Trident, say. As I wrote the other day, trying to rig and scheme his way to change a decision taken by the majority, and refusing to compromise his own views to get things done it's an exact example of "wanting to preach to people who already agree with him". And not only that of then trying to marginalise those who don't agree with him. And it's completely futile because the majority of parliament will vote to renew it anyway - so he's wasting time , energy and goodwill on a forlorn and futile cause, because of a failure and unwillingness to recognise reality. It might be principled, but it's also stupid for a leader to do that.

My perception of JC is that he essentially says "this is my outlook, beliefs and principles" then people can either choose to support/vote for him or not. Of course a million or maybe 2 or 3 million people might share those views and enthusiastically vote for "him" in a general election. Trouble is that about 20 million others don't buy into his viewpoint and because he is so unwilling to concede an inch of ground to the views of his colleagues, he will never be able to persuade enough people that Labour is the next Gov't in waiting.

The stuff about anti-Semitism, his judgement on Ken Livingstone, Dianne Abbot etc. terrible, terrible leadership.

Nice bloke, good local MP, a higher level of integrity than many politicians, perhaps, but from my perspective he shows almost none of the characteristics of a good leader, and that matters.

There are what, 220 odd labour MPs. How can it be that so many of them, who work with him are in utter despair? It's not a roughly 50-50 split, with a chunk of undecideds - it's nearly all of them think he's useless.

If you wanted someone to persuade an undecided voter, or a discontented tory to vote Labour only a fool would pick Corbyn to be that someone. Passionless, inflexible, a poor communicator, unwilling to change, unwilling to compromise to find a route ahead, unable to persuade even his fellow labour MPs, never mind tory voters or Liberals or SNP...

This is the most catastrophically inept Gov't there has been for decades and decades, and they're ahead in the polls of Labour led by Corbyn.

I agree with a number of his views, I'm not talking about those, it's about his lack of abilities as a leader.

Thanks for posting all of that. I understand what you're saying but I still think you're being harsh. I'll pick stuff out rather than try to piece-quote.

'1. Why the heck has Labour, not pointed out that it's massively hypocritical?' - who to? Who says they haven't, and in any case, who are you referring to with Labour? The MPs who are against him or Corbyn himself? In which case, if it's only the leader of the party who is allowed to throw the insults across, that's a big job for just one person.

Same answer to no. 2. To report this stuff, it takes media who're willing to listen and report on it. When the story is all about the in-fighting in Labour, no-one cares that 'Corbyn criticises latest Tory **** up' because, well, it's obvious. There's bigger stories that people will actually read.

Theresa May currently has a pretty big soapbox being the incoming PM, so she will get lots of inches. I'm not sure if you're saying May has done good or bad there. It sounds like you're saying 'compare with Theresa May, who has just done some stuff, and that's great, against Corbyn, who has also done some stuff, and that's really bad'. So she's following through with the results of a referendum which was based upon lies from both sides, and taking the country into some pretty murky waters because 'it has been decided'? Sounds pretty irresponsible to me. Compared to Corbyn, who knows that Trident will be a huge waste of money or worse and did everything he could to oppose it. So now having no integrity or belief in your views is good?

The antisemitism stuff was an absolute non-story blown completely out of proportion by... the media. It's almost like they have a vested interest in reporting everything that a non-Tory or non-Tory-lite group do in a negative way. 

You're in danger of going back into rhetoric after that. Has anyone said he's useless? Or is that an adjective you chose for effect?

[Mantis]

I'm not on the left/centre-left and have never voted Labour so I'm probably not the best person to be pontificating on them but some of my friends are Labour members and they're pretty down about Corbyn's leadership. They're not "Blairites" either.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I still think you're being harsh

That's fine. Each to their own views.

In a way it is harsh to hold him to account for all that's gone wrong (I don't) He's not to blame for it all, the behaviour of other MPs, of momentum people (some) and others (including my Union) has been lamentable. They're none of them doing what they should be.

I suppose it's like football, or sport generally. When the team keeps underperforming then the man at the top is surely ultimately responsible.

I wonder what people think to the question I asked "There are what, 220 odd labour MPs. How can it be that so many of them, who work with him are in utter despair? [and want him to step down]. I mean those MPs represent a heck of a lot of constituents. Don't their views count?

[jon_c]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

Has anyone got anything against Corbyn other than they think he'll lose badly in an election? Because whoever planted that acorn is a genius.

I was speaking with a friend who doesn't like Corbyn this morning. The conversation went:

him: "No-one likes Corbyn. Labour will get decimated if there's an election."

me: "But the vast majority of the membership of the Labour party voted him in and a record number joined in a short space of time to support him"

him: "Doesn't matter about them, his MPs are all against him."

me: "Why are they against him?"

him: "Because he'll lose the next election and Labour will get decimated"

Labour lost 18 councillors at Corbyn's first local elections. Even at Milliband's first local election they gained 857, and he was decimated in the GE. I don't think Corbyn is as popular nationally as he thinks he is.