Next UK Labour Leader - post Brexit

[BerwickMad]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/labour-mp-any-other-job-jeremy-corbyn-would-have-faced-industrial-tribunal

Another interesting article regarding the shambolic chaos behind the scenes under Corbyn's leadership.

[Dunning1874]

An elected MP there, describing anyone who disagrees with his view on who should lead his party as entryists and idiots who should get out of the party, then has the gall to complain about abuse when he's calling anyone who disagrees with him a Stalinist and saying they should be kicked out of the party. Not an ordinary party member or voter, an actual elected MP.

There undoubtedly is a lot of vitriol coming from some Corbyn supporters among the membership, but can anyone provide an example of Corbyn or one of his allies in the party ever using such incendiary language? Yet Corbyn is the one condemned for failing to stop abuse of Smith supporting MPs when the likes of Blenkinsop are spewing bile like that. If a Corbyn supporter calls someone right-wing or a Blairite they're guilty of abuse, but anti-Corbyn MPs are allowed to throw Entryist, Trot, Stalinist around with impunity.

If a Tory, SNP or Lib Dem elected representative conducted themselves in that way, hurling abuse at ordinary members for disagreeing with them, you can guarantee they'd be forced to resign from their party in disgrace, but in the absolute farce of an organisation that Labour have become that MP is somehow the victim. If deselection proceedings are begun against him after a Corbyn victory then it'll be evidence of a Stalinist purge on Corbyn's part, yet in any reasonable party he'd be suspended already pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings and jump before he was pushed.

[strichener]

4 hours ago, jmothecat said:

 

They are a British party who represent the interests of their members and parliamentarians, which may or may not align with 'England's interests', whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't think most Labour members view politics through the prism of national identity. Being Scottish certainly has nothing to do with the way I vote. I really don't care if I'm voting for a party that represent Scotland's interests or not. I'm interested in voting for a party that represent my interests.
 

If this was what the party is about then why the focus on winning elections?  Perhaps even more pertinent, how are members interests represented by denying them a vote on the part leader?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, jmothecat said:

Yes, it is real life. That's why this is so important. We cannot afford to live in moral purity but electoral oblivion that keeping Corbyn will lead to. This matters a lot.

As for a 'British party' I meant it in the sense that they are a party in Britain who campaign in British elections, but I'm sure you knew that and have deliberately misunderstood it to try to make some sort of point. Considering the context of my post it's pretty clear what I meant considering I was arguing against the very thing you are suggesting I am in favour of.

Just imagine if those in the Labour movement had taken that attitude in the years before they gained a parliamentary presence at all. If you believe that socialist, progressive policies are worth fighting for, then fight for them. Not only to introduce new policy, but to repair the damage done by decades of real Tory government, and shamefully aided by Blair's crew of opportunistic, "I'm all right, Jack" chancers - who you obviously still believe to the epitome of what Labour should be. 

If you believe that winning power is the most important thing, then that would suggest to any thinking person that your principles are at best flexible, at worst absent.

[jmothecat]

Just imagine if those in the Labour movement had taken that attitude in the years before they gained a parliamentary presence at all. If you believe that socialist, progressive policies are worth fighting for, then fight for them. Not only to introduce new policy, but to repair the damage done by decades of real Tory government, and shamefully aided by Blair's crew of opportunistic, "I'm all right, Jack" chancers - who you obviously still believe to the epitome of what Labour should be. 

If you believe that winning power is the most important thing, then that would suggest to any thinking person that your principles are at best flexible, at worst absent.

That's exactly what the founders of the party did, hence why we got elected and actually managed to achieve what we have done. Everything from the NHS to the minimum wage, because we realised we need power to enact change. The parliamentary route to socialism is the one constant strand of the Labour Party that everyone from Hardie to Miliband can agree with.

What is the point if we can't get power? It's not the only thing, obviously, but it is essential. And my principles are flexible because I would rather compromise and at least get something positive out of it that stay principled and not achieve anything. In real life we compromise all the time, I see no reason why politics should be different.

For example I disagree with the monarchy and would personally happily see it abolished, however I would be very disappointed and frustrated if the Labour Party announced they would put abolishing the monarchy in the manifesto because it would be electoral suicide. I would rather that policy be sacrificed in order to get into power and make positive changes elsewhere in areas where we can enact left-wing policy without risking popular support (eg zero hour contracts or nationalising the railways).

[WhiteRoseKillie]

12 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

 

That's exactly what the founders of the party did, hence why we got elected and actually managed to achieve what we have done. Everything from the NHS to the minimum wage, because we realised we need power to enact change. The parliamentary route to socialism is the one constant strand of the Labour Party that everyone from Hardie to Miliband can agree with.

What is the point if we can't get power? It's not the only thing, obviously, but it is essential. And my principles are flexible because I would rather compromise and at least get something positive out of it that stay principled and not achieve anything. In real life we compromise all the time, I see no reason why politics should be different.

For example I disagree with the monarchy and would personally happily see it abolished, however I would be very disappointed and frustrated if the Labour Party announced they would put abolishing the monarchy in the manifesto because it would be electoral suicide. I would rather that policy be sacrificed in order to get into power and make positive changes elsewhere in areas where we can enact left-wing policy without risking popular support (eg zero hour contracts or nationalising the railways).
 

There is a moral dimension - power for its own sake or, as we have seen in Labour for the last two and a bit decades, for the advancement of the interests of a select few, is abhorrent. At least the Tories are up-front about their desire for the lower classes to stay in their box.

Why do so many Labour MPs support Trident renewal? Their principles? No, they believe it to be political suicide to go against it. The vast majority of MPs will simply vote on, speak about, back or deride policy dependent on how they think it wil affect their own chances of re-election.

 

[Granny Danger]

34 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

There is a moral dimension - power for its own sake or, as we have seen in Labour for the last two and a bit decades, for the advancement of the interests of a select few, is abhorrent. At least the Tories are up-front about their desire for the lower classes to stay in their box.

Why do so many Labour MPs support Trident renewal? Their principles? No, they believe it to be political suicide to go against it. The vast majority of MPs will simply vote on, speak about, back or deride policy dependent on how they think it wil affect their own chances of re-election.

 

Trident is a very good example.  There is absolutely no left-of-centre argument for spending tens of billions on Trident renewal.  None.

However a very good case could be argued for spending part of that money overturning cuts in conventional armed forces (huge impact on those local communities affected AND stops accusation of looney-left pacifists) whilst redirecting the rest to social benefits (health & education, maybe infrastructure).

That would be a radical, progressive position that could be won if the political will was there.

We were told for decades people would never support unilateralism yet over 50% of Scottish voters who voted in the last General Election did so for parties opposed to Trident renewal.

 

[Alan Stubbs]

Genuine question for the anti-Corybn Labour members on here.

What do you want/expect to happen if Corbyn wins this vote?

[jmothecat]

Genuine question for the anti-Corybn Labour members on here.

What do you want/expect to happen if Corbyn wins this vote?

Only real thing would be to watch Corbyn attempt to lead again, assuming it's still a disaster wait until next summer and have someone challenge him again and hope a year of irrelevance focuses people's minds. I really don't see what else could be done.

[BerwickMad]

Genuine question for the anti-Corybn Labour members on here.

What do you want/expect to happen if Corbyn wins this vote?

I want him to be a competent leader and take the job seriously. I want him to reach out properly across the party and work on his weaknesses. I want some actual substance behind the grand statements. I want him to understand that there's more to the Labour Party than him.

As almost everyone with any credibility, from members of the PLP, including those on the left, and economic advisors he selected have deserted him, I don't expect it to happen. I expect him to continue to look inwards, backed up by clowns/trolls like McDonnell and Abbot and to continue to only be interested in speaking to the converted. I expect the threat of deselections to intensify, but not sure if it will lead to a split or not. When the general election comes, I expect Labour to fall to around 150-175 MPs and a strengthened Tory Party causing damage to the people Labour are supposed to represent. I expect Corbyn/Momentum to blame everyone else but themselves for it.

[ayrmad]

43 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

 

Only real thing would be to watch Corbyn attempt to lead again, assuming it's still a disaster wait until next summer and have someone challenge him again and hope a year of irrelevance focuses people's minds. I really don't see what else could be done.

 

Next summer is very generous of you, will the knives get a good polishing in the intervening months or will the party genuinely back Corbyn this time?

[ayrmad]

35 minutes ago, BerwickMad said:

I want him to be a competent leader and take the job seriously. I want him to reach out properly across the party and work on his weaknesses. I want some actual substance behind the grand statements. I want him to understand that there's more to the Labour Party than him.

As almost everyone with any credibility, from members of the PLP, including those on the left, and economic advisors he selected have deserted him, I don't expect it to happen. I expect him to continue to look inwards, backed up by clowns/trolls like McDonnell and Abbot and to continue to only be interested in speaking to the converted. I expect the threat of deselections to intensify, but not sure if it will lead to a split or not. When the general election comes, I expect Labour to fall to around 150-175 MPs and a strengthened Tory Party causing damage to the people Labour are supposed to represent. I expect Corbyn/Momentum to blame everyone else but themselves for it.

Why would the Tories damage voters to the right of centre?

[Ira Gaines]

The Tories aren't the only party actively damaging the people they're supposed to represent. There's a party supposed to support them who, when they're not fighting each other instead of the Tories, abstain on hugely crucial votes, and pander to the votes of the arseholes.

But that last part is all that's important, right. And again we come back to electable. And the reason that word comes up constantly. Because it's the only value that the Labour has now.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

13 hours ago, jmothecat said:

Dugdale is a poor leader. I don't disagree. It emphasises how poor Corbyn is that he's worse.

 

Dear lord. This is a simply hilarious. No other Labour leader north or south of the border, in living memory, has presided over such a cataclysmically poor election performance than Dugdale's Holyrood shambles. For Corbyn to produce something similarly awful he'd have to return fewer MPs than the fucking Lib Dems in a GE.

Corbyn might not be particularly assertive, but he's a million times more believable than Dugdale, who's persona varies from thick and shouty to even thicker and shoutier. 

[bob the tank]

Labour will not form a government again in my lifetime, no matter who leads them. As a political force they are finished.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Labour will not form a government again in my lifetime, no matter who leads them. As a political force they are finished.

That's what people thought about the Tories in 2000. Or Labour in 1983. Or the Liberals in 1925.




Okay, they got the last one right.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, jmothecat said:

 

Only real thing would be to watch Corbyn attempt to lead again, assuming it's still a disaster wait until next summer and have someone challenge him again and hope a year of irrelevance focuses people's minds. I really don't see what else could be done.

Well, you and the rest of the fúckwits who think New Labour had anything other than a name in common with with the party of Hardie, Attlee and Smith could all fúck off to the Tories, where you belong. At least then we could have a cleaner, if smaller, Party to work for.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, BerwickMad said:

I want him to be a competent leader and take the job seriously. I want him to reach out properly across the party and work on his weaknesses. I want some actual substance behind the grand statements. I want him to understand that there's more to the Labour Party than him.

As almost everyone with any credibility, from members of the PLP, including those on the left, and economic advisors he selected have deserted him, I don't expect it to happen. I expect him to continue to look inwards, backed up by clowns/trolls like McDonnell and Abbot and to continue to only be interested in speaking to the converted. I expect the threat of deselections to intensify, but not sure if it will lead to a split or not. When the general election comes, I expect Labour to fall to around 150-175 MPs and a strengthened Tory Party causing damage to the people Labour are supposed to represent. I expect Corbyn/Momentum to blame everyone else but themselves for it.

The failure to act when necessary to stop the introduction of fees for tertiary education. The failure to address issues of social housing. The deregulation of the banking industry. The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative. The selling off of the country's assets at rock-bottom prices. The failure to reinstate Union Rights to workers denied them*, and indeed acting to further curtail them. Many, many, deaths in wars prosecuted simply in order to curry favour with US interests.

All part of St. Tony's legacy. Which of them would you say benefitted "the people Labour are supposed to represent"?

 

*A manifesto promise, and allied to Jack fúcking Straw's "Private Prisons are repugnant" volte-face once in power, one of the things which finally stopped me voting Labour. They're also supposed to represent Public Sector workers, y'know.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 hours ago, bob the tank said:

Labour will not form a government again in my lifetime, no matter who leads them. As a political force they are finished.

I feel your first sentence may, unfortunately, prove to be true. If you're ages with me, then probably more likely. No need to give up the fight, though. I'll be leaving this world to my kids and grand-kids, and I couldn't bear the thought of them thinking I hadn't done what I could to make it a bit less shít than it's going to be.

Your second sentence, I disagree with. A Party does not have to form a Government in order to be a political force. Indeed, if Milliband had taken the opportunity which was open to him, we wouldn't have the fúcking Tories in power right now. But, oh no, the great Labour Party would win on their own - they certainly didn't need the help of parties which actually espoused Socialist policies. Ed shared a stage with Sturgeon, Wood and Bennett. Three sets of balls right there. None of them his.

[dogmc]

The failure to act when necessary to stop the introduction of fees for tertiary education. The failure to address issues of social housing. The deregulation of the banking industry. The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative. The selling off of the country's assets at rock-bottom prices. The failure to reinstate Union Rights to workers denied them*, and indeed acting to further curtail them. Many, many, deaths in wars prosecuted simply in order to curry favour with US interests.

All part of St. Tony's legacy. Which of them would you say benefitted "the people Labour are supposed to represent"?

 

*A manifesto promise, and allied to Jack fúcking Straw's "Private Prisons are repugnant" volte-face once in power, one of the things which finally stopped me voting Labour. They're also supposed to represent Public Sector workers, y'know.

This. Until labour have some real principles then they wont be protecting real labour voters in deprived areas. They would be gaining power for the sake of lining their own pockets. The labour 'moderates' here seem to vote labour like they were football fans and want rid of corbyn as he is a manager who wants to succeed by playing decent football rather one who will win the title at any possible cost.....winning is everything even the club is bankrupt after the victory parade.