Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

An interesting paper on how antagonistic the press have been towards corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

I'm 4 pages in and there's already about 4 reg flags for me. First the unironic use of "neo liberal" in the foreword. Secondly the assessment of "tone" by these two academics using criteria they haven't told us. Thirdly, the idea that associations are actually not important. And fourthly they seem to be rather deliberately conflating legitimate criticism and "antagonistic" criticism by having them both be red on a bar chart whilst positive articles are green.

 

[kmag]

I'm 4 pages in and there's already about 4 reg flags for me. First the unironic use of "neo liberal" in the foreword. Secondly the assessment of "tone" by these two academics using criteria they haven't told us. Thirdly, the idea that associations are actually not important. And fourthly they seem to be rather deliberately conflating legitimate criticism and "antagonistic" criticism by having them both be red on a bar chart whilst positive articles are green.

The main issue with it is the lack of comparative analysis with previous Labour leaders. It essentially boils down to "Right wing media don't like left wing leader" shock horror. I'm reasonably positive that Corbyn probably got a slightly shittier deal than Miliband got, simply because Corbyn was less nationally defined than Miliband, but it's not like Red Ed got it easy either.

 

[phisheep]

Red flags all over that paper.

It might be vaguely interesting if it compared over, say, the last 20 years of opposition leaders of both parties.

As it is, they appear to think that the Press has some sort of constitutional duty to be nice, or at least not-nasty, to politicians as opposed to, well, selling newspapers. Bless their little cotton socks.

 

[cilonen]

The elections to Labour's National Executive Comittee today resulted in a sweep by Corbyn supporters.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...99/jeremy-corbyn-allies-sweep-labour-national

 

[PJV3]

The elections to Labour's National Executive Comittee today resulted in a sweep by Corbyn supporters.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...99/jeremy-corbyn-allies-sweep-labour-national

This is going one way, there has to be a split next year, the Bennite wing own the party now. A swift crushing defeat is the best hope for keeping the party together but I don't see May being bothered with Corbyn facing her, Victory is almost certain whenever she calls it.

 

[cilonen]

This is going one way, there has to be a split next year, the Bennite wing own the party now. A swift crushing defeat is the best hope for keeping the party together but I don't see May being bothered with Corbyn facing her, Victory is almost certain whenever she calls it.

I think there will be a split too. There are even murmurings in the press that there will be a legal fight over the Labour name and branding.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think there will be a split too. There are even murmurings in the press that there will be a legal fight over the Labour name and branding.

What, on who gets to avoid being stuck with it?

 

[PJV3]

What, on who gets to avoid being stuck with it?

I was going to say piss off, but actually I think they would be better off letting Corbyn have it. He would win in court anyway, he should hold the general election in The Old Bailey.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I was going to say piss off, but actually I think they would be better off letting Corbyn have it. He would win in court anyway, he should hold the general election in The Old Bailey.

The situation is just utterly without precedent. When the SDP split, they weren't a majority of the parliamentary party. I can't even begin to predict what would happen.

 

[Maledict]

I don't think they will split. Labour is so bloody awful at taking out leaders - look at what Blair, Brown and Miliband had to cope with. They always retreat before actually going through with things, and I just don't see the parliamentary MPs leaving the party.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Seeing Shawcroft do that well in the NEC voting is just sad. Proof if needed that nobody bothered researching the candidates and just voted on the basis of Corbynite/not Corbynite. That said, the NECs' electoral system is basically designed to create clean sweeps - it's just block vote, which really sucks. Should be STV to create a more fair spread of candidates across both wings; it's very unfair that Corbynites got ~55% of the votes but 100% of the seats. Not a great victory for party democracy.

On the other hand, does my heart glad to see the odious Akehurst come right down the bottom there. It's also interesting that Corbynites got "only" ~55% of the vote when they were much better organized and invested in this than the soft left; is that an ominous sign for the leadership contest?

 

[system11]

Why would they vote for New Labour when they are just Old Tory?

The vestiges of illusion that we had anything resembling a multi party parliament died when Clegg decided he liked the taste of Troy Cool Aid and threw everyone that voted for the Lib Dems under the bus to suck on that diseased teat for four years.

So they took a minority vote, and turned it into 4 years of partial power on behalf of their voters, with the largest party which was the democratically correct thing to do, and in did so got some of their policies through while blocking others. This act gave their voters (I was one of them) a voice they wouldn't otherwise have had.

And they're hated for it, which is why the left in the UK is an irredeemable disaster. There's no logic, no positivity or ideas, just jeering from the party and a tedious whining hatred from supporters.

With Corbyn backed by Mobentum (perhaps they could just re-use Militant), Labour will be unelectable for many years. Not too bothered about that since they're rubbish anyway and have been for a while, but it does make me miss the days of Neil Kinnock. Didn't agree with the man on many things, but at least he was rational and knew what he wanted.

 

[StormKing]

So they took a minority vote, and turned it into 4 years of partial power on behalf of their voters, with the largest party which was the democratically correct thing to do, and in did so got some of their policies through while blocking others. This act gave their voters (I was one of them) a voice they wouldn't otherwise have had.

And they're hated for it, which is why the left in the UK is an irredeemable disaster. There's no logic, no positivity or ideas, just jeering from the party and a tedious whining hatred from supporters.

With Corbyn backed by Mobentum (perhaps they could just re-use Militant), Labour will be unelectable for many years. Not too bothered about that since they're rubbish anyway and have been for a while, but it does make me miss the days of Neil Kinnock. Didn't agree with the man n many things, but at least he was rational and knew what he wanted.

I think it's because they helped the Tories. I don't think the people who voted Lib Dem in that election thought they were actually voting for a Tory-LibDem coalition as well.

Regardless of policies, actively supporting the Tories on an important issue is a terrible thing to do for any left wing leader. It got the Liberal Democrats wiped out in 2015 election due to the coalition. It also got the Scottish Labour party wiped out in that same election for siding with the Tories on the Scottish referendum.

That's why I don't blame Corbyn for not standing beside Cameron on the EU referendum. I don't think it would have been a politically smart thing to do. However, his lack of enthusiasm concerning the EU, his failure to sufficiently support Labour party remain campaigners, his decision to take a vacation during the referendum, his announcement that the Tories must invoke Article 50 now without consulting anyone else in the Labour part are all inexcusable.

It appears he can only muster that enthusiasm or comp when he's fighting against the Labour party or running for a leadership election. When it comes to attacking the Tories and managing the Labour party he's woefully inadequate.

 

[system11]

I think it's because they helped the Tories. I don't think the people who voted Lib Dem in that election thought they were actually voting for a Tory-LibDem coalition as well.

Regardless of policies, actively supporting the Tories on an important issue is a terrible thing to do for any left wing leader.

Only because their supporters are childish and irrational. I'm sure some Conservative voters didn't think they'd be voting in the LDs, but they weren't punished for it. As I say, Clegg took a wasted vote, a lack of voice, and turned it into something for their supporters.

Or perhaps getting nothing was better. The loss of support meant our local LD MP, a scientist who was a very intelligent and well thought of MP, has been replaced with a businessman from Labour.

Seeing the way many on the left carry on now with the bile makes me ashamed for them, it's embarassing, I support the Conservatives at the moment at least in part because I can't stand to be associated with leftist party supporters anymore, but also because none of them even have credible policies at the moment.

I think the sole thing in recent weeks which really illustrates it best is this:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/31/how-did-the-language-of-politics-get-so-toxic

The Guardian for those unaware, is the ultimate embodiment of the 'liberal elite' in the UK. I agree with the headline, I'd pay £100 to never have to read someone describing their opponents as "vile" for a whole year. However....

Of course they removed it from the Guardian shop as soon as someone called them out for this hypocritical bullshit a few days ago, but it's still there in the google cache for all to see.

 

[PJV3]

I don't know why they removed that quote, it's a good one if you understand the history of it. Churchill labeling miners as rats scurrying in their holes, the sacrifice of the war and conservative party opposition to reform.

 

[Juicy Bob]

I think we all in Britain should be demanding more of our political discourse, politicians and the media.

We rightly demand better of the UKIP crowd and the ignorant and dangerously prejudiced aspects of right-wing discourse, but we also need to hold those on the progressive side to high standards too and not be afraid to call out when we are being hypocritical or harmful to the discourse too.

I know I've been guilty of being salty at times - especially over the last 18 months - but even I make an effort to avoid poisoning the discussion by using dehumanising or violent language, no matter how dangerous I think certain people's views or beliefs are.

 

[JonathanEx]

I don't know why they removed that quote, it's a good one if you understand the history of it. Churchill labeling miners as rats scurrying in their holes, the sacrifice of the war and conservative party opposition to reform.

Oh, it was removed to try and shut Guido up I suspect, nothing further.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Nothing about Clegg's Lib Dems was left wing anyway, really. They were actually pretty close to my ideal party - economically center right and socially liberal. That coalition was, IMO, great.

 

[JonathanEx]

So, Burnham confirmed as Labour's Manchester Mayor candidate. His loyalty may have actually paid off for something.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So, Burnham confirmed as Labour's Manchester Mayor candidate. His loyalty may have actually paid off for something.

Alternatively, the fact his spurning of union endorsements in an attempt to appear centrist being heavily responsible for Corbyn's own victory might be another part of it. House Corbynster always pay their dues.

 

[PJV3]

So, Burnham confirmed as Labour's Manchester Mayor candidate. His loyalty may have actually paid off for something.

I like Burnham, fate is against him but he soldiers on. We want the infighting to end but people like Burnham get called spineless for trying to hold the party together.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Only because their supporters are childish and irrational. I'm sure some Conservative voters didn't think they'd be voting in the LDs, but they weren't punished for it. As I say, Clegg took a wasted vote, a lack of voice, and turned it into something for their supporters.

Or perhaps getting nothing was better. The loss of support meant our local LD MP, a scientist who was a very intelligent and well thought of MP, has been replaced with a businessman from Labour.

Seeing the way many on the left carry on now with the bile makes me ashamed for them, it's embarassing, I support the Conservatives at the moment at least in part because I can't stand to be associated with leftist party supporters anymore, but also because none of them even have credible policies at the moment.

I think the sole thing in recent weeks which really illustrates it best is this:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/31/how-did-the-language-of-politics-get-so-toxic

The Guardian for those unaware, is the ultimate embodiment of the 'liberal elite' in the UK. I agree with the headline, I'd pay £100 to never have to read someone describing their opponents as "vile" for a whole year. However....

Of course they removed it from the Guardian shop as soon as someone called them out for this hypocritical bullshit a few days ago, but it's still there in the google cache for all to see.

The Guardian is a shitty Liberal* rag, but that Nye Bevan quote remains fantastic.

*Economic liberal, for any confused Americans reading

 

[Spuck-uk]

Alternatively, the fact his spurning of union endorsements in an attempt to appear centrist being heavily responsible for Corbyn's own victory might be another part of it. House Corbynster always pay their dues.

He's one of the few of the more centrist politicians who hasn't come out of this mess looking like shit.

Also the thought of a scouser as mayor of Manchester amuses me greatly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That Bevan quote actually has context. His father died from coal lungs, but the Bevan family was denied compensation because the Workmen's Compensation Act at the time did not have provisions for pneumoconiosis after Conservative opposition. Churchill as a younger man was part of the group that publicly lobbied against it. It's rather unsurprising Nye would hold such bile for them.

Nye actually dropped several such bombs, incidentally. After Gaitskell beat him in the hotly contested and rather bitter leadership election, he remarked "I know the right kind of political Leader for the Labour Party is a kind of desiccated calculating machine." which is some of the purest political ether of Gaitskell you can get.

 

[Mindwipe]

Nothing about Clegg's Lib Dems was left wing anyway, really. They were actually pretty close to my ideal party - economically center right and socially liberal. That coalition was, IMO, great.

They were somewhat ineffectual at being socially liberal. They did nothing about Cameron's porn crusade and seemed to only notice banning distribution of lots of material after they'd already voted on it.

 

[Uzzy]

Seeing the way many on the left carry on now with the bile makes me ashamed for them, it's embarassing, I support the Conservatives at the moment at least in part because I can't stand to be associated with leftist party supporters anymore, but also because none of them even have credible policies at the moment.

You're not wrong. People are rightly angry about a whole host of issues, housing, the economy being so imbalanced, automation taking jobs away, entire areas of the country being deprived, foreign policy etc.

But where are the policies that give answers to these issues? Corbyn's put forward some proposals in this election campaign, but I hope we see them expanded upon and properly thought through.

 

[Commander Jameson]

Are you talking about Corbyn and Smith's policies? I thought they were very similar. Just wondering what policies of theirs are not credible.

 

[Maledict]

He's one of the few of the more centrist politicians who hasn't come out of this mess looking like shit.

Also the thought of a scouser as mayor of Manchester amuses me greatly.

Interesting - that's the exact opposite opinion the circles I speak with have of him. As a labour MP he's viewed as a dead man walking - completely ineffectual leadership campaign which let Corbyn in, utterly spineless behaviour afterwards joining the cabinet, and then running as soon as he could away from parliament. People generally seem very pissed off at him.

 

[PJV3]

Interesting - that's the exact opposite opinion the circles I speak with have of him. As a labour MP he's viewed as a dead man walking - completely ineffectual leadership campaign which let Corbyn in, utterly spineless behaviour afterwards joining the cabinet, and then running as soon as he could away from parliament. People generally seem very pissed off at him.

We're going to run out of acceptable Labour politicians at this rate, too left, too right, too wishy washy.

 

[Hazzuh]

Burnham leaving Westminster is still a smart move though. He'll clearly be able to do more good as mayor than he ever would in the shadow cabinet. Having someone who is fairly prominent is probably good for Manchester too. He isn't really a scouser either, he was brought up in my home town (Warrington) which isn't really that scouse.

 

[Hazzuh]

So after this tweet earlier today:

Rhea Wolfson, one of new pro-Corbyn members on Labour NEC says party need "a healthy conversation" about mandatory re-selection of MPs

The Telegraph are reporting that Corbyn plans to push through mandatory reselection by the end of the year:

Two senior sources have told The Telegraph that the ruling body – which is believed to be split 18-15 in Mr Corbyn’s favour – should vote on re-election rules by the end of the year.

“At the end of the day MPs will have to do what the Labour Party instructs them to do,” a Corbyn-supporting NEC member said about reselection.

“I don’t think you can have people making political choices about who should be allowed to run and who shouldn’t be. It should be a fair, democratic and transparent process.

The source added: “It’s only reasonable that everybody has a chance to win a seat. Clearly there are going to be some people left behind.”

A second senior source said it was likely a vote would be held before the end of the year and said Mr Corbyn now had “control of the system” after the latest NEC election.

 

[Jackpot]

Some interesting insights into the split from the "Trots and Bolsheviks" interview

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nterview-jeremy-corbyn-labour-rifts-hug-shout

Watson had no idea that Labour’s leader would call for article 50 to be triggered at once, within hours of the referendum result. “But if I’m being honest, I’d not focused a lot on the plan B in the planning meetings that I’d had with him.”

Failing to anticipate the impact Corbyn’s words would have on Labour MPs – “At that point I was so exhausted, I didn’t take it in on the Friday” – he made his way to Glastonbury.

Watson was offline in a silent disco when Corbyn sacked Hilary Benn late that Saturday night, and remained blissfully unaware of the unfolding crisis until he awoke the next morning to a “whole load of missed calls and texts”.

He spent the day on the phone, hurrying back to London, “trying to find out what was happening”. Remarkably, he didn’t speak to Corbyn. Did he even try? “I can’t remember, actually,” he offers vaguely. I’m not sure which would be more bizarre: Corbyn refusing to take his deputy’s call, or Watson not even bothering to phone.

Even then, it didn’t occur to him that Corbyn would defy the PLP’s indictment. “I thought he would realise that to lose the confidence of 80% of your MPs means that you can’t lead the Labour party.” Watson tried to say so in private two days later, but was thwarted when two Corbyn aides made an unscheduled appearance in their car.

“I was told we would have the journey on our own, and they came. I did suggest that they didn’t, and they said we’re coming in the car. So it became very difficult to have the conversation.” Was he angry? Watson looks conflicted.

 

[Goodlife]

So after this tweet earlier today:



The Telegraph are reporting that Corbyn plans to push through mandatory reselection by the end of the year:

Wonder who in the PLP still thinks this coup was a good idea....

 

[Maledict]

Wonder who in the PLP still thinks this coup was a good idea....

This is the one thing that will actually make the party split, and it will doom left wing politics in this country for a generation. Anyone thinking this is a good idea is either a Tory or a moron.

 

[PJV3]

This is the one thing that will actually make the party split, and it will doom left wing politics in this country for a generation. Anyone thinking this is a good idea is either a Tory or a moron.

It like banging your head against a brick wall, how does losing a load of MP's help.


You could be right and It's a wannabe Toby Young spreading mischief.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Yes, purging the centrists will really make you electable! /s

 

[Quixzlizx]

Wonder who in the PLP still thinks this coup was a good idea....

Is that Theresa May?

 

[CyclopsRock]

In today's episode of "I can't even", we begin with more details on why the Labour conference might have to be cancelled:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-to-cancel-party-conference--unless-deal-sig/

Labour may have to cancel its annual conference unless it signs a deal with a new security company after taking the decision to boycott G4S.

The party has failed to get a new company on board after cancelling its deal with G4S because of its links with Israeli prisons, according to leaked emails to Iain McNicol, Labour's general secretary.

There are concerns the Home Office and police could shut down the conference if Labour fails to source its own security.

It is understood that Labour is now so desperate they are understood to have raised the possibility of the G4S boycott being "reversed".

Following on from that, we have the deputy leader of the party claim that ...

‘There are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate.

‘Sooner or later, that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it.’

I dunno who he's referring to.

Finally, Corbyn hit back at this - with no apparent sense of irony of self awareness - by saying that Watson was...

peddling baseless conspiracy theories

#It'sAllTheMedia #He'dBeLeadingThePollsIfNotForThatMeddlingCoup

 

[Mindwipe]

To be honest I have no idea what Watson was thinking giving an interview where he said the problem was that the Labour party had too much democracy and needed to give the PLP more power to select the leader.

There is really no evidence whatsoever that the PLP is any more popular with the general electorate than Corbyn is. The PLP needs to change quite fundamentally to get elected too, but just live in denial about it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

To be honest I have no idea what Watson was thinking giving an interview where he said the problem was that the Labour party had too much democracy and needed to give the PLP more power to select the leader.

There is really no evidence whatsoever that the PLP is any more popular with the general electorate than Corbyn is. The PLP needs to change quite fundamentally to get elected too, but just live in denial about it.

I don't think he was looking at it from a "who's most popular? they should have the power." point of view. But rather, a functioning party needs a leadership and a parliamentary party that gets on more than any other groups get on. If we split the party into 4 basic groups: Leadership, PLP, constituency parties and Labour members, the most important relationship out of all of these is between the leadership and the PLP. This is because they are basically the right and left hands of the whole operation. To a large extent, it doesn't matter if the CLPs and Members don't actually like the leadership or PLP, but if the PLP doesn't like the leadership then the party simply cannot function.

You can look at this from outside the lens of the Labour party, because everything I've just said is true of basically all parties. I don't think what Watson said was particularly controversial and, IMO, is entirely correct. The Tories have a decent enough system IMO, where at least the Conservative MPs can whittle the contenders down to the final two before allowing (or not, as it happens) the membership to have the final decision. This way you can be pretty sure that the MPs will be behind the leadership.

 

[Mindwipe]

I don't think he was looking at it from a "who's most popular? they should have the power." point of view. But rather, a functioning party needs a leadership and a parliamentary party that gets on more than any other groups get on. If we split the party into 4 basic groups: Leadership, PLP, constituency parties and Labour members, the most important relationship out of all of these is between the leadership and the PLP. This is because they are basically the right and left hands of the whole operation. To a large extent, it doesn't matter if the CLPs and Members don't actually like the leadership or PLP, but if the PLP doesn't like the leadership then the party simply cannot function.

You can look at this from outside the lens of the Labour party, because everything I've just said is true of basically all parties. I don't think what Watson said was particularly controversial and, IMO, is entirely correct. The Tories have a decent enough system IMO, where at least the Conservative MPs can whittle the contenders down to the final two before allowing (or not, as it happens) the membership to have the final decision. This way you can be pretty sure that the MPs will be behind the leadership.

I'm not sure I agree with this to be honest, because I think fundamentally if the wider electorate don't like the PLP then they lose elections, and if the membership don't like the PLP they also lose elections - if you don't get volunteers out you don't get voters, and you don't get any money to fight elections with.

We love to think we are above this sort of thing in the UK, but I think the Conservatives ability (and, to be fair, competency with what they used it for) to outspend Labour in the last election was a very significant factor. At least as big as the party leaders. And they have that because the membership didn't hate their MPs and are willing to donate. They can back that up with people on the ground who are dedicated to leafleting etc.

One of the reasons the Labour Party fell apart so quickly when it lost power is because it had let those issues fester for ten years, and it wrecked them. It's maybe slightly slower to fall apart - tribal members don't drop you as easily as the general public - but it's very, very had to fix afterwards and therefore keeping that relationship working is crucial.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

I'm not sure I agree with this to be honest, because I think fundamentally if the wider electorate don't like the PLP then they lose elections, and if the membership don't like the PLP they also lose elections - if you don't get volunteers out you don't get voters, and you don't get any money to fight elections with.

We love to think we are above this sort of thing in the UK, but I think the Conservatives ability (and, to be fair, competency with what they used it for) to outspend Labour in the last election was a very significant factor. At least as big as the party leaders. And they have that because the membership didn't hate their MPs and are willing to donate. They can back that up with people on the ground who are dedicated to leafleting etc.

One of the reasons the Labour Party fell apart so quickly when it lost power is because it had let those issues fester for ten years, and it wrecked them. It's maybe slightly slower to fall apart - tribal members don't drop you as easily as the general public - but it's very, very had to fix afterwards and therefore keeping that relationship working is crucial.

The huge amount of money spent on Facebook by the Tories was a game changer.

Interestingly, I read that the past year Labour had more donations than the Conservatives for the first time in a long time (maybe ever)

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not sure I agree with this to be honest, because I think fundamentally if the wider electorate don't like the PLP then they lose elections, and if the membership don't like the PLP they also lose elections - if you don't get volunteers out you don't get voters, and you don't get any money to fight elections with.

We love to think we are above this sort of thing in the UK, but I think the Conservatives ability (and, to be fair, competency with what they used it for) to outspend Labour in the last election was a very significant factor. At least as big as the party leaders. And they have that because the membership didn't hate their MPs and are willing to donate. They can back that up with people on the ground who are dedicated to leafleting etc.

One of the reasons the Labour Party fell apart so quickly when it lost power is because it had let those issues fester for ten years, and it wrecked them. It's maybe slightly slower to fall apart - tribal members don't drop you as easily as the general public - but it's very, very had to fix afterwards and therefore keeping that relationship working is crucial.

I think everything you've said here is entirely true but I think you're under-estimating the importance of how bad this whole civil war look is and slightly over-estimating the importance of the leadership on the ground game. It'll actually be interesting to see how many of the new members will be out canvassing in by-elections and in 2020 (or whenever) vs how many of the Pre-Corbyn members do. I have a feeling (and I could be wrong) that the existing members will be more likely to go out canvassing full stop, and this even includes those that didn't vote for Corbyn in the leadership (who I know are less than half, but only just). This is because many of the dyed-in-the-wool members will be pretty closely tied to their local party and it's often for their local MP who they do their canvassing (which sounds like an arbitrary distinction when they're the same party, but it's the equivalent of a soldier being a member of their unit or platoon and then a member of their branch (and then a member of their national military etc etc)).

Or, to put it another way, if you had to keep Corbyn as leader (to remove a variable) but had two choices: More boots on the ground but a continued civil war or an end to the civil war but less people to go out and canvass, which would you choose?

Edit: It goes beyond the optics of the civil war, too. Right now the Tories have a majority of 12 but it might as well be infinite because Corbyn's capacity to enact a whip is so limit. This is especially the case after the "everyone's being reselected" talk, because a bunch of them must be feeling like they won't be in their seats in 2020 anyway, so they can do what they want. When the whip can't threaten them, it can't function. So OK, if the Tories try to pass legislation to ban all trade unions I imagine Labour would be able to mount a decent opposition but for the every day, bread and butter stuff, the Tories have a de facto 100 seat majority now.

 

[Mindwipe]

I think everything you've said here is entirely true but I think you're under-estimating the importance of how bad this whole civil war look is and slightly over-estimating the importance of the leadership on the ground game. It'll actually be interesting to see how many of the new members will be out canvassing in by-elections and in 2020 (or whenever) vs how many of the Pre-Corbyn members do. I have a feeling (and I could be wrong) that the existing members will be more likely to go out canvassing full stop, and this even includes those that didn't vote for Corbyn in the leadership (who I know are less than half, but only just). This is because many of the dyed-in-the-wool members will be pretty closely tied to their local party and it's often for their local MP who they do their canvassing (which sounds like an arbitrary distinction when they're the same party, but it's the equivalent of a soldier being a member of their unit or platoon and then a member of their branch (and then a member of their national military etc etc)).

Or, to put it another way, if you had to keep Corbyn as leader (to remove a variable) but had two choices: More boots on the ground but a continued civil war or an end to the civil war but less people to go out and canvass, which would you choose?

I'm afraid I'm going to very badly fence sit here and say I think you're fucked either way in the short term, but I think a continued civil war is a much more quickly repaired in the medium term than losing your canvasses, which fucks your party for twenty years.

I think attitudes like this are actually pretty common in the membership - http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/reluctant-corbynism.html?m=1

I'm not a Corbynista - I think the Labour party is fucked. Indeed, my sole election advice for the left is to stop trying to do anything other than trying to fragment the right so that electoral reform becomes inevitable. "You can't win. Time to start figuring out how not to lose."

Edit: It goes beyond the optics of the civil war, too. Right now the Tories have a majority of 12 but it might as well be infinite because Corbyn's capacity to enact a whip is so limit. This is especially the case after the "everyone's being reselected" talk, because a bunch of them must be feeling like they won't be in their seats in 2020 anyway, so they can do what they want. When the whip can't threaten them, it can't function. So OK, if the Tories try to pass legislation to ban all trade unions I imagine Labour would be able to mount a decent opposition but for the every day, bread and butter stuff, the Tories have a de facto 100 seat majority now.

I agree, but if you fix the Parlamentary civil war then May calls a snap election and the absolute disaster that the membership would create would give her a 75 seat majority anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, I sort of agree and disagree with cyclops insofar as I do think that parties need to be internally democratically responsive, and cop-outs like allowing MPs veto right over all but two candidates are to be avoided. However, the Labour Party's problem is the democratization has started in the wrong place. The leadership position is very responsive to the rank and file (because it is now directly elected by OMOV), but the PLP's position isn't very responsive at all, because you have to be approved by a selection committee which itself is made of members approved by the selection committee in their day and so on, creating a lag all the way back to when the system was introduced some twenty years ago, plus they don't get voted on again if they currently hold their seat, which means the PLP's position relative to the membership is on average a decade out of date (the average Labour MP was elected in 2005), plus they still don't use online voting and so you need the time, patience, and often just understanding of party procedure to participate which cuts out new entrants and favours old hands in the selection.

It's unsurprising that the PLP is now caught out between the membership and the leadership. If the PLP continues their opposition to both, deselection seems the almost inevitable conclusion - what else are the membership supposed to do? just acquiesce, and in doing so acknowledge the Labour Party is now an autonomous entity free from the participation of its members? And of course, deselection threats will lead to a split. If you are a sitting MP and you get deselected, why would you not make an independent run? You have nothing to lose.

It's very difficult to see any way forward. If Corbyn wins, the PLP has two choices. In choice one, they go along with him. Labour would suffer a terrible election defeat that would be their worst since 1983. On current polling I'd guess they'd lose about 40 more seats. Everyone in those seats is going to not want to go along with him. In choice two, they don't go along with him. Members would threaten to deselect them, and looking at the fact that over 80% of CLPs have endorsed Corbyn over Smith, that threat of deselection is very credible. So the PLP then gets a second choice of split vs. retire. Some are going to be loyal enough to the Labour Party brand to just retire and call it a day, but there's also going to be a portion who split; they have no reason not to. Most will lose because of a split vote; the combined Labour factions would lose about 90 seats by current polling.

Like, there's no path out of this other than Labour losing at least 40 seats.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Wonder who in the PLP still thinks this coup was a good idea....

Do you want to destroy the Labour Party? Because that's how you destroy the Labour Party.

 

[Maledict]

The article you linked is completely the opposite of my experience. All the existing Labour members have switched away from Corbyn, but the vast number of newer members is what will give him the win. Older members understand that ultimately a party has to win elections.

In terms of Watsons comments, it's interesting because I was chatting about this with a reformed Trot in the office who was very active in the 70s and 80s on the other side. He worked as part of militants and was involved in trying to deselect several MPs. Since then he's undergone a complete reversal, but he knows this stuff inside and out. He said *exactly* the same thing - that he knew the people behind Momentum, that they were exactly the same people as the 80s, and that they were just using young people to try and take over the part in the same way. And that, just like in the 80s, when it inevitably collapsed and failed at the ballot box they'd vanish again.

Just thought it interesting that someone who has a huge amount of life experience is entryism was saying exactly the same, and indeed knows some of the people in momentum who he was active with in the 80s.

 

[Maledict]

I mean, I sort of agree and disagree with cyclops insofar as I do think that parties need to be internally democratically responsive, and cop-outs like allowing MPs veto right over all but two candidates are to be avoided. However, the Labour Party's problem is the democratization has started in the wrong place. The leadership position is very responsive to the rank and file (because it is now directly elected by OMOV), but the PLP's position isn't very responsive at all, because you have to be approved by a selection committee which itself is made of members approved by the selection committee in their day and so on, creating a lag all the way back to when the system was introduced some twenty years ago, plus they don't get voted on again if they currently hold their seat, which means the PLP's position relative to the membership is on average a decade out of date (the average Labour MP was elected in 2005), plus they still don't use online voting and so you need the time, patience, and often just understanding of party procedure to participate which cuts out new entrants and favours old hands in the selection.

It's unsurprising that the PLP is now caught out between the membership and the leadership. If the PLP continues their opposition to both, deselection seems the almost inevitable conclusion - what else are the membership supposed to do? just acquiesce, and in doing so acknowledge the Labour Party is now an autonomous entity free from the participation of its members? And of course, deselection threats will lead to a split. If you are a sitting MP and you get deselected, why would you not make an independent run? You have nothing to lose.

It's very difficult to see any way forward. If Corbyn wins, the PLP has two choices. In choice one, they go along with him. Labour would suffer a terrible election defeat that would be their worst since 1983. On current polling I'd guess they'd lose about 40 more seats. Everyone in those seats is going to not want to go along with him. In choice two, they don't go along with him. Members would threaten to deselect them, and looking at the fact that over 80% of CLPs have endorsed Corbyn over Smith, that threat of deselection is very credible. So the PLP then gets a second choice of split vs. retire. Some are going to be loyal enough to the Labour Party brand to just retire and call it a day, but there's also going to be a portion who split; they have no reason not to. Most will lose because of a split vote; the combined Labour factions would lose about 90 seats by current polling.

Like, there's no path out of this other than Labour losing at least 40 seats.

Just to say, based on the public polling but also the Labour numbers I've seen, if they only lost 40 they would consider it a miracle from God. One of the reasons the PLP is such a mess is because they're contemplating upwards of a 100 seats being lost - a completely unprecedented defeat.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I do think this Momentum stuff is mostly rubbish, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the total membership of Momentum is barely over 5% of the votes Corbyn received in 2015 and will probably still be under 10% of the votes he receives in 2016. Momentum aren't running this show, the Labour soft left (the same bloc that voted for Miliband and Blair) are; and the more there's this weird fetishistic focus on Momentum by the PLP that both ignores and disrepects Corbyn's actual voter base the more likely it is the membership will turn on the PLP in anger. Secondly, there literally aren't enough Trotskyites in the entire country to do this. Peak membership of the SWP was just over 2,000 people, and they're mostly concentrated in London anyway. Out here in the sticks, most members of Momentum have no actual idea about the Momentum leadership or anything, it's just a generic symbol of dedication to a leftier Labour Party and is mostly dominated by 20-something young women. I think the whole focus on Momentum misses the point entirely and is a product of the London bubble.

 

[Maledict]

The guy I'm referring to is from Newcastle and spends most his time up there (and that's where he is still active in party politics), so I'm not convinced it's entirely the London bubble. I also don't think the soft left of Blair and Miliband would be threatening Angela Eagle and throwing homophobic slurs at her either.

I do agree it's not some vast tide of conspirators - but neither was Militant. It only takes a small number of people in these circumstances, and with the advent of social media it's far easier than it ever was before to gin up a crown based on half truths and nonsense for your next crusade.