-
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
The only thing that's going to happen is Corbyn will win again. Probably by a bigger margin this time.
Eagle will surely win an election...if you're gonna change leader in the name of electability you should y'know get someone that can win votes.
I'm assuming that nobody else wanted to sacrifice their future leadership potential at the altar of Corbyn - assuming there'll be a party left to lead at the end of this. Regardless, I'll be rejoining to vote for Eagle, then probably leaving again once the inevitable happens.
It's clear that the people with a shot at winning a GE are not willing to stick their necks out and risk being burned at the stake by Corbyn's militant followers, they would rather wait until he's out of the way. Fair play to Eagle for at least having the guts to put herself out there.
The next episode in the saga will be whether Corbyn needs nominations from MPs to get on the leadership ballot, both factions have received contradictory legal advice on the matter.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
This whole thing is a web of catch-22's.
If your party is not behind your leader, you're probably not gonna win an election. But if your leader, as judged by a group of professional politicians, can't win, then what can you do but oust them? There will always be called for unity being the reason labour screwed up, but isn't it part of Corbin's job to create that unity?
I'm wondering if that party split is gonna happen now. They'd need centrist Tory's to jump to their ship as well however, and who would leave the winning team? A new party would definitely force an election though, so it could be a last ditch play to prevent article 50...
If your party is not behind your leader, you're probably not gonna win an election. But if your leader, as judged by a group of professional politicians, can't win, then what can you do but oust them? There will always be called for unity being the reason labour screwed up, but isn't it part of Corbin's job to create that unity?
I'm wondering if that party split is gonna happen now. They'd need centrist Tory's to jump to their ship as well however, and who would leave the winning team? A new party would definitely force an election though, so it could be a last ditch play to prevent article 50...
Jezbollah
Member
A Corbyn led Labour with a skeleton shadow cabinet and 80% of non-support from their MPs vs a Theresa May PM for the next 3 1/2 years.
Sounds a lot of fun.
Shit creek
Every couple of cycles in the UK the losing party loses its mind and goes to the far end of it's respective ideological base. The Tories did this with IDS and Howard it's just Labours turn. The PLP would have been best served just to suffer in silence and give Corbyn his period in office and have the survivors remove him once he led them to electoral oblivion*, instead they've given him and his supporters some internal force to blame (the left far better than the right at pinning all their electoral failures on internal forces/lack of ideological purity after all they've had far more practice at losing.)
This is interesting because we're likely going to have a far right nutball (Leadsom: I'm sorry but I don't think the Tory base will be able to resist someone who panders to all their prejudices) vs a far left ideologue with all the charm and personality of a plane spotting fan club organiser.
*which he will, the polling at this point in the GE cycle is appalling.
This is interesting because we're likely going to have a far right nutball (Leadsom: I'm sorry but I don't think the Tory base will be able to resist someone who panders to all their prejudices) vs a far left ideologue with all the charm and personality of a plane spotting fan club organiser.
*which he will, the polling at this point in the GE cycle is appalling.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
I think that's the problem for this time. Their plan was probably to weather the storm, but now Brexit is actually happening. This is a time more than ever that the opposition has to be strong, irrespective of their power (IE controlling seats) in parliament.
So if Corbyn is making them look weak he has to go. But then the argument is the most glaring weakness comes from the revolt against him. The only winning move might have been not to play, but even that had its own consequences.
I think people are underestimating the level of personal animosity labour MPs feel because they feel Corbyn has honestly stolen their party. This is a guy who rebelled against the government for decades, wasn't interested in working with anyone outside of his little far left gang, appointed one of the most disliked people in the PLP,John McDonell, as chancellor and has consistently worked against other labour MPs since getting the leadership. He's undermined the party policy on trident and is seeking to get rid of it, despite conference only agreeing the policy last year. He's more interested in chasing after Blair and repeating to same soundbites around austerity than he is actually developing plans and a vision for the country - or even getting into power to make a change. Momentum are howling at the door for a lot of MPs and there's a real concern about entry-ism in to the party again - witness the significant SWP presence at the corbyn events. The EU work capped that all off - being in the EU is one of the core principles behind labour, and to find your leader was actively working against that pushed a lot of "wait and see" MPs into the "he has to go" camp.
Labour is far more than the small number of activists who vote in it's leadership elections, and right now the MPs feel that they are abandoning the millions of people who vote labour but aren't party members, in a throwback to the 80s at a time when the country needs the party the most.
Labour needs more than a soundbite, party of protest leader right now.
Labour is far more than the small number of activists who vote in it's leadership elections, and right now the MPs feel that they are abandoning the millions of people who vote labour but aren't party members, in a throwback to the 80s at a time when the country needs the party the most.
Labour needs more than a soundbite, party of protest leader right now.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
I'd prefer a stronger voice for them. Though if I'm honest I'm not sure what that entails other than public opinion being behind them, and Labour certainly isn't close to getting any real majority as it stands.
I completely disagree with this, I think Ed was an incredibly effective Leader of the Opposition.
If nothing else he has to be given credit for preventing us going to war in Syria on the side of what would become ISIS, and basically forced a precedent that means the PM won't be able to go to war without consulting the house ever again.
Can you think of a single change in government policy Corbyn has forced? I really can't, I'd say Cameron has faced much more effective opposition from the leavers or even the SNP than he has from Corbyn.
Labour under Ed Miliband completely ceded the political debate to the Tories. That, I concede, was partly because of the fact that when the battle lines were being drawn immediately after the 2010 elections, the Labour party was navel-gazing while the Tories immediately moved into action. But the fact that the Tories managed to convince everyone that cuts in spending are good for the economy is a direct consequence of Labour's total failure in oppoosition. By the time they came to assert their 'voice', they'd come to agree with the Tories on the issue.
Can I think of a single change in government policy that Corbyn has forced? Not off the top of my head, but as I've pointed out several times, he's faced a torrential shitstorm of opposition from within his own party from before he was even elected. If you make every attempt to sabotage someone, you can't really turn around at the end of it and point to what a bad job they've done. That's the kind of duplicity that UKIP and the Eurosceptic right traded on for years with respect to the EU.
I strongly suspect that the reality is nothing to do with 'having a strong opposition' and entirely to do with the fact that the PLP simply disagrees with Corbyn's political views. That's fine, they're well within their rights to operate a centre right party under the guise of being centre left. But they at least need to argue their position in good faith.
Coriolanus
Banned
Labour also needs to find a leader capable of outsing him in the first place, instead of resorting to ineffective, poorly thought-out backstabbing that only helps to strengthen its opponents.
Bams was to the left of hills, and had the most liberal voting record in 2007.
He was the "far left" option, as far as the american climate is concerned.
ultratruman
Banned
Angela Eagle looks like she hasn't slept in years. She is going to lose to Jeremy Corbyn, why can't the PLP see this!?
In general, across countries, why is the centre-left so terrible at choosing electable Leaders? Even in the US, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be the exception to the rule in modern history.
In general, across countries, why is the centre-left so terrible at choosing electable Leaders? Even in the US, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be the exception to the rule in modern history.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
They've done a terrible job of producing household name politicians. I don't even know anyone in the Party who isn't Corbyn, Miliband, Abbot, and now Eagle. They've gotta spend the time before the next election building up someone as a credible saviour.
Or go Trump/Kanye 2020 with a celebrity gimmick leader. Free advertising!
Huw_Dawson
Member
Eagle will lose to Corbyn, then may well end up getting deselected by 2020 if May doesn't set up an immediate election.
This has to happen though - moderate Labour has to try and take back their party once before jumping ship to let it sink.
This has to happen though - moderate Labour has to try and take back their party once before jumping ship to let it sink.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
What's more politically poisonous? Corbyn or the pathetic power-hungry backstabbers?
I can't imagine anyone trusts the average labour minister right now.
I can't imagine anyone trusts the average labour minister right now.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Interesting! I've only been able to speculate on what the left of Labour is thinking... it'd be good to actually find out the truth by asking people. I have two questions for you, if that's okay?
Do you think a left-wing candidate can win the next general election for Labour?
Is Labour winning the next general election more important to you than Labour being a solidly left (i.e. socialist) party?
Are you implying Eagle is a Blairite? If so please learn a bit more about this before talking nonsense.
I can answer these questions for you too if you'd like.
1) No. The country is obviously too right-wing for a left-wing candidate to win an election in the forseeable future. It might be too right-wing even for a centre-left candidate to win an election.
2) I don't know. I genuinely believe that the future of this country will be better off with a huge swing of the Overton window towards the left-wing, and I don't see that happening with a centrist Labour leader. But on the other hand, the opportunity plainly doesn't exist in the current political climate for the left to have their voice heard at all. I probably err on the side of 'better to have a Labour government at all than to have a left-wing Labour party permanently shut out of the debate'.
Will be voting for Eagle if she stands. Regardless, the Labour party clearly needs to reform it's leadership election process. Given the main job of a Labour party leader is to lead the Labour party in the commons it is clearly unworkable for a leader to cling on when they don't have any authority in the commons.
I think even the most hardened Corbynista will admit Corbyn isn't going to win the next election so I don't see why they support him. It's hard to say it's because he is stand up for what he believes in because he clearly didn't in the EU referendum. Now him and McDonnell and saying we should dump freedom of movement? Do Corbyn supporters really think immigration is to blame for the issues in the country? Almost sounds like he is caving to the Tories...
Also it's a waste of time for Corbynistas to blame the PLP or the media or whatever for attacking Corbyn. Even if that is true it doesn't change anything. Do you want to replace all 180~ of the MPs who oppose Corbyn? Every Labour leader apart from Blair (and Wilson I suppose) has had to deal with very hostile print media, complaining about it doesn't accomplish anything.
I think even the most hardened Corbynista will admit Corbyn isn't going to win the next election so I don't see why they support him. It's hard to say it's because he is stand up for what he believes in because he clearly didn't in the EU referendum. Now him and McDonnell and saying we should dump freedom of movement? Do Corbyn supporters really think immigration is to blame for the issues in the country? Almost sounds like he is caving to the Tories...
Also it's a waste of time for Corbynistas to blame the PLP or the media or whatever for attacking Corbyn. Even if that is true it doesn't change anything. Do you want to replace all 180~ of the MPs who oppose Corbyn? Every Labour leader apart from Blair (and Wilson I suppose) has had to deal with very hostile print media, complaining about it doesn't accomplish anything.
"Blairism" is not "affiliate of Tony Blair" in this case, it's rather "Believer in the same neoliberal third-way centrism that Tony Blair believes in, and made the ideological line of the Labour party during his tenure as leader". It's an ideological association, not an actual one.
ultratruman
Banned
Yes Barack Obama is 'far-left' for US politics (especially on foreign policy) and he definitely does not have the mass appeal of a Bill Clinton.
Although he is clearly a man of profound depths, I would point out three circumstantial factors that were crucial to Obama's anomalous electoral success:
1. The Republicans were always going to lose in 2008.
2. Obama had a massive demographic advantage.
3. The Tea Party movement, and the swinging of the GOP to the far right.
Contrast this with Bill Clinton. Bill disrupted circumstancial gravity by denying a second term to a relatively popular president, and he did it through the sheer force of his message and leadership skills.
Edit: Although it's impossible to know how Obama would have fared in a 'normal' electoral cycle, just look at the other recent choices by the Democratic party: Michael Dukakis, John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton.
Polling evidence, and to be honest just asking anyone outside of the Democratic Party, showed all these candidates to have major flaws and a very weak appeal amongst independent voters. Luckily for Hillary Clinton, it looks like circumstances will once again save the Democratic ticket.
I just don't understand why centre-left parties in the west continuously set the hurdle so low when the stakes are so high.
From Political Compass
Blue circles were primary candidates in the US for the Democrats in 2008
I remember this being fairly accurate at the time, at least comparing the individual candidates to each other. Obviously Political Compass kinda lost their marbles since then and had basically no difference between Romney & Obama in 2012 and has Trump to the left of Clinton currently
Anyway, a leader for the center-left needs to be pragmatic, someone who can talk about issues in a way that appeals to moderates, but also someone who is a good negotiator who isn't going to immediately roll over and barely get anything in a deal with the right.
Those things are more important than whether someone sits on the political spectrum within their own party.
You can be from the liberal wing, but if you pick your battles and wait for the country to catch up on other things, you can move the political climate to the left over a period of time.
Maybe, at the current rate Corbyn is going probably not (although I think seeing him in actually televised debates could be interesting). I think it's mostly dependent on how much the conservatives eff up. A lot of people would vote labour no matter what, perhaps enough for a coalition government.
The second question is harder. Obviously I do not want another conservative government but I also don't feel a centrist government would do enough to reverse the damage done, will be done and to make the country a better place. Perhaps I'd consider voting for a more centrist leader if I was far more confident they could win (such as Dan Jarvis). The fact of the matter is i probly won't vote for a party I don't believe in, it's why I voted green last GE (although that is partly because I live in a relatively safe labour seat)
Your take on Blairism may not be the same as mine but Eagles voting record falls more in line with new labour than the traditional left. Big topics for me are the environment and not going into unnecessary wars, both areas where her voting pattern leaves a lot to be desired.
Worth remembering that Len McCluskey's support of Corbyn is at odds with his membership. YouGov polling suggests 65% of Unite members think he is doing badly as Lab leader. 79% think Corbyn is unlikely to be the next PM. 59% think he should step down before the next election.
With Corbyn as leader it's very possible the party is going to get wiped out in parts of the country at the next election.
With Corbyn as leader it's very possible the party is going to get wiped out in parts of the country at the next election.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The people joining to back Corbyn are not union members, though - they're young urban socialists (and probably a smattering of young urban communists, but that'd definitely be the exception not the rule) who want a hard left party that leads the working class.
Notice my language there - "leads the working class" rather than "is of the working class".
The working class is currently voting for UKIP and the Tories as much as they're voting Labour.
Notice my language there - "leads the working class" rather than "is of the working class".
The working class is currently voting for UKIP and the Tories as much as they're voting Labour.
I'd rather not just concede control of the country until 2025 unless we absolutely have to.
JonathanEx
Member
Would he though? Or there's a chance he'd blame the rest of the party for not supporting him, Momentum would push deselections, and he'd keep going until Labour was the Lib Dems as Seamus won't let him stop.
That will happen anyway
It's a ridiculous, largely meaningless all-purpose pejorative that erodes the possibility of any form of meaningful discussion every time its deployed.
To put it another way:
I don't really see how anyone can offer a definition of "Blairism" or w/e that describes Blair's politics, encompasses most of the current PLP and actually tells you anything meaningful about their views.
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
Consistently voted for the Iraq war.
Consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Failed to vote against the Tory Welfare Bill.
She hasn't even anounced her leadership bid and she might as well already pull out. There is zero chance she beats Corbyn.
"I think people are underestimating the level of personal animosity Labour MPs feel because they feel the party membership has honestly stolen their party."
The reason these careerists are revolting is that the threat of their membership asserting itself might rob them of their cushy little fiefdoms.
Just want to note that the Tea Party started after Obama was elected, though Sarah Palin presaged it.
A party which will hopefully return to its roots.
ultratruman
Banned
I know, I should've made it clear i was referring to all of his electoral successes, including 2012. But absolutely, Palin was one reason many couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain '08.
What are the Labour party's roots? The LRC was commited to labour's representation in parliament, not socialism per se. The early Labour party (and its antecedents) had many people who didn't identify as socialist. The intellectual narrow mindedness of people like Corbyn stands in stark contrast to the Labour party's roots.
ultratruman
Banned
Do people just forget that public opinion was largely pro-Iraq war at the time, or that Tony Blair was returned to power 2 years after with a strong majority?
Doesn't particularly matter at this point, it's still a giant mark against Eagle.
But really, nobody is expecting Eagle to win this thing yeah? For all the pissing and moaning from the PLP they've really failed to put anybody up against Corbyn with any hope of winning the membership over.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked