Parliamentary Labour Party imploding

[Uh_huh_him]

Possibly not in time to affect the next election, but there is a generation growing up now who actually see the press and old style media for what they are. Social media isn't there yet but it is becoming a more powerful tool every day.

Absolutely this.

The Labour party are in the midst of coming to terms that they will always be the second (or third) choice for the middle-aged, middle class, swing voter minority, which have traditionally held the balance of power.

The challenge is to motivate the disaffected, who don't vote, because thay aren't represented by the main parties' policies.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yep, the party with the fastest growing membership is on the brink of oblivion.

And for those who say, look at the wider electorate, the latest opinion poll (out yesterday) has Labour cutting Tories' lead

Mike Gapes faced a deselection challenge about 12 years ago when he voted for the war in Iraq - he's a prime candidate for the boot. He and John Mann must be on thin ice

That's a minus not a plus.The membership is going to be one of the biggest obstacles to a return of credible leadership and policies.

The poll was taken before the latest implosion but I am amazed Labour can still get over 30% in the current circumstances.

Yep if Corybn survives the purges will begin, civil war in the party ....great electoral stratergy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Funnily enough, the Mail and the Telegraph aren't reporting the "shambles" of this u-turn. It's way, way down the page on the Mail home page

Quite. Far more important to focus in on a newly formed shadow cabinet deciding not to support a charter that isn't even theirs in the first place, than real policy u-turns and actual broken electoral promises...

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Quite. Far more important to focus in on a newly formed shadow cabinet deciding not to support a charter that isn't even theirs in the first place, than real policy u-turns and actual broken electoral promises...

When did the Shadow cabinet get to decide on this policy U- turn?

 

[Bold Seagull]

When did the Shadow cabinet get to decide on this policy U- turn?

It really doesn't surprise me you don't actually know what's going on.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It really doesn't surprise me you don't actually know what's going on.

'But McDonnell did, very publicly commit to backing Osborne's idea and the U-turn can't just be laughed off, for several different reasons.

First, Labour knows it needs voters to trust the party again on the economy. This total reversal on a key economic policy in the space of two weeks doesn't do much to inspire confidence.
Second, the manner in which its Shadow Chancellor presented the new policy, an email to Labour MPs in the middle of yesterday afternoon out-of-the-blue, runs totally counter to the approach Mr Corbyn has repeatedly said he wants to take - frank and open discussions before any decisions are made. What faith can his colleagues have in that promise now?'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34518777

 

[beorhthelm]

It really doesn't surprise me you don't actually know what's going on.

along with the Labour MPs then

 

[alfredmizen]

'But McDonnell did, very publicly commit to backing Osborne's idea and the U-turn can't just be laughed off, for several different reasons.

First, Labour knows it needs voters to trust the party again on the economy. This total reversal on a key economic policy in the space of two weeks doesn't do much to inspire confidence.
Second, the manner in which its Shadow Chancellor presented the new policy, an email to Labour MPs in the middle of yesterday afternoon out-of-the-blue, runs totally counter to the approach Mr Corbyn has repeatedly said he wants to take - frank and open discussions before any decisions are made. What faith can his colleagues have in that promise now?'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34518777

get out of that one then@bold seagull !!

 

[Honky Tonx]

The best comedy of the year. Oh what fun!!!

 

[Gwylan]

That's a minus not a plus.

I don't see how having more members can possibly be a minus. A political party needs two things above everything else: money to fight elections and bodies on the ground for leafleting, canvassing etc. The more members a party has, the more resources it has.

The problem with the Labour party is that many MPs are at odds with the members. As I said, a bit of deselecting will sort that out, those who aren't deselected will soon toe the line

 

[alfredmizen]

I don't see how having more members can possibly be a minus. A political party needs two things above everything else: money to fight elections and bodies on the ground for leafleting, canvassing etc. The more members a party has, the more resources it has.

The problem with the Labour party is that many MPs are at odds with the members. As I said, a bit of deselecting will sort that out, those who aren't deselected will soon toe the line

So in your book Corbyn is "principled" for staying true to his beliefs and rebelling whilst he was a backbencher but labour mp's should be deselected if they dont "toe the line" ? Interesting ...........

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I don't see how having more members can possibly be a minus. A political party needs two things above everything else: money to fight elections and bodies on the ground for leafleting, canvassing etc. The more members a party has, the more resources it has.

The problem with the Labour party is that many MPs are at odds with the members. As I said, a bit of deselecting will sort that out, those who aren't deselected will soon toe the line

I mean't as in the type of people who have been joining seem to be drawn from a very narrow strand in society that see far left policies as viable solutions. This makes it very difficult for any candidates to get elected who could replace Corybn to try and drag Labour back towards the centre/electability. The party has undoubtedly lurched left so any financial gain from increased membership would be offset by reduced serious financial backers and business support.

 

[bWize]

I mean't as in the type of people who have been joining seem to be drawn from a very narrow strand in society that see far left policies as viable solutions. This makes it very difficult for any candidates to get elected who could replace Corybn to try and drag Labour back towards the centre/electability. The party has undoubtedly lurched left so any financial gain from increased membership would be offset by reduced serious financial backers and business support.

What you are basicaly saying is Corbyn should forget his principles and just get inline like all the other career politions and go along with the center/electability crowd...
Politics should be about standing up for everyday priniciples and democracy whilst getting everyones voice heard.
It should not be centered around appeasing the corporate and business world whilst going against everything you believe in as a leader!

 

[jakarta]

Politics is about standing up for priniciples and to get everyones voice heard , not to just appease the corperate and business world!

In that case the Labour Party can prepare itself for perpetual opposition...

 

[Bry Nylon]

I don't see how having more members can possibly be a minus. A political party needs two things above everything else: money to fight elections and bodies on the ground for leafleting, canvassing etc. The more members a party has, the more resources it has.

The problem with the Labour party is that many MPs are at odds with the members. As I said, a bit of deselecting will sort that out, those who aren't deselected will soon toe the line

Blimey Gwylan - what sort of Labour Party do you want? One where any opposition to the leader is suppressed by the threat of de-selection to ensure MP's "toe the line" ? The wilderness beckons...

 

[Gwylan]

So in your book Corbyn is "principled" for staying true to his beliefs and rebelling whilst he was a backbencher but labour mp's should be deselected if they dont "toe the line" ? Interesting ...........

But the membership has changed considerably: Corbyn's rebellions didn't affect his popularity in the party but Gapes had a close call with deselection 12 years ago. In a way it's tricky for MPs as they have to represent two groups (who may not want the same things): their constituents and their members. Corbyn has been a good constituency MP (even Tories admit that) and has increased his majority over the years, he's also popular with his members. To be fair to Gapes, he's also been a good constituency MP but if he doesn't have the support of his own members, then it wouldn't surprise me if he was chopped.

I'm only speculating about Gapes: I don't know enough about Ilford, he may well have a lot of support there. But I am convinced that one MP will find himself deselected - maybe Gapes, maybe Mann or Hunt, or that one with the wife who's always flashing her tits, or someone else. You can't have a situation where the PLP and the leadership are so at odds and when the leader has just received such a massive mandate, it's the MPs who should change

 

[Buzzer]

Mike Gapes has been a Labour MP since 1992 and a continuous member of the party for over 30 years. In all that time he's fought only for the Labour Party.

Gwylan and others have only just re-joined or joined for the very first time. Many of them including Gwylan didn't even vote Labour in May 2015 yet a few weeks after re-joining wants long-serving Gapes deselected for being disloyal to Corbyn. Incredible stuff.

Talk about a sense of misplaced entitlement. And this is all supposed to produce a fairer, more democratic Labour Party?

Good luck with the purges, comrade.

 

[Bry Nylon]

But I am convinced that one MP will find himself deselected - maybe Gapes, maybe Mann or Hunt, or that one with the wife who's always flashing her tits

I don't know who that is but don't de-select him, for Christ's sake.

If anything, get him in the Shadow Cabinet.

 

[Buzzer]

Simon Danczuk's missus. They've recently gone their separate ways (the Danczuks, not her tits).

 

[Gwylan]

Mike Gapes has been a Labour MP since 1992 and a continuous member of the party for over 30 years. In all that time he's fought only for the Labour Party.

Gwylan and others have only just re-joined or joined for the very first time. Many of them including Gwylan didn't even vote Labour in May 2015 yet a few weeks after re-joining wants long-serving Gapes deselected for being disloyal to Corbyn. Incredible stuff.

Talk about a sense of misplaced entitlement. And this is all supposed to produce a fairer, more democratic Labour Party?

That's not quite what I said. "To be fair to Gapes, he's also been a good constituency MP but if he doesn't have the support of his own members, then it wouldn't surprise me if he was chopped. I'm only speculating about Gapes: I don't know enough about Ilford, he may well have a lot of support there."

It's not the disloyalty to Corbyn that's at stake but whether he has the support of his own party and, as I said, I don't know enough about it.

And I'm not saying that's what I want. You're right, I didn't vote Labour in the election and I'm not a member of the party so maybe I have no right to comment.

But, as an outsider, I was speculating on what the party should do because it's apparent that the PLP and leadership can't continue like this, there can't be four years of war. And, as I said, Corbyn has such overwhelming support, it has to be the PLP that has to change.

If you're asking my personal opinion, if I were a member of the Labour party in Ilford South then, no, I probably wouldn't vote to deselect Gapes; as far as I can see, he's been a good local MP but I'm sure there will be some members who want him out. And if not him, there are other MPs who are vulnerable