Jeremy Corbyn 2

567 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

Milliband still polled 25% in Scotland and at least kept second place, well ahead of the Conservatives.

Corbyn has taken Labour down to third place with only 15%, barely half of what the Conservatives are now polling.

But then with Corbyn's apologists, he is not to blame for anything. It's all the doing of the evil Blairites.

josh

nicky wrote:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/05/when-corb...

Corbyn destroying Labour Party in Scotland

The party lost 40 of the 41 seats with Milliband as leader. But it's Corbyn who's destroying the party? Everything's apparently is Corbyn's fault.

nicky

No Labour came second in Scotland, not last. Corbynites seem to revel in "alternate facts."

 

New political map

josh

Seats are what matter. Doesn't matter whether you come in second or third if you get one seat with each.

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:

Milliband still polled 25% in Scotland and at least kept second place, well ahead of the Conservatives.

Corbyn has taken Labour down to third place with only 15%, barely half of what the Conservatives are now polling.

But then with Corbyn's apologists, he is not to blame for anything. It's all the doing of the evil Blairites.

Pardon me, but Milliband took Labour down to last place. How would any result Corbyn achieved be worse than Milliband's.

Well, alright, here's a bit of anti-Corbyn math.

Milliband lost 97.5% of Labour seats in Scotland in the 2015 election.

If Corbyn loses one seat in the next election, that would be 100% of the seats lost. Clearly a worse result than Milliband.

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:

No Labour came second in Scotland, not last. Corbynites seem to revel in "alternate facts." ...

Quite right, Labour wasn't actually last. They were tied for last with the Liberal-Democrats and the Conservatives.

Okay, that still means they were last, but at least they had company.

Now, here's question for you:

How many of the Scottish Labour seats that were lost in the 2015 election (40 of 41) were the result of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership? 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Polls reflect more than the effort and choices of the leader. It seems this is being forgotten. And polls are hardly definitive.

Ken Burch

New poll out showing Labour only seven points behind Tories AFTER Corbyn's three-line-whip on Article 50 vote:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1436295566383491&set=gm.10838495...

Proof that if the anti-Corbynites would just back off, Labour would likely be dead-even with the Cons or possibly ahead.

It's time to admit the PLP vote no longer matters and listen to what most of the actual party wants.

Ken Burch

And the Scottish Labour Party is still led by Kezia Dugdale, a sectarian Blairite, even though SHE reduced Labour to third place in the last Holyrood, or Scottish parliament elections in 2015.

Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Polls reflect more than the effort and choices of the leader. It seems this is being forgotten. And polls are hardly definitive.

As the old saying goes, the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

As more and more people lose their land lines, and go to cell only telephones, polling loses legitimacy. This is reflected in how wrong various polls have been over the last few years. But it's also true that between elections people often give polling answers based on the fact they know it won't make a difference. Similar to by-elections, which are often used to 'send a message'.

But even after all that, the question is, is the Labour party a party of labour, or is it more akin to the USA Democratic party, or the Canadian Liberal party if you will?

If the membership truly want it to be another 'liberal' party, well then, let it be so. But that's not the message the membership is sending. They are telling the PLP they want a 'labour' party, and have indicated so by electing Corbyn as leader.

If I was Corbyn, I would be demanding an election, in which I would make it clear that if Labour won the election they would not leave the EU.

At the same time, I would try very hard to make some kind of a deal with the SNP, to act as a coalition in parliament. Their positions are essentially the same in any case, so it shouldn't be that hard to arrive at an understanding.

That may not win the election, but it would give the voters a clear choice of directions, and probably ensure that some sort of 'labour' party would endure.

nicky

It is remarkable the extent to which "alternate facts" are being perpetrated to justify Corbyn's disaterous leadership.

Blair and Brown each received about 45% of the Scottish vote. Miliband got 24%. Dugdale got 22.6%, slightly more than the Conservatives, though fewer seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2016

Corbyn is now polling 15%' barely half what the Conservatives do, and somehow he is not so bad?

When he gets the worst vote for Labour since the 30s in the next election some of you guys will still bleat that he would have won if only he had not been sabotaged by the Blairites.

josh

What's it matter if he gets 1 seat with 15% or with 25%?  If Labour is running at 30% nationally, the same as the last two elections, and gets a better distribution of the vote in England, that would be good news. 

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
It is remarkable the extent to which "alternate facts" are being perpetrated to justify Corbyn's disaterous leadership. Blair and Brown each received about 45% of the Scottish vote. Miliband got 24%. Dugdale got 22.6%, slightly more than the Conservatives, though fewer seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2016 Corbyn is now polling 15%' barely half what the Conservatives do, and somehow he is not so bad? When he gets the worst vote for Labour since the 30s in the next election some of you guys will still bleat that he would have won if only he had not been sabotaged by the Blairites.

I aksked this once, I'll ask it again.

How many of the 40 Scottish seats lost by Labour in the last election were the result of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership? For some reason you seem to want to avoid answering this simple question.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..if i look at the world and a bit down the road i would say folks need to get more radical more mililitant not less..if we want to survive. everyday we delay some kind of serious transition we add to the price we pay in needed adjustment.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..if i look at the world and a bit down the road i would say folks need to get more radical more mililitant not less..if we want to survive. everyday we delay some kind of serious transition we add to the price we pay in needed adjustment.

Very well said

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Polls reflect more than the effort and choices of the leader. It seems this is being forgotten. And polls are hardly definitive.

As the old saying goes, the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

As more and more people lose their land lines, and go to cell only telephones, polling loses legitimacy. This is reflected in how wrong various polls have been over the last few years. But it's also true that between elections people often give polling answers based on the fact they know it won't make a difference. Similar to by-elections, which are often used to 'send a message'.

But even after all that, the question is, is the Labour party a party of labour, or is it more akin to the USA Democratic party, or the Canadian Liberal party if you will?

If the membership truly want it to be another 'liberal' party, well then, let it be so. But that's not the message the membership is sending. They are telling the PLP they want a 'labour' party, and have indicated so by electing Corbyn as leader.

If I was Corbyn, I would be demanding an election, in which I would make it clear that if Labour won the election they would not leave the EU.

At the same time, I would try very hard to make some kind of a deal with the SNP, to act as a coalition in parliament. Their positions are essentially the same in any case, so it shouldn't be that hard to arrive at an understanding.

That may not win the election, but it would give the voters a clear choice of directions, and probably ensure that some sort of 'labour' party would endure.

Most I agree with but two things I do not.

I disagree with the popular notion that the problem with polling is the land vs cell thing. Most people have incoming calls free and polling calls are usually evenings when few ever pay. The issues are more complicated: More people refuse and that is not becuase of cell phones but the fact that they are all polled out. Too many polls. Increasingly, those who do agree to be polled do not represent those who do not and that is the big problem. In the US for example the pro-Trump group were more anti-media and suspicious -- less likely to agree to do a poll on behalf of a media company. The third thing is polls relate to people's opinions about facts. However, there are much fewer commonly seen stories and commonly held statements of fact. As people learn more their opinions change and what they learn is increasingly so customized.

I said this before Trump railed at the mass media but what he railed at is a corpse. There is no "mass media" for most people. Most people get their news from sources that are not widely shared among people of different opinions. We shape and produce our own media combination bast on interests and points of view. This means we are exposed to different subject stories, different versions of facts and different opinions and priorities.

Polling has not managed to deal with this.

The cell issue was a deal and now it is a red herring, the least of the problems of pollsters.

As for deals with the SNP being easy, this is easy to say from Canada but makes less sense there. This is a highly emotional issue tied to concepts of patriotism and identity. Just think how deals with the BQ have worked out. Also the SNP and the Labour party are rivals who dislike each other intensely. The idea of formal cooperation is a fantasy unworkable becuase nobody would respond well -- not either party nor the public. They already do agree in public on certain things and that is as much as can be expected.

Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...

Most I agree with but two things I do not.

I disagree with the popular notion that the problem with polling is the land vs cell thing. Most people have incoming calls free and polling calls are usually evenings when few ever pay. The issues are more complicated: More people refuse and that is not becuase of cell phones but the fact that they are all polled out. Too many polls..

I will accept that the polling industry has recognized the problem of polling only land lines, and are more careful about including cell phone users in their polls. What I saw as the problem with land lines versus cell phones had nothing to do with user cost, it had to do with the fact that land line users have to have a permanent address. The sorts of people who have land lines are less likely to be young and mobile.

However, I acknowledge pollsters are finding ways to deal with this.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...As for deals with the SNP being easy, this is easy to say from Canada but makes less sense there. This is a highly emotional issue tied to concepts of patriotism and identity. Just think how deals with the BQ have worked out. Also the SNP and the Labour party are rivals who dislike each other intensely. The idea of formal cooperation is a fantasy unworkable becuase nobody would respond well -- not either party nor the public. They already do agree in public on certain things and that is as much as can be expected.

I was saying what I would do if I were the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. I can understand the rivallry between the SNP and Labour in Scotland. They are essentially trying to get the same set of voters to vote for them. However, I think it's time for Labour to realize the chances of unseating the SNP in Scotland are slim. At the same time, I think the SNP doesn't have any dreams of ousting the Labour Party in England. In other words, yes, they are rivals in Scotland, but they are not rivals in England.

They are both roughly progressive parties, and I don't think they have any specific issues that would prevent cooperation. They don't necessarily have to merge, all they have to do is cooperate in parliament.

In any case, Labour is unlikely to grow substantially in Scotland regardless of leadership. All I'm suggesting is accepting reality.

nicky

It''s pretty facile to pretend that seats are the only measure of political strength. There is a huge difference between 25% and 15%. The former is is abase that gives the possibility of growth. The Corbynite latter presages extinction.

nicky

It''s pretty facile to pretend that seats are the only measure of political strength. There is a huge difference between 25% and 15%. The former is is a base that gives the possibility of growth. The Corbynite latter presages extinction.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...

Most I agree with but two things I do not.

I disagree with the popular notion that the problem with polling is the land vs cell thing. Most people have incoming calls free and polling calls are usually evenings when few ever pay. The issues are more complicated: More people refuse and that is not becuase of cell phones but the fact that they are all polled out. Too many polls..

I will accept that the polling industry has recognized the problem of polling only land lines, and are more careful about including cell phone users in their polls. What I saw as the problem with land lines versus cell phones had nothing to do with user cost, it had to do with the fact that land line users have to have a permanent address. The sorts of people who have land lines are less likely to be young and mobile.

However, I acknowledge pollsters are finding ways to deal with this.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...As for deals with the SNP being easy, this is easy to say from Canada but makes less sense there. This is a highly emotional issue tied to concepts of patriotism and identity. Just think how deals with the BQ have worked out. Also the SNP and the Labour party are rivals who dislike each other intensely. The idea of formal cooperation is a fantasy unworkable becuase nobody would respond well -- not either party nor the public. They already do agree in public on certain things and that is as much as can be expected.

I was saying what I would do if I were the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. I can understand the rivallry between the SNP and Labour in Scotland. They are essentially trying to get the same set of voters to vote for them. However, I think it's time for Labour to realize the chances of unseating the SNP in Scotland are slim. At the same time, I think the SNP doesn't have any dreams of ousting the Labour Party in England. In other words, yes, they are rivals in Scotland, but they are not rivals in England.

They are both roughly progressive parties, and I don't think they have any specific issues that would prevent cooperation. They don't necessarily have to merge, all they have to do is cooperate in parliament.

In any case, Labour is unlikely to grow substantially in Scotland regardless of leadership. All I'm suggesting is accepting reality.

You are missing the point I made which is that the refusals due to over-polling are the bigger problem. The polling industry will not acknowledge this becuase it is their fault. People are increasingly refusing and the people who agree are not representatitve of the people who do not agree becuase some demographics and some potitical outlooks increase the chance you will refuse.

One of the problems people complain about most are when numbers call and hang up. With polls this is either due to low quality staff hanging up on people to avoid working or, more often, too aggressive autodiallers that load calls before any staff can get to them. Both are functions of pollsters trying to save money at the cost of annoying the public. A few of these calls and a person says "take me off your list" which means that number is now dead as sample.

The cell phone issue is a red herring. The address issue is a problem but manageable by asking a postal code question. The refusal to provide the first digits of a postal code is much lower than the overall refusal rate. Pollsters want you to think this is the problem becuase they do not want to admit the problem is overpolling, a lack of trust in the sponsors of polls, and frustration with dead-air calls caused by auto-diallers that run too fast.

I used to work in this industry training and managing calls. I also heard the messages from those asking people to never call them again.

***

With the Scottish issue you are also missing the point that as compatible as they may be on policy, it is not about being able to work together nbut the stigma Labour would have, particularly in England where there are more seats, by getting in bed with a seperatist party. This should not be difficult to understand as we have seen the same dynamic here where the BQ on paper was a very obvious partner but the association was damaging. There is no point saying that the only obstacle is they do not like each other. There is a political cost to the relationship outside of Scotland that exceeds the potential number of seats they could gain in Scotland.

Political parties usually do what is best for them politically. You should ask yourself why it is not politically helpful when wondering why they are not doing something. Often you will find your answer. They could gain 5 seats in Scotland and lose 20 in england due to being too cosy with the SNP -- and I am not even certain they would gain the five in Scotland anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:
It''s pretty facile to pretend that seats are the only measure of political strength. There is a huge difference between 25% and 15%. The former is is a base that gives the possibility of growth. The Corbynite latter presages extinction.

I am sure there are many who advocate that polls be printed on toilet paper in order to be useful.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it wasn’t all that long ago. the time of the indignados when the spanish socialists were forced by capital to openly commit to it. also was greece and portugal socialists. this i see is/was the crisis of capital. the democracy facade crumbles and what you have left is naked power. syriza is an example.

..this applies i believe to great britian and it applies to canada. politicians are taking up sides no more wiggle room. capital will no longer allow it.

nicky
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..elections are and will be happening amongst all this global activism. corbyn will fit nicely here.

Tens of thousands join marches across UK against Trump's travel ban

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..elections are and will be happening amongst all this global activism. corbyn will fit nicely here.

Tens of thousands join marches across UK against Trump's travel ban

Yes. Corbyn might have been the wrong guy for the party last year (some coudl ague) but he could be the right one now.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..there were a few places i could have dropped this piece. since i started on this path maybe i could expand expand my thoughts.

..this is the backdrop to the election. next election in canada as well because there is no stopping this forward movement. and it's corbyn and not the other bunch that want him gone that will more likey address a lot of the women's concerns in policy/legislation. what the women want goes beyond captalism. in fact capitalism must be transitioned away from. 

From the Women’s March to the International Women’s Strike

quote:

Even taking into account all of vits pitfalls and contradictions, however, it would be a mistake to think that there is no connection whatsoever between the Women’s March and the mobilizations of recent years, from Occupy to Fight for Fifteen, from Black Lives Matter to the struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In fact, while Trump’s election has triggered an increase in the scale of mobilization, the various struggles of recent years have been key in shifting popular perceptions concerning protests, their legitimacy, and their efficacy.

While there is no perfect political continuity between the call for the Women’s March and these more radical, racial justice and class-based mobilizations, one could hardly imagine almost 3m people taking to the streets in a single day without the groundwork laid by the last five years of nation-wide social mobilizations. A change of scale unavoidably entails a more heterogeneous composition of protest, both on a social and on a political level, and therefore political limitations of all sorts, but the large participation in the Women’s March should be seen as one of the outcomes of mass social resistance that was years in the making.

Toward the March 8 Women’s Strike

Another important element of analysis for understanding the potentialities created by the Women’s March is the international wave of women’s struggles that has taken place in recent months across a number of countries: women led strikes and demonstrations have swept through Poland, Argentina, Italy, Ireland, and elsewhere. It is too early to say whether we are witnessing the birth of a new feminist movement, but the signals certainly look promising.

This context should be central to the discussions about what to do next in the wake of the Women’s March and of the more recent demonstrations against Trump’s Muslim ban. The International Women’s Strike network has called for a strike on March 8th. So far, feminist collectives and coalitions from Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland and Northern Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Poland, Russia, Scotland, South Korea Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay have joined the call and are making preparations....

So far not yet Canada. I assume that will change.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there were a few places i could have dropped this piece. since i started on this path maybe i could expand my thoughts a bit more.

..this is the backdrop to the election. next election in canada as well because there is no stopping this forward movement. and it's corbyn and not the other bunch that want him gone that will more likey address a lot of the women's concerns in policy/legislation. what the women want goes beyond captalism. in fact capitalism must be transitioned away from. 

From the Women’s March to the International Women’s Strike

quote:

Even taking into account all of vits pitfalls and contradictions, however, it would be a mistake to think that there is no connection whatsoever between the Women’s March and the mobilizations of recent years, from Occupy to Fight for Fifteen, from Black Lives Matter to the struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In fact, while Trump’s election has triggered an increase in the scale of mobilization, the various struggles of recent years have been key in shifting popular perceptions concerning protests, their legitimacy, and their efficacy.

While there is no perfect political continuity between the call for the Women’s March and these more radical, racial justice and class-based mobilizations, one could hardly imagine almost 3m people taking to the streets in a single day without the groundwork laid by the last five years of nation-wide social mobilizations. A change of scale unavoidably entails a more heterogeneous composition of protest, both on a social and on a political level, and therefore political limitations of all sorts, but the large participation in the Women’s March should be seen as one of the outcomes of mass social resistance that was years in the making.

Toward the March 8 Women’s Strike

Another important element of analysis for understanding the potentialities created by the Women’s March is the international wave of women’s struggles that has taken place in recent months across a number of countries: women led strikes and demonstrations have swept through Poland, Argentina, Italy, Ireland, and elsewhere. It is too early to say whether we are witnessing the birth of a new feminist movement, but the signals certainly look promising.

This context should be central to the discussions about what to do next in the wake of the Women’s March and of the more recent demonstrations against Trump’s Muslim ban. The International Women’s Strike network has called for a strike on March 8th. So far, feminist collectives and coalitions from Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland and Northern Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Poland, Russia, Scotland, South Korea Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay have joined the call and are making preparations....

Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...Political parties usually do what is best for them politically. You should ask yourself why it is not politically helpful when wondering why they are not doing something. Often you will find your answer. They could gain 5 seats in Scotland and lose 20 in england due to being too cosy with the SNP -- and I am not even certain they would gain the five in Scotland anyway.

The reason I suggested working with the SNP is because I assume that Labour Party is finished in Scotland. I don't think anything they could do would bring them more seats there.

Thus, the only way they could form a government is with the cooperation of the SNP (either that or win some sort of a landslide in England).

As far as cooperating with a separatist party, I'll point out that Lucien Bouchard, who had worked for the 'Yes' side (Leave side) in a Quebec referendum was taken on board by Brian Mulroney, and eventually became Mulroney's Quebec lieutenant. Being a separatist did not make him a political pariah.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...Political parties usually do what is best for them politically. You should ask yourself why it is not politically helpful when wondering why they are not doing something. Often you will find your answer. They could gain 5 seats in Scotland and lose 20 in england due to being too cosy with the SNP -- and I am not even certain they would gain the five in Scotland anyway.

The reason I suggested working with the SNP is because I assume that Labour Party is finished in Scotland. I don't think anything they could do would bring them more seats there.

Thus, the only way they could form a government is with the cooperation of the SNP (either that or win some sort of a landslide in England).

As far as cooperating with a separatist party, I'll point out that Lucien Bouchard, who had worked for the 'Yes' side (Leave side) in a Quebec referendum was taken on board by Brian Mulroney, and eventually became Mulroney's Quebec lieutenant. Being a separatist did not make him a political pariah.

I think you are forgetting a whole lot of history with that selection...

And the difference between a guy who worked on a campaign and one running a political party while they are running that party.

Ask Gilles Duceppe.

And Duceppe was a guy with many great ideas, a big caucus and deserved to play a role in the house but other parties found it politically difficult to work with him, not because he was the problem but becuase the other parties would make a deal about working with seperatists.

The issue with a deal with the SNP is not the Scottish seats but the English ones.

nicky
Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/12/as-labour... Finally some good news for Labour.

It might be better to post a link to the original story, which was published in Rupert Murdoch's London Sunday Times.

Secret Labour search for Corbyn successor

I won't say this story is right-wing wishful thinking, but it wouldn't be the first time the London Sunday Times had indulged in that.

Amongst other similar 'reporting' (courtesy Wikipedia):

Quote:
In January 2010, The Sunday Times published an article by Jonathan Leake, alleging that a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was based on an "unsubstantiated claim". The story attracted worldwide attention. However, a scientist quoted in the same article later stated that the newspaper story was wrong and that quotes of him had been used in a misleading way. Following an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, The Sunday Times retracted the story and apologised.

nicky

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/12/corbyn-is...

The good news for Jeremy Corbyn is that he is not the most unpopular politician in the UK. The bad news is that the two men who beat him to top spot are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. With the Labour leader being kept out of view from voters in Stoke and featuring prominently on Tory campaign literature in Copeland, and the party’s overall poll ratings continuing to slide on the back of the highly divisive and utterly pointless decision to three line whip Labour MPs through the lobbies in support of Tory Hard Brexit, it is no surprise that talk of Corbyn’s leadership is once again front page news. As TSE observed today, it’s becoming a question of when he goes, not whether.

Obviously, anyone who like me wants a decent opposition to the Tories, let alone a competitive Labour party electorally, will scream “the sooner the better”, but sadly things are not as simple as that. While Corbyn stepping down immediately would be wonderful, the chances are that he won’t. In fact, the awful truth is that while Theresa May gets on with negotiating the Brexit deal, for the next year or so at least it’s likely that facing her across the Commons floor will be the current Leader of the Opposition, hopeless, hapless and shorn of the last vestiges of whatever authority he might once have had. Thus, unfortunately for the UK, the only serious scrutiny the Prime Minister will need to worry about at this crucial time in the country’s history is that which comes from her own party. Here’s why.

nicky

Sorry Rev, it's not just Murdoch. The Guardian has the same story: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/labour-leaked-poll-sear...

Ken Burch

Why are you so obsessed with getting Labour to go back to standing for nothing at all again, nicky?

There is no indication that having someone like Dan Jarvis or David Miliband as leader would gain Labour any votes(nobody other than the PLP wants Labour to go back to being just-barely-non-Tory again).

There is no difference between going back to Blairism and just disbanding the party.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with getting Labour to go back to standing for nothing at all again, nicky?

There is no indication that having someone like Dan Jarvis or David Miliband as leader would gain Labour any votes(nobody other than the PLP wants Labour to go back to being just-barely-non-Tory again).

There is no difference between going back to Blairism and just disbanding the party.

Questions and thoughts:

We have seen the NDP water down to try to get elected and fail.

We have seen the Labour party move to stand for something and fail (if you beleive the polls).

We could say that balirite policies are desired in Britain and not in Canada.

OR

We might want to conclude that the success or lack of success of both parties has less to do with the policies than the leader.

Perhaps a more engaging leader could have had either part succeed with the same policies.

Also consider that people will go to the edges of the spectrum if the leader is populist. Why would that not work on the left?

It is time to consider that Cobyn may not be the best standard bearer for a party to mean something and his defeat does not mean that labour should be searching for a Blairite.

It also might mean that success for the NDP remains closer than you think. If (better to say when now) Trudeau becomes unpopular, the NDP could be accepted with a leader the public likes. One that could be either a Blairite or person of substance and conviction.

Put another way -- the key is for a party to attract a person who can bring in voters and the positions matter less for success.

If you care about the direction of the country -- instead of moderating your position to the point that it is meaningless, select the person who represents where you want to go that is the most appealing you can find and stop worrying about policy compromises. They won't help you.

The poeple have moved on from substance long ago and any fake facts will do so you may as well just support what you beleive in and find a person who can promote that.

 

nicky

What some of you are missing is that many on the left of the Labour Party understand what a disaster Corbyn is as leader. It is not simply an ideological analysis but simply a recognition that he is hapless and hopeless. Many want to replace him with another left-wing leader. Both right and left fear that if he leads the party into the next election it will face an existential rout.

See for example this analysys in today's Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/12/corbyn-leadership-...

 

Corbyn’s champions always blame a supposed “Blairite” fifth column for his travails. But it is the left of the party itself that is now plotting against him most systematically. In December, Ken Livingstone told the BBC’s Sunday Politics: “If it’s as bad as this in a year’s time, we would all be worried.” In the Mirror last month, Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, asked pointedly: “What happens if we get to 2019 and opinion polls are still awful?”

Now it emerges that Labour’s left is road-testing its prospective contenders for the next leadership race. The necessary corollary to this is the so-called McDonnell amendment, the proposed change to the rules governing who can stand in such a contest (a plan that takes its inspiration from the failure – twice – of John McDonnell, now the shadow chancellor, to secure sufficient nominations).

 

 

 

nicky

What some of you are missing is that many on the left of the Labour Party understand what a disaster Corbyn is as leader. It is not simply an ideological analysis but simply a recognition that he is hapless and hopeless. Many want to replace him with another left-wing leader. Both right and left fear that if he leads the party into the next election it will face an existential rout.

See for example this analysys in today's Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/12/corbyn-leadership-...

 

Corbyn’s champions always blame a supposed “Blairite” fifth column for his travails. But it is the left of the party itself that is now plotting against him most systematically. In December, Ken Livingstone told the BBC’s Sunday Politics: “If it’s as bad as this in a year’s time, we would all be worried.” In the Mirror last month, Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, asked pointedly: “What happens if we get to 2019 and opinion polls are still awful?”

Now it emerges that Labour’s left is road-testing its prospective contenders for the next leadership race. The necessary corollary to this is the so-called McDonnell amendment, the proposed change to the rules governing who can stand in such a contest (a plan that takes its inspiration from the failure – twice – of John McDonnell, now the shadow chancellor, to secure sufficient nominations).

 

 

 

josh

There is nothing wrong with reassessing things as time goes on with any party leader. Livingstone's is not unreasonable. As long as a possible new leader is a Corbynite.

wage zombie

Here's what I'm missing.  If Corbyn is bad why does the party membership keep selecting him as leader?

Sean in Ottawa

If the left consider him to be a bad leader they will want him gone so as not to make it impossible for another left candidate to win.

nicky

WZ, if he is such a good leader why does more than 80% of his caucus want him gone? They are the ones who now him best.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

wage zombie wrote:
Here's what I'm missing.  If Corbyn is bad why does the party membership keep selecting him as leader?

nicky wrote:
WZ, if he is such a good leader why does more than 80% of his caucus want him gone? They are the ones who now him best.

And there it is, in a nutshell. Some of us respect the party membership's judgement more highly than that of the parliamentary caucus, and some do not. Some believe the membership should choose the leader, and some do not. That's the whole thread, really.

NDPP

Chunky Mark, The Artist Taxi Driver

https://youtu.be/ToH-izy3NoM

Tories on rampage, Fascism on the rise

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Here's what I'm missing.  If Corbyn is bad why does the party membership keep selecting him as leader?

If Liberals are bad, why do Canadians keep electing them as leaders?

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with getting Labour to go back to standing for nothing at all again, nicky?

There is no indication that having someone like Dan Jarvis or David Miliband as leader would gain Labour any votes(nobody other than the PLP wants Labour to go back to being just-barely-non-Tory again).

There is no difference between going back to Blairism and just disbanding the party.

Rebecca Long-Bailey seems like she could be strongly supported by Corbyn supporters and most other Labour supporters and centre and left of centre voters. She might be the one who can unite more people behind Labour in time for the next election.

Ken Burch

The best way to make that a possibility would be to stop making this a war against Corbyn's supporters as well as Corbyn.  If the PLP were to agree that all the suspensions and expulsions of left-Labourites would be revoked, if they would commit to guaranteeing at least one left candidate would be on the leadership ballot, and if they were to agree to restoring internal party democracy, there's a good chance Corbyn would stand down(he has said he would do so if he thought he was really a drag on the party).

Up until now, though, the PLP hasn't been willing to agree to any of that.  They not only wanted Corbyn himself out, they wanted to make the party a Corbynite free zone.  it was never reasonable to expect Jeremy to go if going meant he was leaving his supporters unprotected from expulsion and suppression. 

Would anything I suggested there really be all that unreasonable?

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

WZ, if he is such a good leader why does more than 80% of his caucus want him gone? They are the ones who now him best.

Those people are the 80% who voted for his opponents and strongly supported Liz Kendall, the most right-wing candidate in the '15 leadership contest.

The MP's never accepted Corbyn as leader, never gave him any chance at all, and have never accepted that the Labour grassroots had any right to have a say in who was chosen leader.  They still think the completely non-binding(and not in accordance with party rules) "no-confidence" motion they passed obligated him to go and they don't accept that the result of the 2016 leadership vote should even count.

If Labour was twenty points ahead in the polls, they would STILL be trying to depose him as leader.

 

nicky

Labour under Corbyn is running third among working class voters behind both the Cons and UKIP

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/13/latest-yo...

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
Labour under Corbyn is running third among working class voters behind both the Cons and UKIP http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/13/latest-yo...

This is a bit disingenuous in that the 'working class' includes all workers. What you meant to say was that the section of the working class demographic known in the UK as C2DE, which includes the unemployed, favour UKIP over Labour by 23% to 20%.

When the other sector of the working class, known as ABC1, is polled, they favour Labour by a margin of 26% to 9% for UKIP.

Overall, then, the poll shows the combined ABC1's, and the C2DE's favour Labour by a margin of 24% to 14% for UKIP.

Ken Burch

And again, nicky, I outlined terms that, if offered by the PLP, might get Jeremy to stand down. 

Those conditions would address what I think is his greatest concern:  that if he JUST resigned, his supporters wuold all be driven out of the party and everything he supported as policy and party reform would be rejected...a state of affairs that would, I think you'd have to agree, leave Labour standing for nothing and representing no one. 

Would you agree or disagree with the things I suggested there?

Remember, when he stood in 2015, most of the PLP wanted Labour to support the benefits cap, the budget charter and the bombing of SYria...commitments that would have erased any remaining major differences between Labour and the Tories(yes, Labour would still be slightly more pro-LGBTQ, but in the UK the battle on those issues is far closer to being won than in North America).  It was this effort to push the party massively and eternally to the right(Labour could never again have moved left on anytning if it had supported the benefits cap, the budget charter and the bombing of Syria and could never have done anything "Labour" in office it it made those commitments...there are no other issues at all that matter to anyone) that caused the surge to Corbyn and elected him leader in a race he never expected to win.

Corbyn would probably be fine with Ms. Long-Bailey as leader(she still supports him in the job as of now).  But there's no reason for Jeremy to simply trust the PLP to allow her or any other non-right wing candidates onto the leadership ballot.  Remember, these are the people who wanted the party to start supporting more cuts in benefits than it opposed and to endorse the brutal and sadistic benefits sanctions policies Cameron imposed.  If they want Corbyn out, they need to listen to the people who supported him and to learn from them.

 

Pages

Topic locked