-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK Labour Leadership Crisis: Corbyn retained as leader by strong margin
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
JonathanEx
Member
It's funny as you'd think unions would be supportive of people speaking out against their bosses making their jobs difficult
it's better than a worker party irrelevant to workers
Only irrelevant if workers don't like being employed.
A party that can never be part of a government is irrelevant to everyone.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Honest to god, a party that could win on at least not being the Conservatives is something I'd settle for right now. Beggars can't be choosers and right now the left is impoverished.
If you don't see the gulf of opinion between the Labour and Conservative parties then that's your loss.
JonathanEx
Member
Hahaha Hodges claiming that Corybn's office is considering a nuclear option of calling for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes, to distract.
I hope to god Hodges is talking out of his arse.
Also - McDonnell has written a piece for the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...own-172-labour-mps-cannot-drown-out-democracy
I hope to god Hodges is talking out of his arse.
Also - McDonnell has written a piece for the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...own-172-labour-mps-cannot-drown-out-democracy
Don't have a lot of time for Hodges but he was 100% on the money about Corbyn unfortunately.
He's also saying Corbyn will make a statement at some point today.. Let's see what happens I guess..
The thing that matters is the fact that UKIP voters don't. Hence, how UKIP got so big. Labour needs to make the case to the empoverished working class that they are significantly different from the Tories who have been in power. The Labour platform needs to be a radically different vision for their future, because that's what people like Farage do. They sell the disenfranchised a miracle xenophobic solution, and since no one else is trying to compete with that, they go along with it.
You don't need actual socialists to legislate for the workers. The far-left isn't the only part of the political spectrum capable of helping the working classes.
In fact the far-left does the opposite.
Maybe I'm going against orthodoxy but in the middle of everything else does it feel like Chilcot will be a whole bag of nothing?
What Blair did, and what we did, in Iraq was criminal and evil. But it was over 10 years ago. He, and everyone who made that decision, is out of government. Meanwhile, the country is literally falling apart around us.
Is this going to move the needle at all for anyone outside of the Corbyn base?
What Blair did, and what we did, in Iraq was criminal and evil. But it was over 10 years ago. He, and everyone who made that decision, is out of government. Meanwhile, the country is literally falling apart around us.
Is this going to move the needle at all for anyone outside of the Corbyn base?
This would be the same Labour who capitulated to austerity--a thoroughly and fundamentally right-wing economic policy--prior to the 2015 GE?
Spuck-uk
Banned
The problem is, the party the PLP want is hardly 'The Left', it's the tories with some tiny policy differences, and all of the shitty austerity etc intact
I agree with that, I'd never deny that the Labour party have many many issues. I just don't think Corbyn is capable of appealing to disaffected voters in the North East and North West. To some extent because of his policies but also just the way he presents himself. The Labour party needs to do two things IMO 1) Present a reasonable opposition who can at least try to make the best case for working people out of this whole EU debacle, 2) Rebuild a Labour movement (whatever that may mean) in Britain, which is how you can make real change in our society. 1) is the short term aim, 2) is the much longer term aim.
I agree the Labour party is out of touch, but Corbyn and Momentum are deluded if they think they understand working people, even if they claim to speak for them. People don't give a flying fuck about the Chartists and all of the other stuff Corbyn likes to talk about.
Yes. Despite that I think there is a clear gulf in opinion. Do you think a Labour PM would have led us out of the EU in the absurd manner in which we have just left?
If the PLP party are genuinely concerned about grabbing power--and I have no reason to think that they aren't--then they have no interested in 2 and only limited interest in 1. The fastest route to power right now is to present a slicker version of what the Tories have offered for the past two GEs.
I mean, it's a bit of strained hypothetical because a Labour MP would never have had the Eurosceptics in his party as a constant thorn in his side. A more interesting question is: do I think that any of the clones would have prevented the outcome? No.
ferrasvansen
Member
If this is true about Stuart and Hoey he should be dragged out of the Labour party, utter disgrace.
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/748156938781855744
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/748156938781855744
Literally Bernie.
Like it or not, the Labour Party needs to stop talking about the bottom 10% and the top 10% to win power back. Labour needs to craft a credible vision for the entire country and not focus on these issues which don't matter to most people. It also needs to be positive and tap into the same feelings that "take back control" worked on. All too often (especially now) Labour talks about the working class as if they had something done to them, and need saving. Regardless of the truth in that, language and messaging like that just doesn't work.
Blair's victory was based off the concept that Labour was okay with aspirational people wanting to do better - Mandelson's quote was bad, but fundamentally true. The entire New Labour bargain was "We will help you get ahead, and we'll use some of the wealth to help others".
If Labour wants those aspirational, working class voters back who voted for Thatcher, Blair and then Cameron and voted Leave last Thursday it's got to face up to the fact that the language of the left simply doesn't work for these people, and hasn't for decades.
Blair's victory was based off the concept that Labour was okay with aspirational people wanting to do better - Mandelson's quote was bad, but fundamentally true. The entire New Labour bargain was "We will help you get ahead, and we'll use some of the wealth to help others".
If Labour wants those aspirational, working class voters back who voted for Thatcher, Blair and then Cameron and voted Leave last Thursday it's got to face up to the fact that the language of the left simply doesn't work for these people, and hasn't for decades.
Kate's a big supporter of Corbyn, and a monster. She needs deselecting as soon as possible.
2. isn't just the role of the PLP. It's our civic responsibility. The PLP can only work with the public they have, it's very difficult to break through what the press and the other parties are saying to really change people's minds, that's why we're in such a rotten situation. You think a 5 minute talk to a member of the public during an election is enough to convince them that immigration is beneficial for the country?
I think it isn't, that's why a labour movement is important, it can help create an alternative to the awful political discourse we have now. I'm also not convinced such a thing is possible but I feel like I need to be optimistic because the alternatives are far too depressing.
Regardless, I don't agree that what the Labour party will put forward will just be a "slicker version of the Tories". The next election will be fought over the EU, there is a lot of room there to stand up for working people in a way the Tories aren't willing to.
Gotta agree with this. I think it all comes down to talking to working people in a language they can relate to. I don't think Corbyn is doing that.
I don't think the PLP cares about 'civic responsbility'. They crow constantly about our responsibility to the worst off in society but I haven't seen any of them present a plausible picture of what that would look like. I said their policy is 'whatever the Tories do but looking embarrassed about it' snidely, but, you know, that's kind of true. Again I'm reminded of Stewart Lee: 'Today, both the main parties believe that the poor should be tied up in a bin-bag and thrown into a canal. The Conservatives, to be fair to them, at least had the guts to look as if they mean that. Whereas the Labour Party, when they announced their support for welfare cuts, they did so with all the confidence of a dog running away from the smell of his own farts.'
At a certain point we just fundamentally disagree. If you don't trust anyone in the PLP to be better than the Tories then I don't think I could convince you to otherwise. There are many Labour MPs whom I am proud of and support, I plan to continue to support them in trying to form a Labour government.
There are lots of Labour MPs who I support as well, and I don't think that a Labour government would be as bad as the Tories. But any Labour party who is committed to permanent austerity is not left-wing in any reasonable sense of the term, and since support for permanent austerity is the fastest route to power right now, there's no reason to believe that any post-Corbyn PLP supported Labour leader wouldn't also support it.
Part of the biggest thing I think is that society, and the way we talk about ourselves (societal norms) has hugely changed in the last 40 years. For the worse I would say, but definitely changed.
People don't *like* being talked about as the poor, the downtrodden. Regardless of whether they are, no-one wants to be called that. It's why American politicians talk about the "middle class" when they actually mean the working class.
What once was a badge of pride, and the core of the labour movement, has been hollowed out by the fact we no longer think and talk about ourselves in that way. Our language has got to change, and the way we talk about ourselves, the movement and what we want to achieve has to change.
I very much agree that the Leave result wasn't based on the last 6 years of austerity, but the fundamental changes that have been going on since the late 70s. And no Labour politician has won election since then based on talking like we did in the 70s.
People don't *like* being talked about as the poor, the downtrodden. Regardless of whether they are, no-one wants to be called that. It's why American politicians talk about the "middle class" when they actually mean the working class.
What once was a badge of pride, and the core of the labour movement, has been hollowed out by the fact we no longer think and talk about ourselves in that way. Our language has got to change, and the way we talk about ourselves, the movement and what we want to achieve has to change.
I very much agree that the Leave result wasn't based on the last 6 years of austerity, but the fundamental changes that have been going on since the late 70s. And no Labour politician has won election since then based on talking like we did in the 70s.
ferrasvansen
Member
Well looks like Unions are backing an election but sticking to Corbyn, in a way I'm glad will finally kill off the unions on their current form, tories will crucify them with their 100 plus majority at the next election. Nothing but a bunch of useless cronies anyway with all the lies from them about workers rights in EU being so important, clearly it wasn't.
It's all very well discussing semantics, but when the majority of the PLP refuse to vote against something as reprehensible as the Tory Welfare Bill, there is a fundamental disconnect between what the party should stand for and what it's MP's are doing.
But even this is a distraction from the current behaviour of the PLP, which is nothing short of reprehensible. There is a clear and defined process for challenging for the leadership of the party, and the PLP are attempting to circumvent this by intentionally undermining and attacking Corbyn in a calculated attempt to ensure he is not challenged, but instead resigns.
The orchestrated series of resignations, the briefing to journalists, the open and brazen undermining of authority. It's shabby and reflects poorly on them, but more importantly for the future it reflects poorly on the party. I fear that whatever the outcome, the Labour party is irreparably damaged at this point.
Some choice quotes from a few CLP chairs:
But even this is a distraction from the current behaviour of the PLP, which is nothing short of reprehensible. There is a clear and defined process for challenging for the leadership of the party, and the PLP are attempting to circumvent this by intentionally undermining and attacking Corbyn in a calculated attempt to ensure he is not challenged, but instead resigns.
The orchestrated series of resignations, the briefing to journalists, the open and brazen undermining of authority. It's shabby and reflects poorly on them, but more importantly for the future it reflects poorly on the party. I fear that whatever the outcome, the Labour party is irreparably damaged at this point.
Some choice quotes from a few CLP chairs:
We shall see. While I agree the austerity message the Conservative's sold to the country is wrong, it also is something the average voter clearly believed. I'm not convinced the reason for Corbyn's unelectability is that he opposes austerity. I think a new leader could very reasonably make the argument that action needs to be taken by the government to stabilise the economy after this EU vote. It also undermines the arguments the Conservatives have that they are the only people who can be trusted with the economy.
ferrasvansen
Member
Thing is the MPs are paid to represent the constituency and it's likely Labour supporter on the doors are pissed off. When 29% percent of your vote says it will desert the party in 2020 or at an earlier election, means labour would be reduced to nothing more than a focus group. Sure inside London support is booming but everywhere else I suspect it's haemorrhaged in vast numbers. Just look at what not listening to Labour voters in Scotland wanted, too much pandering to the so called labour members destroyed labour here, they will never recover. The same is happening down south and frankly Corbyn is an idiot for even considering to stand again.
JonathanEx
Member
Well I guess there's nothing stopping them from just endlessly doing leadership challenges until he just fucks off, even if he gets in again.
Okay there's MANY things that make that a bad idea, but there we go.
Okay there's MANY things that make that a bad idea, but there we go.
Dan Jarvis wasn't even an MP back then, surely he'd be clean?
Backing the Iraq War is an embarrassing error for anyone but as long as they admit it was a bad decision based on deceit from the PM and his underlings, it won't be a big deal. They cannot go looking for a 'perfect' candidate, they need someone who is able to lead a credible opposition and go from there.
CyclopsRock
Member
Of course it's not moot. When Ed lost, he didn't tear the party apart. The two situations are different, even if "losing the election" is a common thread.
Re: the PLP, I think you have that backwards. The single most important group that the leader has to work with is the PLP. In fact, that's who they're leading. It doesn't matter if every member, affiliate and canvasser in the country likes you if the PLP don't. They are the ones elected by an actual electorate to represent their best interests, and a slim, slither in the form of a totally unrepresentative sample doesn't trump that. That's why you, ideally, have someone with both the confidence of the PLP and the confidence of the party members. And if you can only have one, the PLP is the most important, because without them it's all irrelevant anyway.
"Someone, anyone" is exactly who I'd choose. Literally any of the other candidates from the last leadership election would be preferable.
Yep - it's idiotic to worry about Chilcot in that way. Unless you were in cabinet you apologise, admit the faults and move on. If Hilary Clinton can do it they can.
Honestly don't know why they are obsessing over it - in the middle of everything else they think Chilcot should influence the new leader.
Honestly don't know why they are obsessing over it - in the middle of everything else they think Chilcot should influence the new leader.
ferrasvansen
Member
Absolute clowns more interested in shit that went down years ago compared to the current mess our country faces, self indulgent fucking muppets.
Unless they know something we don't.
JonathanEx
Member
Well, from team Corbyn's point of view, Bliar's always been a war criminal, so this will just prove it anyway. I guess.
I can't think of anything that would impact on this. Say the report comes out and says the government deliberately lied about the evidence, that Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell made it all up, and that it was a fraud from start to finish?
So what? They aren't Tony Blair, they weren't in cabinet, it doesn't matter!
Hillary Benn was in the cabinet. He was the SoS for International Development and was tasked with rebuilding Iraq after the war. He is also seen as the instigator of this coup.
I am actually most interested in the part of this article which claims that Corbyn remaining is just horribly contrary to British social norms, according to which somebody who is this visibly detested by his party should really just leave on his own to avoid any further awkwardness.
Not being British I don't have any real insight into whether people think this has any validity. From a perspective of constitutional norms though it's pretty clear that the PLP is sending every available message it has to say that Corbyn should quit. Even if he stays, I'm not really sure how he intends to do the work of a political party when he doesn't have any politicians to do it.
I am genuinely surprised that the conversation here is still focused on reclaiming Labour and not on transitioning the Labour politicians to a new party. It seems like the obvious next step here.
CyclopsRock
Member
In a first past the post system that's almost impossible, outside of huge shifts in demographics and/or democracy. When Labour overtook the Liberals as the main party of opposition is was a direct result of expanding suffrage and capitalising on a new set of voters. Ditto with the SNP's success being a response to the Scottish Parliament's creation. I don't see anything in the current landscape that would do anything to predicate this shift (it's only happened about 3 times in the last 400 years of British party politics). As it stands, splitting the vote is absolute suicide in a first past the post electoral system.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked