Jeremy Corbyn

sherpa-finn wrote:

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. 

 ..to be clear it's not anyone on this board that will be making the actual decision in the labour party. but up to the party members. in this case the ones that support the move to a more militant position. why a more militant position because that is what these folks see as the way to defend themselves against neoliberal forces. and they are not alone because there are many in europe that believe this is the way forward. this is not your position but it is a valid position. the tampering with this being expressed needs to end.

delete in part

sherpa-finn wrote:

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. 

That's an interesting perspective and worth talking about, I think, though perhaps the Corbyn issue is too much heat and not enough light to get into it just at the moment. The social movement/party attempt around the NPI is what birthed this web site, if memory serves. The Greens handled the tension one way (the May Way!) and seem pretty divorced from social movements. I'm biased, but I think Quebec Solidaire is managing the balance quite well so far. I thought Corbyn's efforts were interesting and hopeful and might be worth at least one election cycle, but the whole Brexit crisis - or perhaps as some have said the return of the Iraq war lie to the forefront - seems to have brought the contradictions to the fore more rapidly than had been expected..... 

If a moderately progressive government plus a mobilized social movement sector is the way to go, then does it matter whether the NDP or Liberals are in power? Either way, the government needs to be viewed as ally and adversary according to issue and moment.

I was curious about the dynamics of this possible leadership challenge, in that it was coming from caucus rather than from the members.  I wondered if that was even possible.  I searched and found this:  Jeremy Corbyn's future: Labour leadership election rules.

Quote:

Can a sitting leader of the party be challenged?

In short, yes, but there are hurdles to overcome.

Anyone wishing to challenge Mr Corbyn needs the backing of 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs. Currently there are 231 Labour MPs and 20 Labour MEPs so any potential candidate needs the formal support of 51 of them.

If a nominee secures this level of support they must then write to Labour's general secretary Iain McNicol announcing their intention to run.

No-one has come forward yet - although potential names said to be in the frame include former shadow business secretary Angela Eagle, former shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and backbencher Dan Jarvis.

It's interesting that it can be initiated from within caucus (though the final decision still rests with the membership).  Useful I suppose if someone who's nuts is chosen by members (note, I'm just speaking generally here).  Then caucus (or simply a member of caucus), after suffering with the chosen one for a time can just decide they need to express their displeasure and put forward an alternative to the membership.  Consider that Trump is likely the chosen one for the GOP -- no doubt there's some in the GOP who in the future would likely appreciate having a way to initiate a redo.

Anyway, if Eagle and/or others did go ahead, would Corbyn be a de facto candidate himself?  Or would he too have to get "20% of Labour MPs and MEPs" endorsements (that being 51 endorsements)?

Quote:

Supporters of Mr Corbyn say if he is challenged he will simply stand again and expect to win. However, there are different opinions on whether Mr Corbyn would have the automatic right to do this

Pro-Corbyn factions within the parliamentary Labour Party say as leader he will automatically be on the ballot paper, but others dispute this.

They point to a Times article in November 2015 which reported that legal advice had been sought by the party which suggested a sitting leader would need to receive nominations from MPs and MEPs in order to stand again.

The only time since 1945 that a sitting Labour leader has been challenged was in 1988 when Tony Benn sought to topple Neil Kinnock. Neil Kinnock says he had to be endorsed by members of the PLP in order to get on the ballot - which some argue has set a precedent.

The issue is crucial because Mr Corbyn could struggle to get 50 nominations, if they were needed.

Labour coup enters its ‘last throw of the dice’ as Tom Watson turns on Corbyn

Tom Watson this evening told the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that he is taking a ‘last throw of the dice’ before there is a move against Jeremy Corbyn. The party’s deputy leader held a 20-minute meeting with Corbyn this morning in which he warned him that he had to have the authority of the parliamentary Labour party, and that it wasn’t good enough just to have the support of the members. In response, Corbyn told Watson that he wanted to continue as Labour leader, but Watson’s spokesman said it was clear that there wasn’t a solution that involved Corbyn staying on as leader.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/labour-coup-enters-last-throw-dice-...

It is perhaps worth noting that in the Labour Party, the Deputy-Leader is now elected by a one-member-one-vote process, much as the Leader is elected. (ie the Deputy is not an appointee of the Leader, as is the practice in Canada) 

Sherpa-Finn, I don't normally talk like this, but would you please STOP with the "I'm the only grown-up here, anyone who defends Corbyn is just being silly" tone?

It's not as though anything benefiting the people the Labour Party was built to fight for can possibly come of Corbyn being replaced by a leader chosen in an election in which only right-wingers like Angela Eagle or Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper will be allowed to stand.

It's not as though Labour has anything to gain from Labour ceasing to be a party with any ideals(which is what all the anti-Corbyn MPs want). 

Doesn't it concern you that, if that happens, the nearly 300,000 people Corbyn has brought in to the party will leave and most likely never support Labour again?  And that no new votes will come to Labour from those to the party's right?

sherpa-finn wrote: I think we're done here. 

Michael Moriarity wrote: Let's hope so. 

Sorry, Michael. That was a semi-private aside to Notalib. There is lots more to say on this topic, but let me commend you for your due deference in #30, above. 

Your exalted saviness,

S-F

PS And let me assure you, MM before you get toooo discouraged. I do believe things may some day change. Its just not likely that that change will be any good for ordinary folk if it involves chasing rainbows and unicorns and surrendering the levers of gov't to conservatives for another generation. But that of course is just MHO.

My reading of those numbers quizzical is that the bar is deemed to be different for a leadership election and an effective confidence vote. 

While a leader can get elected with a 50%+1  vote, - anything remotely resembling a one-third vote of non-confidence is usually seen as catastrophic. (ref the case of Mr Mulcair.)

Thus the Corbyn team's tactical interest in ensuring that this internal conflict remains framed as a leadership vote, in which he may well be able to prevail at 50%+1. If its the higher measure of 'confidence', - well, the odds are more daunting, given these numbers.  

Ken Burch wrote:

Sherpa-Finn, I don't normally talk like this, but would you please STOP with the "I'm the only grown-up here, anyone who defends Corbyn is just being silly" tone?

It's not as though anything benefiting the people the Labour Party was built to fight for can possibly come of Corbyn being replaced by a leader chosen in an election in which only right-wingers like Angela Eagle or Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper will be allowed to stand.

It's not as though Labour has anything to gain from Labour ceasing to be a party with any ideals(which is what all the anti-Corbyn MPs want). 

Doesn't it concern you that, if that happens, the nearly 300,000 people Corbyn has brought in to the party will leave and most likely never support Labour again?  And that no new votes will come to Labour from those to the party's right?

If the tone offends, Ken - I am happy to apologize. (Desperately fighting back the inclination to shriek - "They started it first!") And noting the double standard in that the often sophomoric contributions of Corbynistas here generally go unchallenged, even when they are suppositions overlaid with misrepresentations and iced heavily in wishful thinking.

(Still waiting for someone to tell me how Corbyn is to answer the simple, inevitable question come election time: What makes you think you can successfully run a country when you can't even manage a caucus of colleagues?)  

So, my general point is that it I do not think progressives are well served by a big group hug for Jeremy just because he has spent 30+ years in Parliament, speaking truth to power, - and articulating political positions that I generally agree with. The job at hand is about leading a big, complicated and multi-faceted party forward towards power in an exceedingly hostile political environment. Unfortunately, IMHO, Jeremy has resoundingly shown that he is not up to that difficult task. And having spent a lifetime in politics as a Labour MP who has always felt wholly unconstrained by the Party Whip, his calls these days for unity and loyalty behind the leader ring hollow and hugely hypocritical to many. 

I can only suggest that you take a moment to read through the various letters that different Labour MPs have written to Jeremy, their constituents and the media over the past week, - laying out their deep, deep concerns with his leadership.  Write them off as a bunch of Blairites if you wish - but these MPs represent 7 million or so Labour voters. IMHO, these letters provide the best insights as to why Corbyn should step down as leader.

Quote:

I can only suggest that you take a moment to read through the various letters that different Labour MPs have written to Jeremy, their constituents and the media over the past week, - laying out their deep, deep concerns with his leadership.  IMHO, these letters provide the best insights as to why Corbyn should step down as leader.

I'd be curious to find these letters.  Gotta link?  Or do I have to use an internet search engine on my own?

I note that Jon Ashworth, the MP who came to the NDP's convention to speak in favour of Mulcair has not resigned from the shadow cabinet and has stayed with Corbyn.  link  That said, it doesn't seem to really reflect political leaning, since some who resigned are affiliated with the left side of Labour (IE, Lisa Nandy).

That Corbyn has increased the membership and seems popular does make this strange, though.  However, Labour suffered a lacklustre performance in the Council elections, so not all is rosy, it seems.  Still, they weren't wiped out.  I still find it all strange.  I'll try to look up those letters.

https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/747165335804121088

Letter from Chris Bryant.  Apparently this is the most aggressive of the resignation letters.  It mostly centres on the Brexit vote, with Bryant feeling that Corbyn ran a confused mixed-message campaign (similar criticisms that were levelled at Mulcair over the election campaign).  There's a description of other letters here:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/dear-jeremy-corbyn-art-o...

self-delete.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:

Its just not likely that that change will be any good for ordinary folk if it involves chasing rainbows and unicorns and surrendering the levers of gov't to conservatives for another generation. But that of course is just MHO.

That's the same kind of dismissive talk about any social change which benefits people, and was likely said about such things like blacks not having to sit at the back of the bus or Canadians being able to receive medical care without having to pay for it.

There's a report in Britain that could form the basis of trying people like Tony Blair for war crimes, and some have suggested that the timing of calls for Corbyn to resign are a desparate attempt to take attention away from this. What are your thoughts on that?

That is the Chilcot Report, due out Wednesday.  It is strongly suspected by Corbyn loyalists that the push to force his resignation has been driven by a desire on the part of the Blairites to make sure he was no longer leader when the report was issued, in order to keep Corbyn to move for Blair's impeachment(it's not the same as impeachment in the American sense, but it would mean Blair received the public humiliation of being officially barred from seeking office and it would probably mean that most of the Blairite MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates, thus ending their political careers).

sherpa-finn wrote:

So much rubbish .... so little time: 

Notalib wrote:

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."

Patently untrue, verging on conspiracy theory. The technical problem occured only on the third ballot, when the site was the target of a denial-of-service attack. This delayed the vote but had no significant impact on voting numbers. (The total votes cast actually went up on that Ballot, compared to Ballot #2.) 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: LOL - I will look past your dismissive insults, something I notice folks here on this board rely on when the thin gruel of their arguments are without merit and typically factually wrong as your points are. The Denial of Service happened on every ballot, I voted in each one and remember it well. And, contrary to what you state Mulcair was not elected by the majority of the total membership, full stop.

Notalib wrote:

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 everyone else in the world seems to know, this was an initiative of Jack's that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership: 

The NDP voted Sunday to take references to socialism out of the party's constitution, a controversial move to modernize that the party had to set aside two years ago. Delegates voted 960 to 188 in favour of the change. The result was met with cheers of "NDP! NDP!" The move was supported by popular former leader Jack Layton, who died shortly after leading the party to its best-ever federal election result in 2011. Layton felt the party needed to modernize the preamble in order to appeal to more Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-party...

 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Oh Please, this is just gibberish, Jack was in the grave and socialism was still in the preamble and you want to blame it on him? Jack may have been open to the debate, but you will note the fact (and it is an important one) he did not make the changes, Mulcair did full stop.

Notalib wrote:

The caucus votes you mention are not due process, represent a microcosm of the party and its supporters and therefor have no legitimacy ....

Its a vote of confidence, Notalib,- not a court of law. Its legitimacy is not constitutional or legal. This is a political action ... duuuh.

 

NOTALIB RESPONDS:Excuse me? Someone else aboe here posted how a challenge to leadership could occur in the UK in great detail as outlined in the constitution of their party. That was my factual point, but somehow facts are not important to you, instead you rely on inane bullshit and weak spin. Also it would be great if our constitution had a means of challenging the leader, oh right it did, until Mulcair yanked it at the same convention he rewrote the preamble.

 

Notalib wrote:

 

...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.

But which of course Mulcair did not actually choose to exercise. Either when he was an MP under Jack, or as Leader of the Opposition. Awkward.  

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Really? You might want to actually speak to people who have worked with him......... he is notorious.

Notalib wrote:

  

Finally the bottom line is Corbyn is nowhere near dead in the water, as the daily and unending attacks clearly illustrate.

I do not think I have said that Corbyn is done as leader of the Labour Party. I think he is dead as a credible Leader of the Opposition and prospective Prime Minister. As such, I think he should resign. 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Yeah, I mean who would not resign after winning the leadership in unprecedented fashion, signing up more members than ever, and winning 4 by-elections while taking London from Boris. I mean Mulcar obviously had to stay on after losing what was 8 seats in by elections and defections... because he was so electable...... so it only makes sense....... in your twisted fact free world.

Notalib wrote:

  

And you are dead wrong about party transformation, the Blairites don't transform anything.

I suspect you are a minority of one on this question, Notalib. Everyone from the most fervent Blairites to their vociferous critics and opponents within and alongside the Labour Party openly acknowledge that the shift from 'Old Labour' to New Labour' was hugely transformative. For better or for worse.   

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Um ..... I was talking about actual power and governing. Not what a mess you guys make of the respective parties here and in the UK. That much is abunduntly clear as you point out and the party in Canada may not survive the most recent mess, and in the UK it looks like you guys just screwed any chance of taking government in the next election, especially if you keep up the assault on the leader instead of the actual enemy, the governing Tories.

Notalib wrote:

  

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.

Blah-blah-blah. Neo-liberalism... paradigms ...  All good political theory for a PoliSci100, but as MP Alan Johnson said last week in a letter to his Hull constituents explaining why he had voted non-confidence in Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, "We in the parliamentary party have observed at first hand his woeful performances in the Commons, his inability to take responsibility, demonstrate leadership or give the slightest indication that he is capable of moving beyond meaningless platitudes.Anti-austerity is a slogan – not a policy."

I think we're done here. 

Well you certainly are and I can't say as I blame ya, as you got nothing and your simply taking up air and space much like the current leadership in Canada.

My responses are above with bolded NOTALIB RESPONDS:, I have not quite got the handle of this board and how you use the quote feature.

Quote:

My understanding is that the rebel Labour MPs have deferred any formal leadership challenge to Corbyn until after the Inquiry Report is officially received. So its pretty much 'wait and see'. We live in interesting times.

Thanks.  Good to know.  Yes, interesting times for sure.

Quote:

IMHO, the Labour leader will have to take ownership of the findings of the Inquiry on behalf of the Party: it was a Labour PM who drove the war agenda, a Labour cabinet that endorsed it (kudos to the lone dissenter Robin Cook), and a Labour Gov't that initiated the Inquiry itself.  How Corbyn does this, on behalf of the Party he now heads may well be the defining moment of the current coup scenario. Will Corbyn have the ability to rise to the occasion as a political statesman, - or will he be tempted to fall back on political sloganeering to secure his own uncertain position?

Agreed.  I imagine this will help show whether Corbyn sees himself as leader of the Labour Party or whether he sees himself as the special maverick dude.

..and listen to what can be accomplished by rising up. by fighting back. they influenced the converstaion. this is evidence that what is going on in the labour party is what needs to be happening when it comes to making changes. it's time for bold.

eta: since the square occupations they idea that we are the 99% has flourished. this has meant, imho, uprisings everywhere. nowhere is sacred. not unions, not politcal parties and not within the left in general. i've come to accept this in fact i welcome it. enough with the backrooms.

Sanders Policy Advisor: The Political Revolution Continues to Philadelphia

Bernie Sanders policy advisor Warren Gunnels says though there were losses in the DNC platform draft over TPP and fracking, there were victories for progressives over federal reserve policy, financial regulation, and the death penalty

This is not a coup within the Labour Party. It is a coup against the labour movement

quote:

The Establishment intervention — united across the Leave/Remain divide of the referendum campaign — against Corbyn tells us what is really driving this anti-democratic coup.

It is not a coup within the Labour Party. It is a coup against the labour movement.

The target is not just the left-wing Labour leadership. The aim is to extirpate the idea of an independent politics based upon and faithfully representing working-class interests in Britain.

And it is happening now because British big business and the Establishment as a whole face their gravest political crisis probably since the second world war.

That was the grim portrait painted by Tory patrician Lord Heseltine this week as he flayed Boris Johnson for creating “the greatest constitutional crisis in modern times.”

Chilcot report is chance to end Labour divisions – but probably won't, MPs say

Labour MPs have said the Chilcot report should be an opportunity for the party to begin healing its wounds over the Iraq war, but suggest the prospect of an end to divisions is relatively unlikely. Splits over Tony Blair’s decision to commit British troops to the 2003 invasion remain a major fault line in the party. Some Labour figures are considering a call for Blair to be impeached if the long-delayed report by Sir John Chilcot, to be published on Wednesday, criticises him over the buildup to the war.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, speaking on Sunday, did not dispute the contention that he and the party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, would “crucify” Blair as a presumed war criminal. The former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has speculated that moves by Labour MPs to remove Corbyn were partly motivated by seeking to limit such criticism of Blair.

Corbyn will see the report for the first time at 8am on Wednesday, a few hours before he responds to David Cameron’s statement on Chilcot in the Commons. It is possible Corbyn could apologise for the war on behalf of Labour, something he said he would do before becoming the party leader....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/05/chilcot-report-is-chance...

A split looks very possible to me.

One thing you may not be aware of, sherpa-finn, is that the vast majority of Labour MPs have never accepted Corbyn as leader(most of them preferred Liz Kendall, the most conservative candidate in the 2015 leadership race.  They also never truly accepted Corbyn's predecessor, Ed Miliband as leader either, and soent Miliband's entire tenure as leader perpetuating the smear that Ed(who is much more centrist than Corbyn)had "stabbed his brother"-David Miliband, whose positions were in lockstep with Blair's-"in the back"by standing against him in the previous leadership contest.  Needless to say, since Ed had never promised his brother that he wouldn't seek the leadership himself, this claim was a despicable lie).  The MPs, being on the far right of the party, have no interest whatsoever in fighting for working people and the poor.  They simply think they are entitled to run the party solely because they happen to be MPs...never mind that almost all of them represent constituencies that would elect anyone who stood as a Labour candidate, and that the only reason they hold those seats ids that Tony Blair personally imposed them as Labour candidate by forcing the constituency parties to chose from shortlists of Blair-selected reactionaries, as opposed to letting the constituency parties choose the candidates they actually preferred.

It is arrogant of those MPs to act as they speak for every Labour voter in their constituencies.

And if they get there way, there will be no good reason for anyone to vote Labour at the next election, because Labour won't be standing on policies that disagree with the Tories in any significant way.  They won't let Labour be anti-austerity(they'll insist that the party stay within Tory budget constraints its first two years in power, that Labour continue the Tory crackdown on people on benefits-including the disabled, a group who should never face benefit cuts and tougher eligibility rules-they'll insist on keepiung Trident(even though nuclear weapons no longer serve any legitimate purpose in the UK or anywhere else)they'll keep Thatcher's anti-worker laws again, and they'll continue bombing Syria.

As even you would have to concede, that list doesn't leave out anything that matters.

Every day the scenarios shift ... the latest rumour is that the protagonists are now going to try to edge back from The Political Precipice, - defined as an open leadership challenge to Corbyn with ensuing membership vote.

This new development has been made possible by the declaration of the front runners in the Tory leadership race (underway already across the other side of the street) that they pledge not to call a snap election if they are chosen to replace Cameron as PM.

With that additional breathing space, it is now being suggested that a possible "compromise" arrangement for Labour would be for Corbyn to stay on as leader for a couple more years, but step down before the next election - anticipated in 2020.  Doesn't seem particularly workable to me, but ....

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/len-mccluskey-plays-peac...

I found the resignation letters in full.  They're a sobering read to be sure.  They're all very caring -- they have the tone of telling your aging father or mother that he or she should stop driving the car.  Here's a couple of paragraphs from one:

Anna Turley wrote:

Dear Jeremy, This is a very hard letter to write. We have been friends for some years and as my former MP I hold you in very high regard as one of the kindest and most committed public servants in politics.

However, I am sorry to say it has become clear beyond doubt to me that you and your team are not providing the strong, forward looking and competent leadership we need to provide an alternative government to these increasingly right wing Conservatives that are doing such damage to this country and to my constituency.

Turley is elected as a Labour Co-operative, which I assume means she's on the left.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-resignation-letters-full-wha...

sherpa-finn wrote:

Every day the scenarios shift ... the latest rumour is that the protagonists are now going to try to edge back from The Political Precipice, - defined as an open leadership challenge to Corbyn with ensuing membership vote.

This new development has been made possible by the declaration of the front runners in the Tory leadership race (underway already across the other side of the street) that they pledge not to call a snap election if they are chosen to replace Cameron as PM.

With that additional breathing space, it is now being suggested that a possible "compromise" arrangement for Labour would be for Corbyn to stay on as leader for a couple more years, but step down before the next election - anticipated in 2020.  Doesn't seem particularly workable to me, but ....

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/len-mccluskey-plays-peac...

Burnham's suggestion of Lewis as a replacement is something I could live with. The issue is the direction of the party, not Corbyn per se.

Josh wrote: Burnham's suggestion of Lewis as a replacement is something I could live with. The issue is the direction of the party, not Corbyn per se.

I shouldn't be so cynical about such things, but my own sense is that Burnham (who came second to Corbyn in the leadership race last year) and has stayed reasonably loyal to Corbyn throughout, has been positioning himself throughout as someone who can bridge the gaping divide in the party. And in so doing, positions himself if not for "the next time" leadership race (which may be a bit of a bloodbath), then perhaps "the next, next time" as The Great Healer. 

Burnham announced a couple of months back his candidacy for the Mayor of Manchester, which would be a good place to hang out for the next 6 or so years as BREXIT and the Labour Party get sorted out. And he's young enough to stand aside for a while. (FWIW, I have no idea if he is likely to win at the municipal level.)

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/labour-mp-called-thug...

Midland Labour MP Ian Austin has come in for criticism on social media after heckling his party leader’s criticism of decisions which led the country to war.

Dudley North MP Ian Austin, along with other Labour backbenchers, was criticised by a number of SNP MPs for voicing displeasure while Jeremy Corbyn responded to the Chilcot Report in Parliament.

Mr Corbyn was a fierce critic of the Iraq War, having previously described the action as “illegal” and today he reiterated his stance.