Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Jeremy Corbyn

+

NorthReport

Jeremy Corbyn supporter taunts Labour MPs over failed leadership coup

‘The coup plotters are now flailing about because they have had 10 months to plot this coup and it seems it has failed’

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-leadership-c...

NorthReport

Quote:
The mood among these grassroots groups is hardening. They are urging activists to make their views known to their MPs at weekly surgery meetings, and promise a torrid time for MPs when they appear before their constituency Labour party (CLP) meetings in the weeks ahead. Eagle is in danger of becoming the focal point for this rage if she presses ahead with her challenge to Corbyn.

Eagle’s CLP in Wallasey – a once-bustling area on the other side of the Mersey from Liverpool, fuelled by the wages of dockers but now suffering from decades of unemployment and neglect – voted against any attempt to remove Corbyn a week ago. The office-bearers then wrote to Eagle to relay this message. But she ignored them. And they are incensed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/jul/02/angela-eagle-anger-ri...

NorthReport

Thousands attend Liverpool rally in support of Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/thousands-attend-liverpool-rally-sup...

mark_alfred
sherpa-finn

In a nutshell, - why Jeremy Corbyn cannot credibly continue as leader of the Labour Party. 

 The full list of resignations and dismissals over the past week. 

Shadow Cabinet

  1. Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary

  2. Seema Malhotra, Shadow Chief Secretary

  3. Heidi Alexander, Shadow Health Secretary

  4. Lucy Powell, Shadow Education Secretary

  5. Lord Falconer, Shadow Justice Secretary

  6. Lilian Greenwood, Shadow Transport Secretary

  7. Vernon Coaker, Shadow Northern Ireland

  8. Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary

  9. Chris Bryant, Shadow Commons Leader

  10. Kerry McCarthy, Shadow Environment Secretary

  11. Gloria De Piero, Shadow Young People Secretary

  12. Karl Turner, Shadow Attorney General

  13. Lisa Nandy, Shadow Energy Secretary

  14. Owen Smith, Shadow Secretary for Work & Pensions

  15. Angela Eagle, Shadow Business Secretary

  16. John Healy, Shadow Housing Minister

  17. Nia Griffith, Shadow Welsh Secretary

  18. Maria Eagle, Shadow Culture Secretary

  19. Kate Green, Shadow Women/Equalities Minister

  20. Luciana Berger, Shadow Mental Heath Minister

  21. Pat Glass, Shadow Education Secretary (resigned 48 hours after being appointed to the role)

Shadow ministers

  1. Diana Johnson, Shadow Foreign Minister

  2. Anna Turley, Shadow Civil Society Minister

  3. Toby Perkins, Shadow Defence Minister

  4. Wayne David, Shadow Scotland Minister

  5. Yvonne Fovargue, Shadow Consumer Affairs Minister

  6. Steve Reed, Shadow Local Government Minister

  7. Alex Cunningham, Shadow Environment Minister

  8. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Shadow Housing Minister

  9. Jenny Chapman, Shadow Education Minister

  10. Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Employment Minister

  11. Susan Elan Jones, Shadow Deputy Wales Minister

  12. Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Culture Minister

  13. Keir Starmer, Shadow Home Office Minister

  14. Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Policing

  15. Melanie Onn, Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Commons

  16. Richard Burden, Shadow Transport Minister

  17. Sharon Hodgson, Shadow Children's Minister

  18. Nic Dakin, Shadow Schools Minister

  19. Mike Kane, Shadow International Development Minister

  20. Lyn Brown, Shadow Home Office Minister

  21. Alan Whitehead, Shadow Energy and Climate Change Minister

  22. Sarah Champion, Shadow Minister for Preventing Abuse and Domestic Violence

  23. Christina Rees, Shadow Justice Minister

  24. Andy Slaughter, Shadow Justice Minister

  25. Andrew Gwynne, Shadow Health Minister

  26. Barbara Keeley, Shadow Minister for Older People, Social Care and Carers

  27. Emma Lewell-Buck, Shadow Minister for Communities

  28. Rob Marris, Shadow Treasury Minister

Parliamentary Private Secretaries

  1. Jess Phillips
  2. Colleen Fletcher
  3. Matthew Pennycook
  4. Karin Smyth
  5. Neil Coyle
  6. Stephen Kinnock
  7. Chris Matheson
  8. Ruth Smeeth
  9. Gerald Jones
  10. Paul Blomfield
  11. Mary Glindon

 

sherpa-finn

I see Corbynista Canucks have been busy over Canada Day. Let me now share a few contributions from the "On the other hand"  perspective... 

More than half of Labour members think Jeremy Corbyn should step down before the next election.

And four out of ten think he should quit now, according to a YouGov poll.

The figures will come as a blow to the Labour leader, who has based much of his argument for staying in place on the 60% mandate he gained from Labour members and supporters in September's leadership election.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/majority-labour-members-want-jeremy...

 

sherpa-finn

Trade union survey indicates unease over Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader

The survey sample is small, but Corbyn detractors will see it as proof his support is not assured on the ground.

Jeremy Corbyn is under fresh pressure after a poll of members in Britain's largest trade union showed that more than half of those surveyed think the Labour leader should quit. The poll, seen by ITV News, shows that some 49% of people signed up to Unite think Mr Corbyn should go immediately, while a further 10% believe he should resign before the next general election.

Only 35% said Mr Corbyn should continue to lead the party as the Labour leader heads towards an expected leadership challenge.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-02/trade-union-survey-indicates-unease-o...

sherpa-finn

And the best of the bunch, IMHO - 

A new, well-led Labour party could make a difference

One inadequate man has come to personify all the perennially unresolved contradictions in left politics that cripples it politically. Is the Labour party a social movement or a political party? Is its job to transform capitalism or reform it so it works better for ordinary people? What constitution should shape its own democracy or that of the country more widely? How is it to allay the fears and apprehensions of working-class Britain in era of mass immigration?

Corbyn has very particular answers. The Labour party’s role is to be the political expression of popular left social movements – like the ones that provoked his own 500 acts of rebellion against the Labour whip. Democracy is simply the expression of mass majorities built by social protest. Constitutions are bourgeois obstacles to such popular social movements. Indeed the notion of a public interest, created by a constitutional architecture of checks and balances to permit democratic representatives to develop and articulate such an interest, is anathema. In a capitalist society there can only be class interests. The object of a left party is not the creation of a capitalism that better serves the public interest and ordinary people: rather its aim must be the overthrow of capitalism.

Thus Corbyn could not campaign wholeheartedly for the EU as a noble idea that represents the best effort the world has seen to build international co-operation. Too many in the boss class were in favour for him to throw his weight unambiguously behind the EU. Nor could he share a platform with the class enemy, the leader of the Tory party, even in an existential fight for Britain’s place in the world. He focused more narrowly on the EU’s role in helping class gains – workers’ rights and freedom of movement of labour, even if the latter is actively hated by many working people.

When the result came, he interpreted it as the voice of a social movement to which a politician had to respond “immediately”. He could not say what needed to be said: that this was a devastating vote to which the whole of Europe had to respond if it was to hold together. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/02/labour-party-leade...

NDPP

sherpa-finn wrote:

In a nutshell, - why Jeremy Corbyn cannot credibly continue as leader of the Labour Party. 

 

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

    1. Ruth Smeeth

    Ruth Smeeth, Labour MP that attacked Corbyn listed as 'strictly protect' US informant - WikiLeaks

    https://t.co/CyrsJkNLcT

    NorthReport

    I thought Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party It appears that the Blairites are freaking out because they haven't been able to dislodge him and the Blairites are probably screwed when that report on the Iraq war is released this week

    sherpa-finn

    Yeah. That must be why this week a Corbyn supporter publicly denounced Smeeth (a Jewish Labour MP) at the launch of an antisemitism report for allegedly colluding with the right-wing press. Classy. 

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-jeremy...

    sherpa-finn

    And Corbyn and his supporters are just soooo working class, compared to the elitists of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

    Well, trust the right wing rag The Daily Mail to poke a few holes in that illusion: 

    Corbyn himself has never really had a job outside of politics, and he grew up in a seven-bedroom manor house on the Duke of Sutherland’s estate.

    His closest aide, the Marxist millionaire Seumas Milne, was privately educated at Winchester College along with Tory politicians such as John Whittingdale.

    The main spokesman of Corbyn’s Momentum campaigning group, James Schneider, was also privately educated and grew up in a £7 million mansion in trendy Primrose Hill, North London....

    Yup, working class heroes, all. 

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3367482/Are-Corbyn-s-rich-kid-...

    Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

    If the coup against Corbyn succeeds, the party will end up to the right of where it was under Blair.  Internal party democracy will never be restored and the party program will always be dictated by an anti-socialist elite around the leader.

    Maybe this might win an election(Corbyn is just as capable of doing that as the right-wingers, if only they would accept that he won the leadership fair and square) but nothing good could come of it.  Certainly nothing genuinely radical or even slightly left-of-center.

    Nobody who wants Labour to replace Corbyn with a "moderate" wants anything to get better for workers or the poor.  None of them want peace, either. 

    The only loyalty the coup plotters feel is to their own sense of divine right to eternal reselection as Labour candidate. 

    lagatta

    Up in Manchester, the utopian socialist Robert Owen and the marxist socialist Friedrich Engels were hardly proles either.

    There are plenty of sound responses to that Blairite column below the line. War criminal Tony Blair and his main publicist sparked off the "spontaneous" anti-Corbyn movement. Blair shouldn't even show his face in public, except in the dock.

    The EU did grant rights to working people, students etc that are glaringly absent from NAFTA, but it would be ridiculous to deny its economic underpinnings.

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    60,000 New Labour Party Members In One Week, HuffPost Has Been Told

    At least 60,000 people have joined the Labour party in the past week, HuffPost UK has been told.

    The figure, which would be the fastest increase in membership of any British political party in history, follows Labour MPs’ attempt to launch a coup against Jeremy Corbyn.

    A mass of resignations from the Shadow Cabinet and frontbench have left Corbyn with little support in Parliament, as 75% of his MPs passed a motion of ‘no confidence’ in him.

    But the avalanche of new party members, which raises Labour’s total membership to around 450,000, is seen by his allies as proof of their #KeepCorbyn campaign among the grassroots.

    quote:

    But the radical leftwing group Momentum is understood to have been busy organising to get mass membership sign-ups from sympathisers.

    “Momentum’s organising ability has been phenomenal,” one source said.

    It is believed that many of the members were ‘£3-ers’ - those offered a cut-price membership - joined in 2015 after party rules allowed them to vote for the leader.

    The 60,000 figure is nearly as many as the entire Liberal Democrat party membership.

    Following reforms introduced by Ed Miliband, individual party members and trade unionists now have control over party leadership elections.

    Geoff

    The left in Britain may have to consider Plan B. If Corbyn loses his battle to remain as leader, who would be the most likely candidate to prevent the Blairites from regaining control of the party? Any thoughts?

    josh

    Jump en masse to the Green Party.

    Unionist

    NorthReport wrote:
    I thought Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party It appears that the Blairites are freaking out because they haven't been able to dislodge him and the Blairites are probably screwed when that report on the Iraq war is released this week

    Certainly hope you're right.

    But kudos to sherpa-finn for reporting all that McCarthyite well-oiled anti-Corbyn propaganda (he's an anti-semite, he's a rich bourgeois, etc. etc.). Didn't realize they were freaking out quite so badly. The reaction of Ruth Smeeth in that video is particularly revolting. With champions like her, the Jewish people really do not need any enemies.

    Corbyn must be doing something right - or at least, he represents a broad trend of real mass discontent with the warmongers and imperialists that Blair channeled. Let's hope that movement survives, even if they manage to politically assassinate him.

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    Momentum

    quote:

    WHAT DOES MOMENTUM WANT TO DO?

    ● Organise in every town, city and village to secure the election of a progressive left Labour Party at every level, and to create a mass movement for real transformative change to:

    o Redistribute wealth and power from the few to the many;

    o Put people and planet before profit and narrow corporate interests;

    o End discrimination, advantage and privilege based on class;

    o Target growth not austerity, invest to create tomorrow’s jobs and reverse privatisation of railways, the energy sector and public services.

    o Provide protection at work and strong collective bargaining to stamp out workplace injustice.

    o Ensure decent homes for all in public and private sectors through a big house­building programme and rent controls.

    o Support workers and their trade unions defending the interests of their members, families and communities.

    o End discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or age.

    ● Transform Labour into a more open, member-­led party, with socialist policies and the collective will to implement them in government.

     

    NDPP

    Senior Labour Insider Reveals Blairite Plan To Oust Corbyn Was In Play 10 Months Ago

    https://t.co/YQ4iUK2ETi

     

    Alex Salmond: The Coup Against Corbyn Was Planned to Stop Him Calling For Blair's Head After Chilcot

    https://t.co/shjyevgwjb

     

    wither the ndp?

    NorthReport

    Jeremy Corbyn explains why he is staying as Labour leader and offering peace deal to rebel MPs

    'I was elected nine months ago, by 60 per cent of Labour members and supporters, for a new kind of politics in a country that clearly wants real change,' says Jeremy Corbyn

     

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leade...

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    The anti-Corbyn coup is the Westminster bubble vs the ordinary men and women of Labour

    quote:

    Instead, Labour MPs have spent time in huddles with their fellow inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — lobby correspondents.

    These journalists, supposed political experts, did not see the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon coming last summer and have never supported him.

    Accordingly they are now using their columns to tell him to walk away.

    Colleagues have contrived a “vote of no confidence” that has absolutely no basis in the Labour rule book. There was no notice. It was tabled on Monday and the vote held the following day. No institution would run an important ballot in this way. And it was a secret ballot.

    If MPs didn’t like Corbyn then they always had the option of a leadership challenge under the rule book.

    It could have been conducted in an orderly, perhaps low-key fashion, at least until Parliament went into recess in just three weeks’ time.

    All this was necessary because some Labour MPs expressly did not want any time to consult with ordinary party members. On the contrary, they were terrified that their members might actually find out how they voted. Hence the haste and the secrecy.

    This attempt to hound Corbyn out of the leadership has been planned for months and was entirely outside the rules.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    This whole intrigue reminds me of the House of Cards' Francis Urquhart.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efWTKVNGSA4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBV0yCVcRTY

    josh

    epaulo13 wrote:

    Momentum

    quote:

    WHAT DOES MOMENTUM WANT TO DO?

    ● Organise in every town, city and village to secure the election of a progressive left Labour Party at every level, and to create a mass movement for real transformative change to:

    o Redistribute wealth and power from the few to the many;

    o Put people and planet before profit and narrow corporate interests;

    o End discrimination, advantage and privilege based on class;

    o Target growth not austerity, invest to create tomorrow’s jobs and reverse privatisation of railways, the energy sector and public services.

    o Provide protection at work and strong collective bargaining to stamp out workplace injustice.

    o Ensure decent homes for all in public and private sectors through a big house­building programme and rent controls.

    o Support workers and their trade unions defending the interests of their members, families and communities.

    o End discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or age.

    ● Transform Labour into a more open, member-­led party, with socialist policies and the collective will to implement them in government.

     

    This is the Labour Party. We can't have any of that.

    sherpa-finn

    If there isn't a law of physics governing armchair socialists there should be. It would go something along the lines of "The further I sit from the real challenges of building a viable left-wing political party, the more loudly and shrilly I will call for the prevailing progressive party to adopt suicidal policies and self-immolating radical leaders, just because it makes me feel holier than thou. And fuck the electoral consequences, cause I never really believed in any of that stuff anyhow. Bring on another 20 years of Tory rule - the revolution is sure to follow."

    And apologies for offending your sensibilities, Unionist (# 18). I just thought I would reciprocate in kind given all the silly stuff that is being posted here by our armchair Corbynistas. There are multiple sides to this political gong show playing out in the UK.  None of us are well served by overly-simplistic characterisations of the different camps.

    sherpa-finn

    If a party leader can only gets 25% support from his own caucus, the writing is on the wall: 

    Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is over. The only question now is when – and how

    It is foolish to make predictions about politics, so let’s make some more. I think Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is over. The only question is how it ends. There are two possibilities. Either he will stand down, probably after he has replied to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Chilcot report on Wednesday, or he will fight on and be defeated in a leadership election, whenever that is held. 

    Confirmation that the end is nigh came in a YouGov poll for The Times yesterday, which found that 54 per cent of Labour Party members say that Corbyn should stand down, either now (44 per cent) or before the next election (10 per cent). I would translate “before the next election” as “of course he should go but I’m not going to answer an opinion poll in the way the right-wing media want me to”. 

    The poll asked how members would vote in a leadership contest between Corbyn and Angela Eagle, and found that Corbyn led by only 50 per cent to 40 per cent. That is not nearly enough to get him through a leadership campaign – not the way opinions about him are going. It may be that most of the 60,000 members who have joined in the past week want to defend him against a coup, but many of them may be disappointed Labour supporters who want a new leader. 

    Even Labour Party members don’t say he is competent or likely to win the next election, according to a poll biased by the pressures of party loyalty. Not that they think anybody else is likely to win the next election, but the one thing it is safe to say is that the belief that simply electing Corbyn leader would be enough to usher in the new Jerusalem has ebbed away. 

    Corbyn would not be human if he were not torn between a stubborn refusal to bow to what he sees as bullying by Labour MPs, and a feeling that it would be too miserable to carry on. To the extent that there is a plan to get rid of him, it consists of trying to make his life as difficult as possible in the hope that he would simply give up and go. 

    The revolt against him was provoked by the feeling among MPs – and shared by half of party members, according to YouGov – that he did badly in the referendum campaign. This was not really fair, because even Tony Blair in his pomp could not have made up the 1.3m-vote gap, but it crystallised the structural problem, which is that most Labour MPs have no confidence in their leader.

    There is always a risk that they will not succeed, and that Corbyn manages to win a contested election, which would keep him in post for another year. But all that would do is postpone the end: he is not going to become more competent, or more inspiring to more people than the dwindling band of true believers that he has now.  

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-is-o...


    Unionist

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    And apologies for offending your sensibilities, Unionist (# 18).

    It's ok, I know you didn't mean it. That Ruth Smeeth individual, who couldn't tell an anti-semite if he were leading her into a gas chamber, really touched the gentle heart of the British media. I realize you weren't holding her up as any kind of genuine victim. And honestly, I do appreciate your linking to some of the most outrageous hypocrisy of the British McCarthyites.

    My parents lost their entire families (including my brother) to the Nazi genocide. But they had no idea what anti-semitism really meant. Smeeth brought it all into the open. I love her to death.

    I hope she and Tony Blair live extremely long lives. That's how long it'll take.

     

    NorthReport

    Gotta love some folks avoidance of discussing the obvious timing and connection between the soon to be released Chilcot findings, which obviously can't be good news for the Blairites, and the attacks on Corbyn, the democratically elected leader of the Labour Party. Why do I feel the timing of these attacks on Corbyn are the Blairites misguided attempts at damage control? 

     

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    If there isn't a law of physics governing armchair socialists there should be. It would go something along the lines of "The further I sit from the real challenges of building a viable left-wing political party, the more loudly and shrilly I will call for the prevailing progressive party to adopt suicidal policies and self-immolating radical leaders, just because it makes me feel holier than thou. And fuck the electoral consequences, cause I never really believed in any of that stuff anyhow. Bring on another 20 years of Tory rule - the revolution is sure to follow."

    And apologies for offending your sensibilities, Unionist (# 18). I just thought I would reciprocate in kind given all the silly stuff that is being posted here by our armchair Corbynistas. There are multiple sides to this political gong show playing out in the UK.  None of us are well served by overly-simplistic characterisations of the different camps.

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    sherpa-finn

    ..you dismiss people's opinions and evidence by calling them names. that way you don't have to address the concerns they raise as they are now unfit to respond to because of the name calling. there are legitimate postions being propossed

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    If there isn't a law of physics governing armchair socialists there should be. It would go something along the lines of "The further I sit from the real challenges of building a viable left-wing political party, the more loudly and shrilly I will call for the prevailing progressive party to adopt suicidal policies and self-immolating radical leaders, just because it makes me feel holier than thou. And fuck the electoral consequences, cause I never really believed in any of that stuff anyhow. Bring on another 20 years of Tory rule - the revolution is sure to follow."

    Yes, your exalted savviness, now I see the error of my ways. What a fool I've been to think that things might some day change, and not always remain the same.

    cco

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    If there isn't a law of physics governing armchair socialists there should be.

    Yes, of course. "The only way a left-wing party can win is if it's led by a Conservative." That worked out extremely well for the NDP in October.

    NorthReport

    Interesting how these right wingers including people like Blair love sending other people's kids into the war zone, but never their own kids, who always manage somehow to avoid military combat
    I certainly don't wish war on any society, but if the generals and the politicians think war is needed, it should be mandatory that the first thing they should do is send their own family members into combat, and as a result my hunch is we would have a lot fewer wars

    genstrike

    Is Corbyn really doing so badly that he needs to be thrown out for Labour to win?

    Looking at poll numbers, by-election results, municipal elections, etc., Corbyn doesn't seem to be doing too badly.  Labour is four for four in by-elections under his leadership, and managed to increase their percentage of the vote in three of them (and the other was only a tiny drop).  They didn't do too badly in municipal elections, and most of the polls show Labour and the Conservatives to be within a few percentage points of each other.

    His caucus doesn't like him, but a lot of these are the people who were plotting how to get rid of him before he was even elected.  All in all, it seems to me like for someone who has had to deal with so many knives in his back, he's not doing too bad.

    Finally, what if there is a leadership race to settle this question and either Corbyn or someone similar wins?

    lagatta

    Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell writes: Jeremy Corbyn is not standing down – 172 Labour MPs cannot drown out democracy

    http://www.newstatesman.com/print/node/303041

    And I am NOT an armchair socialist, and I suspect several others posting here aren't either.

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    Jeremy Corbyn would win a second Labour leadership contest with even more support, poll finds

    Labour members would overwhelmingly reject any attempt by the party’s MPs to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader, a new poll suggests.

    The YouGov survey for The Times newspaper found that a significant 64 per cent of members would vote for Mr Corbyn in a leadership ballot triggered by an attempted coup.

    Just a third, 33 per cent, say they would not vote for him.

    The findings mean it would be effectively impossible to topple the Labour leader under current circumstances were he to make it on the ballot paper.

    The findings represent an increase in support for Mr Corbyn among full party members compared to when he was elected in September 2015 on 49.5 per cent of first preference votes.

    The increase may be down to a significant increase in membership since he was elected leader....

    sherpa-finn

    FWIW, that report is 6 weeks old, epaulo. Stuff has happened since. The most recent poll suggests: 

    Though a new YouGov survey shows increasing concern amongst Labour members about Mr Corbyn’s leadership, there is little support for any of the alternative candidates vying to topple him. While a slim majority of Labour members would like to see Mr Corbyn step down before the next general election, a similar majority is also supportive of him staying on for now.  

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leade...

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    ..i see that now. my error i didn't check the date.

    sherpa-finn

    And enough of Corbyn's heroic refusal to stand down in the face of a massive vote of non-confidence of his caucus, - get over it.

    Its no great principled stand in support of party democracy. Its a simple self-serving tactical calculation.

    If Corbyn stands down (as any honourable leader would do in similar circumstances), he would need his nomination papers for a new race to be signed by 50 MPs, which he probably would not be able to get.  

    Even last year, for his original run, he had to rely on 'charity' signatures from various MPs who thought his name should be on the ballot, even if they had no intention of voting for him. I presume his team feels that such charitable sentiments are a little less likely this time round.

    That all said, the leadership race will play itself out however it will. No doubt the real nastiness (as it is in all civil wars) will play out closer to home - in this case in the ensuing round of candidate selection battles for the next election.

    epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

    ..tactical is always a part of struggle. the rules are tactics being used against him. this doesn't diminsh the struggle and which in this case is the struggle for control of the party. the real story is not primarily about corbyn but the upsurge from below. how can you not see that?

    Pondering

    lagatta wrote:

    Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell writes: Jeremy Corbyn is not standing down – 172 Labour MPs cannot drown out democracy

    http://www.newstatesman.com/print/node/303041

    And I am NOT an armchair socialist, and I suspect several others posting here aren't either.

    I'd like to know what is wrong about being an armchair socialist versus being an armchair conservative or an armchair liberal. Most people are not politically active outside of election periods. We elect politicians to represent us politically.

    What's interesting about the Corbyn situation is the party is illustrating that it does not exist to represent the will of members. Neoliberals have infiltrated all the major parties so that underneath all the political battles neoliberalism remains the basic economic model. It is forced to become somewhat more responsive to the people's desires at times but not enough to overthrow the system. Even Brexit is only a blip magnified to appear to be a huge disruption to the power of oligarchs.

     

    sherpa-finn

    Absolutely, I see it, epaulo (#39). I just happen to find it a hugely dangerous initiative (as I have indicated elsewhere) for the simple reason that at a strategic level, it unnecessarily and unhelpfully blurs the line between a parliamentary road to power (and all that involves in terms of the nitty gritty of electoral politics) and the extra-parliamentary model of mobilisation and movement building. 

    Don't get me wrong, - I am a great advocate in and participant in both. But FWIW, given the nature of contemporary western society, the globalised economy, corporate media, prevailing political culture, etc. - and a lifetime of assorted personal / political experiences, - I happen to have concluded that the best we can likely hope for as a model of political change in my lifetime is to elect a moderately progressive government to which we then hold its feet to the fire by issue-driven, popular social movements.

    As such, I am hugely suspect and critical of efforts to try and transform social movements into political parties (a la environmentalists + Green Party in Canada) or alternatively transform political parties into social movements (as seems Corbyn's vision and perhaps the LEAP-ists in the NDP). A somene once said, you don't fry an egg with a sewing machine. The tool just isn't built for that purpose. 

    robbie_dee

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    If Corbyn stands down (as any honourable leader would do in similar circumstances), he would need his nomination papers for a new race to be signed by 50 MPs, which he probably would not be able to get.  

    Even last year, for his original run, he had to rely on 'charity' signatures from various MPs who thought his name should be on the ballot, even if they had no intention of voting for him. I presume his team feels that such charitable sentiments are a little less likely this time round.

    I think the "50 MP/MEP signatures" requirement is a little ridiculous. The Labour Party should make a decision whether it is a cadre party, in which case only MPs should vote for the leader, or a mass party, in which case not only should the members vote for the leader, but any member in good standing should be allowed to run. Of course, the problem is that the Labour Party has been in transition from one form to another and the Corbyn phenomenon caught them in the middle. But it's a crazy idea to have a memberhsip vote where the preferred candidate of almost 60% is left off the ballot based on a technicality. If they go ahead with it, the coup plotters will pay dearly, as you also note:

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    That all said, the leadership race will play itself out however it will. No doubt the real nastiness (as it is in all civil wars) will play out closer to home - in this case in the ensuing round of candidate selection battles for the next election.

    The Labour Party has badly failed the test of responsible opposition during an existential political crisis. Any chance Nicola Sturgeon could simply take over? She and the SNP seem to be the only adults left?

    lagatta

    Well, at one point the Bloc québécois was the official opposition.

    Notalib

    So I noticed a spate of Canadian media today which put Corbyn in the hashmarks in light of the failing Blairite coup to uproot him.

    Therefor I thought it might be a good time for a quick study of contrasts.

    The Blairites in the Canadian NDP have their Leader Mulcair, whose punishing loss in the last election did not result in his immediate resignation. Instead, they went on to shore him up under the auspices of due process. He then carried forth under those conditions to convention where he was unceremoniously tossed in an unprecedented fashion, the Blairites once again rallied around him and restored his failed leadership for another two years.

    Corbyn, a mere 9 months ago won the Leadership with an unprecedented show of support on the first ballot. Since, Labour has won four by elections and we took London with a left wing muslim defeating Boris. The party itself has more members than anytime in history with record breaking sign ups continuing to this day. The Blairites response? To attack the leader, with no due process, and at the very time the governing conservatives slit their own throat opening up a huge opportunity for labour to take power.

    But no, the Blairites insist on risking electability at a crucial time as clearly an election is in the offing and the governing party is fatally wounded by working to spin endless bullshit justifying a baseless coup, rooted in the simple fact that they alone don't own and operate the party.

    However here in Canada they clearly do own and operate the party as they have managed to prop up their failed and useless leader who has a proven track record of disaster and has set back the party a generation, yet he still leads while they tut-tut Corbyn's leadership in the UK all the while ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of their actions and the bold brutality of their tactics.

    And the left wonders why its wandering the wilderness in Canada.

     

     

    sherpa-finn

    So let me get this straight, Notalib: 

    - Mulcair was elected by a majority of party members, - so they must have been a bunch of "Blairites".  Corbyn was elected by a majority of party members, but these are from amongst the chosen ones who hold the truth in their hands.

    - Mulcair held his caucus together through difficult political times, so he obviously has limited political skills or credibility. Corbyn lost by a devastating margin a confidence vote in his own caucus. So it must have been the Blairites.

    - faced with a 48% vote of confidence amongst a subset of those members who had originally elected him, Mulcair (the anti-democratic "Blairite") steps down. Faced with a 20% vote of support amongst his parliamentary colleagues, the principled progressive Corbyn refuses to budge and vows to fight on even at the very real risk of destroying the Labour Party for a generation.  

    - with Mulcair in place, the NDP has put in place a leadership transition plan to take effect before the next election. Which is obviously a Blairite-style power grab. With Corbyn in place, the  Labour Party faces a huge and divisive leadership battle which may well cripple the party if a snap election is called. And this is principled, progressive leadership.

    Bottom-line: the one simple reason Corbyn is politically dead in the water, - and will never be able to answer credibly come election time is - If you can't even manage your own caucus of allies, colleagues and fellow travellers, why the hell should the voters trust you to run the country? 

    I understand that there are issues of personal pride and political vision at hand. And Corbyn probably feels that what has happened to him is all so very unfair. But most probably what rankles most is that his arch-foe Tony Blair actually did succeed in transforming the Labour Party, for better or worse. A task at which Jeremy has spectacularly and singularly failed. 

    Aristotleded24

    sherpa-finn wrote:
    - faced with a 48% vote of confidence amongst a subset of those members who had originally elected him, Mulcair (the anti-democratic "Blairite") steps down. Faced with a 20% vote of support amongst his parliamentary colleagues, the principled progressive Corbyn refuses to budge and vows to fight on even at the very real risk of destroying the Labour Party for a generation.

    The fact that there seems to be a gulf between the elected MPs and the membership on the question of Corbyn's leadership at the very least suggests structural issues within the Labour Party.

    In any case, support among Cacus members is not necessarily an indicator of anything, because sometimes when you've been an elected official for so long you tend to enter into a bubble and have no clue about what's happening in the real world. Jack Layton was not initially supported by the NDP Caucus. Thomas Mulcair was. And in Manitoba, the Caucus rallied very strongly around leader Greg Selinger. Tell me how that worked out?

    So no. There are too many elected officials in parties that are supposed to represent the people who are career politicians and would not be able to survive in the real world without their lucrative public pensions off the backs of the people they are supposed to represent. To heck with them. Let's get people who are serious about doing good for the majority.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    I understand that there are issues of personal pride and political vision at hand. And Corbyn probably feels that what has happened to him is all so very unfair. But most probably what rankles most is that his arch-foe Tony Blair actually did succeed in transforming the Labour Party, for better or worse. A task at which Jeremy has spectacularly and singularly failed. 

    Well said Blair was the saviour and Corbyn is the anti-Christ.  The Labour party needs to get back to being the neo-con party that Blair transformed it into and the left should just shut the fuck up and get over themselves and their selfish desire to change the world.

    josh

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    sherpa-finn wrote:

    I understand that there are issues of personal pride and political vision at hand. And Corbyn probably feels that what has happened to him is all so very unfair. But most probably what rankles most is that his arch-foe Tony Blair actually did succeed in transforming the Labour Party, for better or worse. A task at which Jeremy has spectacularly and singularly failed. 

    Well said Blair was the saviour and Corbyn is the anti-Christ.  The Labour party needs to get back to being the neo-con party that Blair transformed it into and the left should just shut the fuck up and get over themselves and their selfish desire to change the world.


    Not to mention that Corbyn hasn't even been leader for a year. Yet he's supposed to have transformed a PLP that is hostile to him. The answer is for the members of the PLP who can't support Corbyn to resign, and give their constituencies a chance to elect members supportive of Corbyn.

    Notalib

    Well, first off Sherpa, Mulcair "won" with a broken one member one vote system, that was so dysfunctional most people could not vote on the day of the election due to "technicalities." Therefor he was not selected by the majority of the membership, and it took several ballots for him to finally grasp the ring in what was a highly orchestrated leadership contest. Upon "winning" he set about the EXACT path as Tony Blair, our version of "clause 4" was removing the language in the constitutional preamble.

    As a former right leaning Liberal under the Charest so called liberal government, this self described Thatcherite had no party history (unlike Corbyn's decades in the trenches) and his support base in the party is clearly that of the Blairite wing, without a doubt - but nice try.

    The reason the centre still holds in the NDP is due to the party's newly established irrelevance under their leadership, lack of resources and full spectrum dominance strategy of the Blairites whose campaign delivered the worst set back in party history in political terms, yet he remains, and I do not need to remind you of the endless attacks by Blairites on anyone who questioned the election strategy or his continued leadership.

    The caucus votes you mention are not due process, represent a microcosm of the party and its supporters and therefor have no legitimacy other than to underscore the effectiveness of the Blairites in their top down organizing of elected reps and taking over key offices within the apparatchik. IOW - although it is a vote, it is hardly democratic, not rooted in the constitution of the party and simply exemplifies the iron fist which failed Blairite leaders like Mulcair choose to exercise.

    Finally the bottom line is Corbyn is nowhere near dead in the water, as the daily and unending attacks clearly illustrate. You don't attack a dead duck, the membership has surged and as I also said, the momentum is in his favour based on actual election results.  And you are dead wrong about party transformation, the Blairites don't transform anything they simply work to uphold the status quo which has failed us time and time again, and if and when clowns like Blair do get elected its nothing but dissapointment on behalf of the constituents the party purportedly represents.

    The real transformation is in having the party be led by principles and values in sync with the majority of the voters and whereupon gaining power actually deliver on them. This is where Corbyn holds the most promise in transforming the politics of the UK. And probably why the Blairites are lighting their hair on fire, as clearly, principled and value based populist politics that delivers for average people has no place in the Blairite's neo liberal view of the world and would be a horrifying precedent that strikes at the heart of their house of cards narrative and their self perpetuating paradigms.

    The tutelage of the leadership process under Mulcair's leadership is precisely as you say "obviously a Blairite-style power grab." Which is precisely why the Blairites and their minions quickly moved to keep him in at convention. (all of which was enabled by Mulcair's brutal rewriting of the constitution under the guiding hand of the likes of Brian Topp I might add.)

    So in the end Brother, it is indeed the Blairite faction of the power players in the party that holds sway, delivers defeat after defeat and still maintains their death grip on the party, but it looks like Corbyn just might find the path out of the wilderness the Blairites insist we exist in, you know cuz as you guys always say "electability."

     

     

     

     

    mark_alfred

    I don't see any parallel with the NDP on how Mulcair was chosen and how Mulcair will leave.  I think it was a rash decision by the delegates that was unfortunate, but regardless, it was proper on the part of both the party, its members, its caucus, and Mulcair.  What's going on with Labour and Corbyn is just odd.  Reminds me a bit of how Dion was treated by the Liberals after their loss under him.  Very unceremoniously dumped with Iggy shuffled in.  The difference is Dion did not resist whereas Corbyn is. 

    Pages

    Topic locked