The Jeremy Corbyn thread

[Titanic]

So the Labour membership want Corbyn as Leader (an assumption based on the last leadership election). The PLP do not.

Has the thought occurred to the Labour Party that whoever it is that chooses Labour MP's is completely at odds with the Labour Party membership?

They are chosen by their local party members, aren't they?

So it is odd that the MPs are so out of touch with the membership, and could lead to a bit of a bloodbath when re-selection comes around.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Is there any point in having The Labour Party, honestly. Even if they got in to power tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. They are not able to build the houses we need, they are not able build the hospitals, schools and other facilities, they can't lower our bills so we have more money in our pockets, all these things are required to make our life better. They can't sort the party out and even worse the mentality that drove millions of voters away like myself still exists. I will never vote for this party again.

This is not the Labour Party's fault, it is the electorate of the country. We don't appear to elect governments that stray too far to the left, unless of course you go back to Atlee's government. You have those that wish to implement their ideology of socialism in its purest sense, then those that consider what the electorate actually vote for and wish to move the party to a position of winning an election - this is an old argument within the party. That is politics, and it will continue to recur because of election results against the ideology.

At the moment, Corbyn seemingly represents the only alternative to the centrists in the party to the unions and members. He's become representative of something more than just his capabilities as a leader.

You can see on these very boards, anyone who dares criticise Corbyn can be labelled a Blairite. Doesn't matter if they agree with the party being left but just think Corbyn isn't the man to lead, a challenge to him is a challenge to the unions and members. It doesn't have to be the case. It can just be that Corbyn isn't a leader - that simple. The party can continue in exactly the same direction, but it needs someone to inspire and take not only the party, but the electorate with them. I'll say it again, but where is the next John Smith?

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting... and in a hostile environment would possibly leave her open to challenge. But where is this stated? It is not in the Conservative Party constitution 'Schedule 2 Rules for the Election of the Leader'.

It is in Schedule 2. See Point 3. (Sorry too techno-incompetent to embed.)

 

[Titanic]

It is in Schedule 2. See Point 3. (Sorry too techno-incompetent to embed.)

Election of Leader
3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to
present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as
Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates
for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922
Committee after consultation of the Board.

 

[Titanic]

It is in Schedule 2. See Point 3. (Sorry too techno-incompetent to embed.)

Schedule 2 in full...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Their rules state that it is "the duty" of the chairman of the 1922 Committee to find a replacement for any candidate that drops out of the contest between the MPs selecting their candidates, and those candidates being put up for election by party members.

They had already held the first ballot which eliminated candidates. That rule applies before a ballot is held.

 

[cunning fergus]

This is not the Labour Party's fault, it is the electorate of the country. We don't appear to elect governments that stray too far to the left, unless of course you go back to Atlee's government. You have those that wish to implement their ideology of socialism in its purest sense, then those that consider what the electorate actually vote for and wish to move the party to a position of winning an election - this is an old argument within the party. That is politics, and it will continue to recur because of election results against the ideology.

At the moment, Corbyn seemingly represents the only alternative to the centrists in the party to the unions and members. He's become representative of something more than just his capabilities as a leader.

You can see on these very boards, anyone who dares criticise Corbyn can be labelled a Blairite. Doesn't matter if they agree with the party being left but just think Corbyn isn't the man to lead, a challenge to him is a challenge to the unions and members. It doesn't have to be the case. It can just be that Corbyn isn't a leader - that simple. The party can continue in exactly the same direction, but it needs someone to inspire and take not only the party, but the electorate with them. I'll say it again, but where is the next John Smith?

The electorate was sold a lie by the Labour Party under Blair and they are reaping what he sowed.

It was the disaffected Tory vote that he talked round, but that left millions of their core vote disaffected.

The electorate has largely always been this way, it's only now that without a charismatic Blairite in charge the gap between what Labour want to do to appeal to the Tories is in sharp contrast to the millions of traditional Labour voters.

That is not the electorate's fault, this schism always existed.......electoral defeat in Scotland and now in England has forced the party to confront it.

You Blairites have a lot to answer for.........don't blame the electorate for that.

 

[Titanic]

Owen Smith is going to stand.

Oily Smith? Arch-Blairite, in favour of private partnerships in the NHS, the Iraq war, PFI hospitals and schools, and austerity... going to go down well with the grass roots?

 

[Bold Seagull]

The electorate was sold a lie by the Labour Party under Blair and they are reaping what he sowed.

It was the disaffected Tory vote that he talked round, but that left millions of their core vote disaffected.

The electorate has largely always been this way, it's only now that without a charismatic Blairite in charge the gap between what Labour want to do to appeal to the Tories is in sharp contrast to the millions of traditional Labour voters.

That is not the electorate's fault, this schism always existed.......electoral defeat in Scotland and now in England has forced the party to confront it.

You Blairites have a lot to answer for.........don't blame the electorate for that.

You do need to get over yourself with your labels.

But despite your sad little accusation at the end there, yes the electorate has largely been this way - of course it has, that is why we've had more Conservative governments in the last 100 years than we have had Labour. Labour don't get into power on just it's traditional Labour vote. The electorate does consist of a huge number of centrist voters. That is a fact, call them Tory, or Blairite or whatever label suits your narrative but that is the UK electorate, that is how our constituency democracy works - You have to win the votes off the parties that got them last time. You can win them over to the left, but you have to be bloody good.

The schism is because of the difference between the electorate and the membership. Of course it is, how can a political party not be shaped by those that vote for it? The Party stood by Miliband for 5 years when it should have been obvious the electorate weren't going to elect him. That was a huge mistake. As you said he lost Scotland and much of the core vote. Now, they've gone the polar opposite and said after 1 year, we can't do this again. You want to call it the Blairites, a coup against the unions and members, it couldn't just be that Corbyn has turned out to be a bit of a crap leader could it? That he hasn't inspired that confidence, the belief, the vision like John Smith did?

And I keep mentioning Smith because it counters your Blair obsession. Smith made Labour electable on a left mandate, and would have been a great prime minister. We can't go another decade blaming Tony fcking Blair.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Its a very simple choice the labour electorate has:

1 Go for a candidate that wants Labour to return to the 50's socialist style of total government where the "public" own the means of production, ie. re nationalisation of all energy companies ( seems fair enough), railways ( seems fair enough as this shower of shite need kicking out), the steel industry ( not that there is any left), the car industry ( nothing left of that), shipbuilding ( definitely none of that) and the oil industry ( which is probably the only money making thing we have , but only when the price of oil is high, which fecks the economy), take the NHS and education back into state hands, and more importantly, control the banking and financial sector ( popular with the country but not the City boys) ( Jezza Corbyn)

2 Go for the "safe" option which means they can be electable, that is Tory Lite, which was Blair's philosophy. ( angela eagles)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Its a very simple choice the labour electorate has:

1 Go for a candidate that wants Labour to return to the 50's socialist style of total government where the "public" own the means of production, ie. re nationalisation of all energy companies ( seems fair enough), railways ( seems fair enough as this shower of shite need kicking out), the steel industry ( not that there is any left), the car industry ( nothing left of that), shipbuilding ( definitely none of that) and the oil industry ( which is probably the only money making thing we have , but only when the price of oil is high, which fecks the economy), take the NHS and education back into state hands, and more importantly, control the banking and financial sector ( popular with the country but not the City boys) ( Jezza Corbyn)

2 Go for the "safe" option which means they can be electable, that is Tory Lite, which was Blair's philosophy. ( angela eagles)

Jeremy Corbyn isn't the only man who can deliver item 1.

If you are going to go for item 1. then your leader is going to have to be exceptional. They will need to command respect, inspire, convince as well as unite. Labour cannot afford to stick by a leader year on year who will make that promise even less likely.

The irony is, that sometime ago, it was actually backbencher Corbyn who suggested the Labour party SHOULD have annual or bi-annual leadership elections. He saw the benefit of giving someone ago, then judging if it was working and not relying on a GE result to change your mind because you're waiting 5 years to do that each time, and you do it on the back of the emotion and disappointment of an election defeat, rather than actually considering the leadership qualities and policy formations.

Labour cannot carry on waiting for general elections to change leaders. Perhaps to reconcile the PLP with the party membership, leadership contests should take place more often, perhaps the leadership of the Labour party is a 2 year term while in opposition.

 

[Machiavelli]

They had already held the first ballot which eliminated candidates. That rule applies before a ballot is held.

Read Point 3 of the above, especially the above. It's very clear.

 

[Machiavelli]

Its a very simple choice the labour electorate has:

1 Go for a candidate that wants Labour to return to the 50's socialist style of total government where the "public" own the means of production, ie. re nationalisation of all energy companies ( seems fair enough), railways ( seems fair enough as this shower of shite need kicking out), the steel industry ( not that there is any left), the car industry ( nothing left of that), shipbuilding ( definitely none of that) and the oil industry ( which is probably the only money making thing we have , but only when the price of oil is high, which fecks the economy), take the NHS and education back into state hands, and more importantly, control the banking and financial sector ( popular with the country but not the City boys) ( Jezza Corbyn)

2 Go for the "safe" option which means they can be electable, that is Tory Lite, which was Blair's philosophy. ( angela eagles)

We really need to get away from such options. There are others. Your description of 1 isn't even that accurate of the mixed economy that operated between 1945 and the 70s. And the economy has moved on, and is far less productivist (re means of production). One of the few decent things that Corbyn, or more accurately McDonnell, has done is to get a team of economists around him that have fresh ideas for how to take Labour and the country forward. One of these is actually based at Sussex University, Marianna Mazacutto -- see The Entrepreneurial State, which is about an activist state, not propping up failing industries, but selecting those that are future-oriented.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The schism is because of the difference between the electorate and the membership. Of course it is, how can a political party not be shaped by those that vote for it? The Party stood by Miliband for 5 years when it should have been obvious the electorate weren't going to elect him. That was a huge mistake. As you said he lost Scotland and much of the core vote. Now, they've gone the polar opposite and said after 1 year, we can't do this again. You want to call it the Blairites, a coup against the unions and members, it couldn't just be that Corbyn has turned out to be a bit of a crap leader could it? That he hasn't inspired that confidence, the belief, the vision like John Smith did?

Don't forget that Ed Miliband was the choice of the unions at the time. The PLP and the electorate wanted David Miliband, but he was considered too right wing by the unions.

 

[Gwylan]

Its a very simple choice the labour electorate has:

1 Go for a candidate that wants Labour to return to the 50's socialist style of total government where the "public" own the means of production, ie. re nationalisation of all energy companies ( seems fair enough), railways ( seems fair enough as this shower of shite need kicking out), the steel industry ( not that there is any left), the car industry ( nothing left of that), shipbuilding ( definitely none of that) and the oil industry ( which is probably the only money making thing we have , but only when the price of oil is high, which fecks the economy), take the NHS and education back into state hands, and more importantly, control the banking and financial sector ( popular with the country but not the City boys) ( Jezza Corbyn)

That's only partly true. He does want to nationalise the railways (line by line rather wholesale seizure) and he does want to take a public stake (as opposed to complete nationalisation) in the steel industry. But last September he dropped plans to nationalise the energy/oil industries and

I've certainly not heard of any plans to take financial services into public ownership - even the nationalisation-obsessed government of 1945 didn't go that far

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Read Point 3 of the above, especially the above. It's very clear.

No, no it isn't. Point 3 refers to the initiation of the election. As I pointed out, that stage had passed, and candidates already eliminated. Point 7 had already passed as the nominations had closed.

 

[spence]

Corbyn getting utterly destroyed by Cameron in his last question time.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]753185770660245504[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]753187401053327360[/tweet]

 

[London Irish]

Eh? I thought this was the NEC passing their ruling on the interpretation of the rule book.

Still, if I were you, I guess I would probably try and claim any small victory I could. Enjoy.