DrewDon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I be 50\50 that he wil be gone by September. Holyrood in May and there is going to be zero for Labour in that. SNP are the best party machine in the country right now and riding high. Khan should cakewalk the London elections but there is little for Corbyn there as London is the only place Labour made ground in May 15. Kahn is a "Blairite" in many eyes so a win for him is really as much a win for moderates. Here is where the decider will be for Corbyn in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016 Solihull, Walsall, Peterborough, Milton Keynes, Thurrock, Worcester are all up for elections in the locals. These all have or are near Labour target seats for the general election. They need to show a substantive move Con > Lab for a mid term election showing progress towards forming a government. No movement from Miliband 11 one year after 15 then the knives will be out beyond the PLP and into the unions. His team of advisers is truly despised in many parts of the party. They are seen as hopelessly out of date, few ideas for how to run something the size of a national political party and obsessed with internal machinations. Their only appeal is to their activist base, its 50% Foot, 50% Militant all over again. Corbyn is having rings ran round him inside the party and in the wider movement. He is basically a lovely old man with some nice morally ideas who turns up to marches and gives a speech at the end. He is no intellectual like Tony Benn or Michael Foot. He is no old school rabble rouser like Galloway, he seems to be terrible at politics (witness the 48 hour omnishambles reshuffle) and he is a million mile from a pragmatic deal maker like the ex union boss types in the benches. He is a fluffy kitten in a tiger cage. The PLP will vote an alternative leader of the parliamentary party at some point (either Beckett or Harman) that will signify a complete vote of no confidence. They will wait till there is a clear electoral rejection of his leadership and strike with 80% or so of the parliamentary party. He represents about 200 thousand members, they represent about 9 million voters. McDonnell and Abbott will not be able to muster the 25 votes from MPSto make the ballot and that will be that so far as marx with no sparks goes. I think Khan should win. He has been distancing himself from Corbyn pretty publicly, which suggests that the reaction to Corbyn on the ground hasn't been that great - and that's in London. If he doesn't win, then Corbyn's supporters will point the finger at Khan and Khan's supporters will point the finger at Corbyn. If he does win, then both sets of supporters will claim it as a victory for their own person. I'm not sure what will happen in the local elections. If there isn't progress, then I would expect some more rumblings of discontent. I can't see where any leadership challenge is going to come from though. I think potential conspirators will be perturbed by the potential backlash from the grassroots. You raise a valid point about the unions. Any successful attempt to overthrow Corbyn would require their cooperation, and that's why I think the future of Labour depends on the only other MP within the PLP with a mandate from the membership and unions: Tom Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I think Khan should win. He has been distancing himself from Corbyn pretty publicly, which suggests that the reaction to Corbyn on the ground hasn't been that great - and that's in London. If he doesn't win, then Corbyn's supporters will point the finger at Khan and Khan's supporters will point the finger at Corbyn. If he does win, then both sets of supporters will claim it as a victory for their own person. I'm not sure what will happen in the local elections. If there isn't progress, then I would expect some more rumblings of discontent. I can't see where any leadership challenge is going to come from though. I think potential conspirators will be perturbed by the potential backlash from the grassroots. You raise a valid point about the unions. Any successful attempt to overthrow Corbyn would require their cooperation, and that's why I think the future of Labour depends on the only other MP within the PLP with a mandate from the membership and unions: Tom Watson. Watson would be horrific for Labour. Weasel asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 At least Corbyn doesn't need to worry about Scotland. It couldn't possibly get any worse. Or could it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 At least Corbyn doesn't need to worry about Scotland. It couldn't possibly get any worse. Or could it. Such are expectations that a drubbing wouldn't be enough to dent Dugdale, let alone Corbyn. If Labour dropped to third however..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I be 50\50 that he wil be gone by September. Holyrood in May and there is going to be zero for Labour in that. SNP are the best party machine in the country right now and riding high. Khan should cakewalk the London elections but there is little for Corbyn there as London is the only place Labour made ground in May 15. Kahn is a "Blairite" in many eyes so a win for him is really as much a win for moderates. Here is where the decider will be for Corbyn in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016 Solihull, Walsall, Peterborough, Milton Keynes, Thurrock, Worcester are all up for elections in the locals. These all have or are near Labour target seats for the general election. They need to show a substantive move Con > Lab for a mid term election showing progress towards forming a government. No movement from Miliband 11 one year after 15 then the knives will be out beyond the PLP and into the unions. His team of advisers is truly despised in many parts of the party. They are seen as hopelessly out of date, few ideas for how to run something the size of a national political party and obsessed with internal machinations. Their only appeal is to their activist base, its 50% Foot, 50% Militant all over again. Corbyn is having rings ran round him inside the party and in the wider movement. He is basically a lovely old man with some nice morally ideas who turns up to marches and gives a speech at the end. He is no intellectual like Tony Benn or Michael Foot. He is no old school rabble rouser like Galloway, he seems to be terrible at politics (witness the 48 hour omnishambles reshuffle) and he is a million mile from a pragmatic deal maker like the ex union boss types in the benches. He is a fluffy kitten in a tiger cage. The PLP will vote an alternative leader of the parliamentary party at some point (either Beckett or Harman) that will signify a complete vote of no confidence. They will wait till there is a clear electoral rejection of his leadership and strike with 80% or so of the parliamentary party. He represents about 200 thousand members, they represent about 9 million voters. McDonnell and Abbott will not be able to muster the 25 votes from MPSto make the ballot and that will be that so far as marx with no sparks goes. When discussing mandates, to suggest the sitting Labour MPs "represent 9 million voters" and compare it to the Labour Party membership is absolutely laughable. These people only 'represent' the electorate because they stood on a Labour ticket in the election, few or none will have any significant level of personal support. For too long MPs have thought that they are the Labour Party, the election of Corbyn showed them that they are simply a constituent part and one that owes it position to the thousands of Party members who put them there. Blairism and Corbynism aren't the only two directions of travel open to the Labour Party, though. Only one candidate arguably stood on a Blairite platform for the leadership last year, and finished on 4.5%. It's possible to oppose Corbyn's leadership without wanting Labour to copy the Tories, and whilst acknowledging that you can't repeat the formula that worked in 1997. Blairism and Corbynism are just tags. There are broadly two directions the Labour Party could go; only one of the leadership candidates represented a different direction, the other three offered a continuation of the watered down Toryism that at least in Scotland has been rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Blairism and Corbynism are just tags. There are broadly two directions the Labour Party could go; only one of the leadership candidates represented a different direction, the other three offered a continuation of the watered down Toryism that at least in Scotland has been rejected. It is disingenuous and too simplistic to argue that the three other leadership candidates represented "watered down Toryism". If that was the case, then why did Burnham pledge to nationalise the railways? Why did Cooper threaten a legal challenge to the Trade Union Bill? Every candidate opposed George Osborne's 40% cuts and two supported restoring the 50p top rate of tax. None of that sounds very Tory to me. You're not automatically a Tory because you're slightly to the right of Jeremy Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 When discussing mandates, to suggest the sitting Labour MPs "represent 9 million voters" and compare it to the Labour Party membership is absolutely laughable. These people only 'represent' the electorate because they stood on a Labour ticket in the election, few or none will have any significant level of personal support. For too long MPs have thought that they are the Labour Party, the election of Corbyn showed them that they are simply a constituent part and one that owes it position to the thousands of Party members who put them there. Blairism and Corbynism are just tags. There are broadly two directions the Labour Party could go; only one of the leadership candidates represented a different direction, the other three offered a continuation of the watered down Toryism that at least in Scotland has been rejected. Corbynism ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Such are expectations that a drubbing wouldn't be enough to dent Dugdale, let alone Corbyn. If Labour dropped to third however..... While in reality Labour's latest impending Scottish drubbing has nothing to do with Corbyn, the PLP will obviously use it as a stick to beat him with even in the unlikely event they slightly overperform relative to expectations. They'll know it has nothing to do with him considering the plight of Scottish Labour, but it won't stop them pointing out that there's been no improvement - and more than likely a considerable drop in seats - on Holyrood 2011 when Miliband was UK Leader and make it Corbyn's fault. As bad as things are for them though, I really can't see them dropping to third in any circumstance. If as expected the SNP repeat their Westminster FPTP performance and hoover up the constituency votes, securing another majority from that alone, then Labour will comfortably dominate the list - the only thing that could stop them doing so is extremely well organised tactical voting with people who've voted SNP in constituencies voting for another party, most likely the Greens, en masse. In reality, most people will simply waste their list vote on the SNP having also voted for them in the constituency vote, meaning there's no chance Labour will fall below 20 seats from the list and no chance any small party, be it Greens, RISE or anyone else, will break double figures. If the SNP don't quite dominate the constituency vote to that extent and do take the occasional list seat, it'll hurt the Tories more than Labour. While it's possible that some right-leaning Labour voters might drift to the Tories, there's no chance they're going as high as 20 list seats either. There aren't many disasters that could hit Scottish Labour which would actually be a surprise any more, but third place would be genuinely stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Wouldn't it be just lovely if the "rebels" exerted as much effort towards opposing the Tories as they do to chucking their nursery toys at Jeremy Corbyn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Wouldn't it be just lovely if the "rebels" exerted as much effort towards opposing the Tories as they do to chucking their nursery toys at Jeremy Corbyn? Yup. If there's ever any proof that they are only interested in their careers, this is it. Yet people like Kev and JMO still vote for them ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yup. If there's ever any proof that they are only interested in their careers, this is it. Yet people like Kev and JMO still vote for them ) I genuinely don't get it. EVERY time I hear a Labour "moderate" bemoaning Corbyn and complaining about the direction he's taking the party in I want to smash my television. The Tories are fucking lapping this up. Genuine party members who actually want Labour to win in 2020 must be tearing their fucking hair out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It is disingenuous and too simplistic to argue that the three other leadership candidates represented "watered down Toryism". If that was the case, then why did Burnham pledge to nationalise the railways? Why did Cooper threaten a legal challenge to the Trade Union Bill? Every candidate opposed George Osborne's 40% cuts and two supported restoring the 50p top rate of tax. None of that sounds very Tory to me. You're not automatically a Tory because you're slightly to the right of Jeremy Corbyn [ Yes I'll agree with that sentence, I just don't think the other three are slightly to the right of Corbyn, they're all career Labourists who are less interested in fundamental change than in furthering their personal careers. There will be dozens of Labour politicians who will look at the mega rich niche that Blair has carved out for himself and, rather than be disgusted, will be thinking ' I want some of that'. Politicians can make pledges that they've no intention of keeping to win support. Do you really think the current PLP would support nationalisation of the railways? There more chance of me buying a season ticket for Dens than a Burnham led government nationalising the railways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It's intentional. The "moderates" are deliberately handing the tories ammo to ensure it keeps them in power. Corbyns biggest mistake is not sacking them quicker than they can "walk out". Making him appear weak. ^this. He looks weaker and weaker by the day. Losing respect for his mandates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It is disingenuous and too simplistic to argue that the three other leadership candidates represented "watered down Toryism". If that was the case, then why did Burnham pledge to nationalise the railways? Why did Cooper threaten a legal challenge to the Trade Union Bill? Every candidate opposed George Osborne's 40% cuts and two supported restoring the 50p top rate of tax. None of that sounds very Tory to me. You're not automatically a Tory because you're slightly to the right of Jeremy Corbyn. Burnham abstained on the welfare reform bill.....that's not being slightly to the right of Corbyn it's a betrayal of what labour is meant to be....nothing more than a tory lickspittle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Burnham abstained on the welfare reform bill.....that's not being slightly to the right of Corbyn it's a betrayal of what labour is meant to be....nothing more than a tory lickspittle Indeed. He then realised his mistake and started to backtrack in the media. Presumably to try and save his career rather than any great desire to protect the people who elected him to protect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The middle to the right of labour MP's all seem born in the Westminster bubble, and have a world view quite alien to many people outside it. Most of them went straight from University to Parliamentary researcher or the like, and the centre ground is God, never mind how it shifts. They see any proposal that might worry the aspirational middle and working classes, i.e. anyone who's deluded enough to think they might be rich someday, despite being 35 and demonstrating perfume and eyeshadow in Boots, as being impractical and blasphemy to Blairism. They have spent their entire adult life in politics and are blinkered by Blairism and their own desperation for career advancement, or at least their seat on the gravy train. They're unconcerned about the stagnation of workers pay and exponential rise of executive salaries, and the further emasculation of the unions. I see no difference between them and the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Politicians can make pledges that they've no intention of keeping to win support. Do you really think the current PLP would support nationalisation of the railways? There more chance of me buying a season ticket for Dens than a Burnham led government nationalising the railways. Yes, I think a fair portion of the PLP would. Jonathan Reynolds, the former shadow rail minister who resigned last week, supports it. Michael Dugher also supports it. I can't be sure exactly what percentage of the PLP favour it, but it's a policy with genuine reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yes, I think a fair portion of the PLP would. Jonathan Reynolds, the former shadow rail minister who resigned last week, supports it. Michael Dugher also supports it. I can't be sure exactly what percentage of the PLP favour it, but it's a policy with genuine reach. Is it Labour Party policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Is it Labour Party policy? Yes. It was approved overwhelmingly at conference in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yes. It was approved overwhelmingly at conference in September. Very surprised at that, the cynic in me thinks it still wouldn't happen under a Labour government. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose. I assume Corbyn also supports the policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.