Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

This is what nicky has pointed to:

So, these are people who, last May, planned to vote Labour, but have since changed their minds. It seems that the top reason they gave for their change of heart was "I don't like Jeremy Corbyn as leader", at 29%. The second most popular reason, at 18%, was "Labour are a mess/shambles". Are we to imagine that those 29% had not heard of Corbyn before last May, or have their opinions of him been changed by the relentless attacks on Corbyn by the PLP since the Brexit vote?

I would guess the latter, because most casual Labour supporters mistakenly continue to respect the opinions of the PLP and MSM, both of which would rather die than see Corbyn form government. This intentionally created crisis would also explain the second, third and fifth most popular reasons for switching away from Labour.

All in all, this poll mainly shows the extremely destructive nature of the unwarranted revolt by the PLP. Had they supported Corbyn and his policies, rather than their own selfish, careerist goals, the Labour Party would be much higher in the polls than it actually is.

sherpa-finn

Its clear from their most recent comments that even the most strident Corbyn cheerleaders here on Babble now acknowledge that the overwhelming vote of non-confidence by the Labour caucus basically doomed any chance that Corbyn had of ever forming government. Which is more or less what I have been saying from Day 1. If the majority of your parliamentary caucus don't have confidence in you as leader, no way will the general public ever have confidence in you as PM. 

Any other sentient, semi-conscious party leader would have acknowledged that simple reality and resigned on the spot. But, no, not Mr Corbyn. Because it was all so mean and unfair. 

So on it goes .... with the only ones still cheering from the sidelines being the Conservative Party. 

"Corbyn will face Smith on Thursday in the latest of the party’s hustings events. He remains the clear favourite with the bookies, although Smith will be buoyed after winning the backing of Kezia Dugdale, the leader of Scottish Labour, and Sadiq Khan, the London mayor.

Tim Roache, the general secretary of the GMB union, has sent a message to members urging them to back Smith, in a break from other big unions such as Unite and Unison. 

“We can’t spend the next five years as a protest movement, talking to ourselves in a bubble. Now is a time for strength and deeds, not just warm words and slogans,” he wrote. “I encourage you to cast your vote for Owen – so we can get on with securing a Labour government.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/ex-shadow-minister-accus...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Its clear from their most recent comments that even the most strident Corbyn cheerleaders here on Babble now acknowledge that the overwhelming vote of non-confidence by the Labour caucus basically doomed any chance that Corbyn had of ever forming government. Which is more or less what I have been saying from Day 1. If the majority of your parliamentary caucus don't have confidence in you as leader, no way will the general public ever have confidence in you as PM. 

It also doomed any chance that any other leader, such as the underwhelming Owen Smith, may have had of forming a government. Your apologetics for the PLP plotters sounds too similar to the plea from the man accused of murdering his parents that he is an orphan, after all.

nicky

Michael, corbyn' poll ratings have been abysmal right from when he first won the leadership. They have not tanked simply because 80% of Labour MPs came to the same conclusion as the country already had reached.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:
Michael, corbyn' poll ratings have been abysmal right from when he first won the leadership. They have not tanked simply because 80% of Labour MPs came to the same conclusion as the country already had reached.

Show me the figures. Nothing you have posted so far justifies this claim.

mark_alfred

I did a quick internet search, and found this, from Oct 2015:

Quote:

Less than a month into the job, Mr Corbyn has a negative approval rating of minus 8 - making him the most unpopular new party leader ever.

At the same point in Ed Miliband's leadership, he had a positive rating with the public of plus 26, the pollsters YouGov reported today.

It was also reported in other papers.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..another take on oct/2015 poll. and the next election isn't until 2020 a lot can change in that time. time enough for that awesome platform posted in #400 to sink in.

Jeremy Corbyn's poll numbers are actually much better than Ed Miliband's

quote:

Here's a piece of news that has received almost zero attention from London's political media:

In the country as a whole, Corbyn is actually doing rather well, according to the most recent Ipsos-MORI poll. When asked who they would vote for if an election was held tomorrow, 35% said Labour and 37% said Conservative:

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

Its clear from their most recent comments that even the most strident Corbyn cheerleaders here on Babble now acknowledge that the overwhelming vote of non-confidence by the Labour caucus basically doomed any chance that Corbyn had of ever forming government. Which is more or less what I have been saying from Day 1. If the majority of your parliamentary caucus don't have confidence in you as leader, no way will the general public ever have confidence in you as PM. 

Winning isn't everything, or shouldn't be for a party dedicated to social justice. It can take multiple election cycles to sell a different approach to governing.

The right has done a good job of taking over all of the parties, or at least convincing them that neoliberalism is the only choice. If you say that only neoliberal parties can win that means we have surrendered.

If the MPs don't care what the members want maybe it's the MPs that need to be replaced.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Surprisingly, I agree completely with Pondering on this issue.

 

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Any other sentient, semi-conscious party leader would have acknowledged that simple reality and resigned on the spot. But, no, not Mr Corbyn. Because it was all so mean and unfair. 

What would you say to the majority of party members who elected Corbyn?

sherpa-finn wrote:
...So on it goes .... with the only ones still cheering from the sidelines being the Conservative Party. 

"Corbyn will face Smith on Thursday in the latest of the party’s hustings events. He remains the clear favourite with the bookies, although Smith will be buoyed after winning the backing of Kezia Dugdale, the leader of Scottish Labour, and Sadiq Khan, the London mayor.

Tim Roache, the general secretary of the GMB union, has sent a message to members urging them to back Smith, in a break from other big unions such as Unite and Unison. 

“We can’t spend the next five years as a protest movement, talking to ourselves in a bubble. Now is a time for strength and deeds, not just warm words and slogans,” he wrote. “I encourage you to cast your vote for Owen – so we can get on with securing a Labour government.”...

Ah yes, Kezia Dugdale, leader of Scottish Labour. Tell me again how well Scottish Labour did in the last election. Oh, that's okay, here I' ve found it in Wikipedia:

Quote:
...In 2016 Dugdale led Labour to its worst performance in a Scottish election in over a century. Labour finished in third place behind the Tories who supplanted Labour as the main opposition at Holyrood. She was previously the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party from 2014 to 2015 and has been a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Lothian Region since 2011.

As far as Tim Roache, what's he been smokin'? What does he think the party's been doing for the last five years? It's precisely because they've been sitting around in a bubble that they lost the last election, including the loss of 50 seats in Scotland. Meanwhile, the party from which they might have assumed they could win some seats, the Liberal Democrats, lost, not to Labour, but to the Conservatives.

The voters, when faced with a choice of Conervative, and Conservative-lite will vote Conservative every time. The Labour strategy of moving to the right of centre has been a complete failure. And as I, and other sentient, fully conscious people have observed, what's left now is a rump PLP, loaded with careerists who don't want to rock the boat. As long as their own seats are secure, who cares, right?

That is now, and always has been, the heart of the argument against Corbyn. He wants to revive the party, and the PLP want nothing more than to carry on with their tea and crumpets. 

mark_alfred

Quote:

Winning isn't everything, or shouldn't be for a party dedicated to social justice.

Labour can become the conscience of parliament as the third party, allowing the Liberal Democrats to become the main competitor against the Conservatives for government.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

Winning isn't everything, or shouldn't be for a party dedicated to social justice.

Labour can become the conscience of parliament as the third party, allowing the Liberal Democrats to become the main competitor against the Conservatives for government.

I guess you are saying that if Labour declines to be Tory-lite, then the LibDems can and will fill that gap. If so, then I'd rather be with the losers who give a damn and offer a hope of change.

mark_alfred

I'm not saying anything, actually.  I have no horse in this race (though I do want to see Labour succeed and be elected).  Initially I assumed that Corbyn was doing well and I was happy about that, since I heard he was progressive and all.  I'm not very familiar with British politics.  I'm just a casual observer of this.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:
Ken, your perspective continues to be warped in denial. Mulcair always maintained a net positive rating in the polls. Corbyn has NEVER had a net positive rating, and as set out in many posts above he has a record net negative rating. So who is "unliked"? Except by you of course.

Falling from first to third in the polls in a six week election campaign is proof that Mulcair is unliked, and proof that he could never have improved his party's showing in a second election.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It goes without saying that those who want Corbyn dumped want Labour to lower itself to Blair's program again...a program that can never be worth implementing again because it isn't in any significant respects from the Tory program it replaced.  If Smith were elected, they will try to depose him as well if he dares to deviate from the PLP's agenda of re-imposing sectarian Blairism and if he keeps ANY of Corbyn's proposals...or if he does the decent thing and restores internal party democracy as Corbyn was trying to do.

A government that calls itself "Labour", but keeps cutting social services in the name of "reducing the deficit", keeps Thatcher's anti-worker laws, keeps militarily intervening in the Middle East(a region in which no Western military can ever win a war again), in other words the kind of a "Labour government" most of the PLP still prefers, is Labour in name only.  There is nothing such a government can do that can be different than a Tory government.

It doesn't have to be a choice between telling socialists to go fuck themselves and winning.  Labour can win by winning the argument, if the PLP will only give it the chance.

Possibly Corbyn is doomed as leader(I wouldn't blame the guy if he resigned the leadership immediately after winning it again overwhemingly, as he's going to do on Thursday), but it was his own party's MPs who doomed him.  They never wanted Labour to start fighting for the people again, they never wanted the disgusting ties between Labour and UK corporations to be ended, and they never wanted internal democracy restored.  The PLP was just fine being nothing but the slightly-less-nasty wing of the establishment.  They don't want to change the system in any meaningful way.

They may get their way...and if they do, it will make every British election for the rest of eternity officially meaningless.  It will be changes of government in name only, or "alternance", as the French call it.

It's a tragic situation that never needed to be made to happen.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Falling from first to third in the polls in a six week election campaign is proof that Mulcair is unliked, and proof that he could never have improved his party's showing in a second election.

First, here's a video after the election by pollster Nik Nanos:  http://bcove.me/c0nqhr35

Second, some thoughts.  The NDP polled third from April 2013 to June 2015.  April 2013 is around the time when Trudeau was picked as leader, and at this time the Liberals often polled in first place.  Mulcair was largely unknown and the public (particularly Ontario) was still reticent about the NDP.  It was only around the July 2015 that the NDP began to rise in the polls, and it was largely the performance of Mulcair in question period grilling Harper, and the strength of the NDP team under his leadership, that caught the public's attention.  As well the principled stand on Bill C-51 also had the NDP stand out as a serious and principled choice.  This led to the NDP briefly polling in the top spot.  For the first time ever the public gave them serious consideration for government, which had not happened ever before IMO (the vote in 2011 was more a novelty vote than anything else).  Granted, it didn't go the NDP's way, but still, the fact that the NDP, ever so briefly, were in first and were given serious (and unprecedented) consideration due to Mulcair's leadership should not be undermined.  Take a look at the pre-campaign polling and you'll see that what I say is accurate:  link.  Anyway, the fact that Mulcair improved the NDP's polling from third (where they were for two years) up to first and got serious unprecedented consideration from the public is proof that he was respected and liked.  True, people went back to Trudeau.  But having the NDP as a serious contender, and having them still maintain a sizeable Quebec contingent with support elsewhere too, was still a good thing.  Hopefully the next leader can not only impress and get serious consideration from the public, but can capitalize and win.  Sure, I feel it would have been smarter to stick with Mulcair, since he was someone we knew could impress and garner serious consideration from the public, but oh well, I'm sure we'll find someone else.

mark_alfred

Can someone here describe what the significant policy differences are between Owen Smith and Jeremy Corbyn?  I've looked but I can't find what they're each advocating.

ETA:  Okay, found something about how they both will respect the membership more when it comes to creating the election manifesto:  http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/owen-smith-and-jeremy-corbyn-lay...

I haven't been able to find much information on differences between either of them when it comes to political positioning.  I have found a few articles that claim they're both similar, which only adds to the puzzle for me.

ETA2:  Here's their sites:

http://www.jeremycorbyn.org.uk/

http://www.owen2016.com/

Here's an article about whether or not Smith is copying Corbyn (which would be odd if he's trying to replace him, but whatever -- it's Britain):  http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-owen-smith-copying-jere...

mark_alfred

In my random surfing I do think Corbyn's gonna win it.  Be interesting to see.  I always find elections or leadership contests exciting.

josh

The establishment in the Labour Party was determined to get rid of Corbyn once they realized he was likely to win leadership. They're willing to subvert democracy and severely damage the party in order to do it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

Falling from first to third in the polls in a six week election campaign is proof that Mulcair is unliked, and proof that he could never have improved his party's showing in a second election.

First, here's a video after the election by pollster Nik Nanos:  http://bcove.me/c0nqhr35

Second, some thoughts.  The NDP polled third from April 2013 to June 2015.  April 2013 is around the time when Trudeau was picked as leader, and at this time the Liberals often polled in first place.  Mulcair was largely unknown and the public (particularly Ontario) was still reticent about the NDP.  It was only around the July 2015 that the NDP began to rise in the polls, and it was largely the performance of Mulcair in question period grilling Harper, and the strength of the NDP team under his leadership, that caught the public's attention.  As well the principled stand on Bill C-51 also had the NDP stand out as a serious and principled choice.  This led to the NDP briefly polling in the top spot.  For the first time ever the public gave them serious consideration for government, which had not happened ever before IMO (the vote in 2011 was more a novelty vote than anything else).  Granted, it didn't go the NDP's way, but still, the fact that the NDP, ever so briefly, were in first and were given serious (and unprecedented) consideration due to Mulcair's leadership should not be undermined.  Take a look at the pre-campaign polling and you'll see that what I say is accurate:  link.  Anyway, the fact that Mulcair improved the NDP's polling from third (where they were for two years) up to first and got serious unprecedented consideration from the public is proof that he was respected and liked.  True, people went back to Trudeau.  But having the NDP as a serious contender, and having them still maintain a sizeable Quebec contingent with support elsewhere too, was still a good thing.  Hopefully the next leader can not only impress and get serious consideration from the public, but can capitalize and win.  Sure, I feel it would have been smarter to stick with Mulcair, since he was someone we knew could impress and garner serious consideration from the public, but oh well, I'm sure we'll find someone else.

The only reason either Trudeau or Mulcair were considered is because voters were tiring of Harper because he was at the ten year mark but even so Harper took the lead in polling for awhile. He could have won this election. Mulcair was only default when people believed the propaganda about Trudeau. As soon as Trudeau showed up with his pants on at the debates the propaganda was weakened. Once policy came out it didn't really matter what the policy was as long as it was plausible.

Mulcair improved polling because he jumped on the Conservative bandwagon in dissing Trudeau as immature and unready. That wasn't a success it was a failure. The NDP was under serious consideration as another Liberal Party not as a Labour party. That is why unions no longer feel bound to support the NDP. The NDP throws them peanuts.

The next leader of the NDP cannot win as a Liberal Party because the Liberal Party has been revived and is going strong.

As to C-51, it wasn't a lasting issue and it wasn't an issue that swayed votes.

Mulcair is well-liked as a person but voters did not choose based on who they liked the most. They chose based on who they thought could manage Canada best like a business is managed. That is why they tend to give all governments at least two terms if not three. As long as the country seems reasonably well-managed they go with the incumbent. When it comes time for a change they are looking for the next manager not rejecting the ideology of the current government.

Mulcair and the entire centrist gambit is done. I suppose they could stay with the centrist theme and in 2023 when people tire of Trudeau maybe voters would choose the NDP instead of the Conservatives as the alternative but if so they will only have won as a centrist party not as a Labour party so the system will remain neo-Liberal.

The right has been brilliant politically. After the New Deal and the movement towards the left in the 60s and 70s their think tanks got serious and learned how to influence people. Meanwhile the left gets on its high horse and keeps proclaiming moral superiority and blaming voters and the right for their losses.

There is only one way to turn the tide. Incrementalism won't work anymore because the philosophy of the right has been accepted as the way things have to be. There is no alternative being offered. There is no party suggesting that a minimum corporate tax be part of trade deals to prevent them from playing countries against one another.

The battle between Corbyn and Smith isn't about policy details it's about who is willing to lead the charge against neoliberalism. That's Corbyn not Smith. Smith is the placator put forth to try to appease the MPs who don't want any serious systemic change.

There is no position on the fence anymore. Either you agree with the neoliberal approach to trade deals designed by business in the service of the new royalty or you believe they should be designed to support labour and the democratic rights of citizens.

swallow swallow's picture

I don't think rehashing the 2015 Canadian elections is very productrive here - everyone knows what everyone else thinks. 

mark_alfred wrote:

Can someone here describe what the significant policy differences are between Owen Smith and Jeremy Corbyn?  I've looked but I can't find what they're each advocating.

I'm no expert, but I think part of Owen Smith's line is to say: don't worry, I'll keep the left-wing policies, but I'll be a more effective leader. None of the Angela Eagle baggage of having backed Blair - he is post-Blair and untainted by Blairism or Iraq.

Not saying I endorse that, but it's what some of his supporters who used to be Corbyn-backers are suggesting. 

 

bekayne

mark_alfred wrote:

It was only around the July 2015 that the NDP began to rise in the polls, and it was largely the performance of Mulcair in question period grilling Harper, and the strength of the NDP team under his leadership, that caught the public's attention.  As well the principled stand on Bill C-51 also had the NDP stand out as a serious and principled choice.  This led to the NDP briefly polling in the top spot.  

Nope. It happened in May, right after the Alberta election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_el...

contrarianna

Ken Burch wrote:

 If Smith were elected, they will try to depose him as well if he dares to deviate from the PLP's agenda of re-imposing sectarian Blairism and if he keeps ANY of Corbyn's proposals...or if he does the decent thing and restores internal party democracy as Corbyn was trying to do....

I don't think there is any chance of Owen Smith "taking a stand" against his backers. His only discernable constant is self-interest. 
It would be a mistake to  talk about his "policy", as if his words represented anything other than spin.

Case in point:
This Monday Owen Smith did his embarrissing "me too" schtick again, saying he "wants to hand power back to party members":

Quote:
Owen Smith has pledged that Labour policies will be bound by party conference decisions both in opposition and in government, as members began to receive their leadership ballots....

This followed Jeremy Corbyn’s announcement on Sunday of a raft of proposals for party democracy....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/owen-smith-and-jeremy-co...

Thus we are meant to believe that Smith, whose candidacy is exists because of the PLP rebellion against the will of the members, is now going to give the members more power.

Corbyn's campaign manager said the obvious:

Quote:
...Sam Tarry, dismissed Smith’s proposal, saying: “I would be astonished if most of the MPs backing Owen Smith would sign up to that; there’s a sell-by date of 24 September, when most of his policies will get shelved.”

Smith's history of saying whatever is advantagiousr the moment is spelled out here:

Quote:
Who is Owen Smith?

IAN SINCLAIR 29 July 2016

What do his on-the-record comments and voting record tell us about the challenger for the Labour leadership and his differences with Jeremy Corbyn?....

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ian-sinclair/who-is-owen-smith

Craig Murray:

Quote:
The Entirely Fake Owen Smith

....As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:

"We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda."

You have to look at the footnotes to see what kind of choice Owen Smith is actually talking about. Note to Editors 3 includes

“The focus groups also explored areas of choice that do not yet exist in the UK – most specifically the use of direct payments and the ability to choose to go directly to a specialist without first having to see the GP.”

Well, at least it is clear – direct payments from the public to doctors replacing current NHS services. Smith was promoting straight privatisation. 

As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services

.....Perhaps most crucially of all, Owen Smith joined his fellow Red Tories in abstaining on the Tory welfare benefit cuts.

I do not doubt Owen Smith’s expertise in brand positioning. I expect that there are indeed a large number of Labour Party members who might vote for a left wing alternative to Corbyn. But I also suspect that Smith has adopted the PR man’s typical contempt for the public, who are not as stupid as he seems to think. There is no evidence whatsoever that Smith is a left winger. There is every evidence that he is another New Labour unprincipled and immoral careerist, adopting a left wing pose that he thinks will win him votes.
People will notice, Owen. They really are not that stupid.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/entirely-fake-owen-smith/

josh

Smith joins the, "keep voting unti you vote the right way" crowd.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37167253 

nicky

Josh, Corbyn had been in favour of automatic annual leadership votes - before he became leader of course.

quizzical

quite the statement.

you got an example of your perceptions of Notley stumbling?

and what did Horgan do today?

Notalib

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Tom Mulcair:  anachronistic, elderly, dowdy, unliked Thatcherite, and a questionable leader.

Jeremy Corbyn:  anachronistic, elderly, dowdy, unliked non-Thatcherite, and a questionable leader.

To be fair, they both wear beards and you did spell their names right.

The names might have been spelled right and there is the beard thing, but other than that the OP was simply mischief making and you have to ask yourself why such desperate attempts at twisting the comparative leadership of the two parties is being carried out on these pages.

My sense is that the current lot surrounding Mulcair and our own "PLP" see the writing on the wall and understand that the few people left in Canada paying attention to the NDP are going to school on the civil war in the UK Labour party.

Which means the demise of our own gaggle of "Blairites." But that won't happen anytime soon as Mulcair tightens his deathgrip on the party for the next two years, Notley stumbles and falls under the tutelage of Topp and, as it seems today, Horgan lets another NDP victory in BC slip through our fingers.

If the course is not changed and Mulcair remains while both Alberta and BC burn for the NDP - that will truly be the end of the party, and its all in the can at this point to unfold over the next couple years.

 

Notalib

quizzical wrote:

quite the statement.

you got an example of your perceptions of Notley stumbling?

and what did Horgan do today?

Just read the papers in Alberta, look at the deficit, note the complete capitulation of the campaign platform and the massive new gas tax they did not campaign on. Things are so bad there Jason Kenny has an actual shot at replacing Notley.

Horgan is camping/campaigning in the "north" today. I still hold out hope for John but so far there is no sign that what is required to win is or will be rolled out. The BCNDP could win by default as the BC libs are a nightmarish government, but that did not happen last time and this time around they boast the strongest economy in Canada. Apparently, while the whole resource based economy melts down and BC stacks deby higher than it ever has, the biggest crisis the NDP can find is what all the new found millionaires in Vancouver are going to do with their windfall because foreign money made them rich for simply being homeowners.

The NDP has been eviscerated by a resurging progressive leaning Federal Liberal government and their own disaster of a leader. The remaining Provincial wings have been coopted by the party's right wing operatives leaving no home for traditional new democrats or even NEW new democrats as the left has abandoned the field and its expression in political parties all but lost save for Justin's faux progressive symbolism void of any substance to date.

 

 

 

 

nicky

What will really be the end of the NDP is if the Corbynites win control of it.

 

More evidence of Corbyn's political ineptitude:

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news...

josh

nicky wrote:

What will really be the end of the NDP is if the Corbynites win control of it.

 

More evidence of Corbyn's political ineptitude:

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news...

 

You mean they'll poll worse than 10%?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

What will really be the end of the NDP is if the Corbynites win control of it.

 

More evidence of Corbyn's political ineptitude:

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news...

 

You mean they'll poll worse than 10%?

Laughing

sherpa-finn

Maybe we need a separate thread on "Similarities and differences between the current challenges faced by the Labour and ND parties". 

In the meantime, on the topic immediately at hand, the latest from The Guardian:

The point is that Owen Smith kept going and didn’t sound as if he were weighing every word. He even sounded quite human. Corbyn’s three former rivals – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – didn’t pull off that trick in the 2015 contest. Jeremy was the one who sounded authentic which he is, for better and (mostly) worse. The 2010 contest wasn’t much better. David Miliband and Ed Balls could pass the Today programme’s 8.10 test, though both were burdened with the baggage of high office.

Not a problem Jeremy has ever had (or will have). This morning’s front pages find him entangled in another silly row that makes me cringe.... [Its all about seats on trains.] 

Team Corbyn’s failure is partly organisational. They must run on a shoestring, it’s very tough. But they seem to think that getting Jeremy in front of large and enthusiastic meetings of people who already agree with him is a priority, the way to win. It sounds a bit Hugo Chávez to me, the opposite of Blair’s “masochism strategy” of meeting critics. But according to countless ex-shadow cabinet witnesses it means there’s less time to meet and thrash out policy.

That’s easily explained. Jeremy doesn’t really do policy, never has. He’s a campaigner who takes his cues from others. Hence his off-the-cuff mistakes over triggering article 50, or preventing large companies from distributing dividends if their staff don’t get the living wage. They’re points easily mocked and brushed aside.

In this sense Jeremy is more like El Cid, the medieval Spanish hero, propped up on his horse by loyal supporters to go into battle after he had inconveniently died... 

And then a closing shout out to some of those same loyal supporters here on Babble: "If you don’t much care about actually winning power and doing things, preferring Corbyn as a “man of principle” (or a battering ram for the real socialist revolution) you won’t be persuaded. But I suspect that more and more Corbyn supporters (and senior trade union leaders) are reluctantly admitting, if only in private, that “he’s a lovely guy, but ... ”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/aug/24/owen-smith-may-not-...

josh

What makes anyone think that Owen Smith will end up any differently than Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband?  Corbyn opponents act as if if they get rid of Corbyn, victory will be near.  Labour has failed to clear 35% in the last three elections, dating back over a decade.  That cannot be attributed to Jeremy Corbyn.  Perhaps, in this multiparty era, it's time to try something different. 

contrarianna

sherpa-finn wrote:

from the Guardian:

The point is that Owen Smith kept going and didn’t sound as if he were weighing every word. He even sounded quite human.

Yes, Smith's off-the-cuff  remarks are more refreshing than his more cynically calculated triangulations.

Even so, it may be more advantageous for the unbuttoned Smith to re-button:

Quote:
Calling Jeremy Corbyn a 'lunatic' isn't the first major gaffe the naive and inexperienced Owen Smith has made

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-lunatic-owen-smith-lab...

I suppose when Owen Smith offerred Corbyn the imaginary Labour "party president" job  he thought it would flatter the "lunatic" and win over his credulous supporters to some virtually padded room.

Quote:
[Smith] praised Mr Corbyn for helping Labour "rediscover its radical roots" and said he would offer his rival the role of party president if he won so he could "speak for the party" to the wider membership.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36842339

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/corbyn-snubs-smiths-offer-of-party-preside...

sherpa-finn

Josh wrote:

What makes anyone think that Owen Smith will end up any differently than Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband?  Corbyn opponents act as if if they get rid of Corbyn, victory will be near. 

Actually, at this point in time, I think most Labour supporters would happily trade their first born child for any hope that Labour (under anyone) could actually secure 29-30% of the popular vote in the next election, as did Brown and Milliband.  In current circumstances, that would be considered a YUUGGEE existential victory.  

Labour has failed to clear 35% in the last three elections, dating back over a decade. That cannot be attributed to Jeremy Corbyn.  

Because no one in the building can possibly remember how (in living memory) Labour actually did secure more than 35% of the popular vote and won three majority governments in a row. That can clearly be attributed to Corbyn. 

Perhaps, in this multiparty era, it's time to try something different. 

If the British electoral system that had shifted over to Prop Rep in the meantime, then there would be the political space to have that conversation. (And even I may be inclined to support Corbyn as head of some new left configuration.) But until that happens, he is simply engaging in what others have memorably characterised as "an infantile disorder".

josh

Interesting since the last published poll has Labour at 30.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_King....

Rev Pesky

From the Guardian article posted above:

Quote:
...Jeremy doesn’t really do policy, never has. He’s a campaigner who takes his cues from others. Hence his off-the-cuff mistakes over triggering article 50, or preventing large companies from distributing dividends if their staff don’t get the living wage. They’re points easily mocked and brushed aside.

The writer, while saying these items were 'easily mocked', didn't bother to explain why. Like most of those who are opposed to Corbyn this writer doesn't actually want to address issues. It's enough to just call someone names.

quizzical

Notalib wrote:
quizzical wrote:
quite the statement.

you got an example of your perceptions of Notley stumbling?

and what did Horgan do today?

Just read the papers in Alberta,

why would i read or listen to a corporatist news source for anything to do with the NDP? i can listen to the people just fine.

Quote:
look at the deficit,

funny most pipeliners i know even realize the deficit is not the NDP’s fault.

Quote:
note the complete capitulation of the campaign platform and the massive new gas tax they did not campaign on.

reality on the ground says the gas tax is more popular than a PST and want their roads looked after better.

Quote:
Things are so bad there Jason Kenny has an actual shot at replacing Notley.

Funniest thing you’ve said yet. Truth is majority hate him. He’s even had to hide his truck when glad handing around. most think he’s trying to double dip with a safety net. his resignation as MP are even being talked about.

Quote:
The NDP has been eviscerated by a resurging progressive leaning Federal Liberal government and their own disaster of a leader. The remaining Provincial wings have been coopted by the party's right wing operatives leaving no home for traditional new democrats or even NEW new democrats as the left has abandoned the field and its expression in political parties all but lost save for Justin's faux progressive symbolism void of any substance to date.

just gotta roll my eyes at this over the top propaganda.

mark_alfred

I believe it's only the Lib-Dems who are promoting proportional representation, and no one else (to my knowledge, anyway) is.  Seems it's generally parties in third place or less who buy into PR.  Which is too bad, because PR is the right thing to have.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Josh wrote:

 

Labour has failed to clear 35% in the last three elections, dating back over a decade. That cannot be attributed to Jeremy Corbyn.  

Because no one in the building can possibly remember how (in living memory) Labour actually did secure more than 35% of the popular vote and won three majority governments in a row. That can clearly be attributed to Corbyn. 

 

You're assuming that the combination of reasons Labour won in 1997 are the ONLY possible combination of reasons that can EVER lead to a Labour victory again(you're also assuming that Labour only won in '97 because Blair treated socialists and the rest of the left as the enemy).  And it's far from clear that lowering the party to a Blairite manifeseto again(a set of policies nobody really wants among the wider electorate and a set of policies that can't make anything better for any of the people who vote Labour)could still somehow lead to another Labour victory.

You talked in an earlier post about getting serious about the task of building a viable left-wing party.  How can moving a left-wing party sharply to the right assist the goal of building a viable left-wing party?  As we've been seeing, many of the PLP rebels are people who hate the idea of Labour being a left-wing party(not all, but if you're honest, the vast majority...most of those 172 MPs who voted no-confidence in Corbyn hold positions on the issues now that actually put them to the right of the SDP).  Most of them would have preferred Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall, both of whom are somewhat to the right of Blair. So how could giving those MPs unchallenged hegemony on policy, eligibility for the party leadership ballot, and the structure of the party lead to anything "left-wing"? 

Before Corbyn was elected, most of these MPs wanted Labour to be MORE supportive of cuts in the social wage, MORE open to privatization, MORE hostile to immigrants, and MORE open to eternal war against the Arab/Muslim world.  If Labour embraced all that, what could it support that would still be, in ANY sense, "left-wing"?  If you embrace more than half of Margaret Thatcher's policies, you aren't part of the left anymore.

It's not "left-wing" to be antiracist & pro-LGBTQ rights(a worthy cause every decent person in the UK now supports)but still pro-war, pro-cuts and pro-deference to the wealthy.  Nor can you still have any truly left-wing views if your basic message to the voters is "we're done with all that peace, justice and equality rubbish.

Sean in Ottawa

Mulcair's problems had little to do with looks. The problems were related to what he would say. An uncharming leader may be less than ideal but if the person does not express the ideals of the broader movement it will always be a disaster.

Mulcair, I think, buried himself by failing to balance what he may have felt were words of reassurance to the centre that the NDP was not radical with offering anything to justify bringing in the NDP at all. The contrast between a progressive platform and a leader who could not promote it, ended his career.

The other problem a politician cannot survive in the long run is being excessively negative. This is a little less so with the angry right that wants to seem in perpetual conflict with the size of the state, but a person from the left cannot be negative about the enterprise of the state. It is really impossible to be successful calling for significant investment in the public good while being pessimistic about the collective.

It is in this context that Trudeau, who remained positive in outlook contrasted his youthfulness making Mulcair appear out of touch. However, the age contrast was not the cause even if it became the symptom of his difficulty. A person with the optics of Mulcair with a positive message, optimism about the public good, and true to the ideals of his movement could well succeed.

The NDP has to bear this in mind given what I have said about its generation gap. The older cohort in the party should not be excluded automatically. Of course, as I have said the younger cohort also cannot be excluded.

Back to Corbyn -- in the same way, it should not be presumed to be age or the beard that is the cause of difficulty.

The issue of the seats on the train is an example, however, of the importance of being genuine in detail not just in message. Politicians organize photo ops to deliver massages but they have to be real or it will backfire. You cannot organize without risk things that are illustrative or real issues but that are exposed as contrived. People like Corbyn are going to be examined for any possible weakness to exploit -- they have to know that. So if he went and sat on the floor and said he did so to illustrate what happens to people many days this would have been better than saying and having that be contested that he did so becuase he had to on that day. Perhaps Corbyn's problem is that he just does not have the knack for effective communication.

 

sherpa-finn

Oops.

Bernie Sanders rejects Jeremy Corbyn's claim he sent Labour leader supportive message

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corb...


sherpa-finn

Ouch.

Jeremy Corbyn snubbed by Labour MPs in 'most impressive parliamentarian' poll: Conservative PM Theresa May ranks higher among opposition MPs than party leader

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

 

sherpa-finn

Uh-oh. 

Labour Party conference could be cancelled after G4S turn down last minute offer to provide security

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-conference-co...

mark_alfred

Is the election between Smith and Corbyn today?

ETA:  no, it is not.

Quote:

  • 21 September: Deadline for ballot papers to be returned is midday
  • 24 September: The result will be announced at a special conference in Liverpool

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

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Labour Party conference could be cancelled after G4S turn down last minute offer to provide security

...

Anybody have any idea what the above sentence means?

josh

Rev Pesky wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Labour Party conference could be cancelled after G4S turn down last minute offer to provide security

...

Anybody have any idea what the above sentence means?


I remember reading about some non-Union problem.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Labour Party conference could be cancelled after G4S turn down last minute offer to provide security

...

Anybody have any idea what the above sentence means?

I did not know either so looked it up.

G4S is a unionized security company that Labour boycotted.

The Union for G4S stated they would picket the conference if Labour used Showsec an alternate that is non-Union.

Labour went back to G4S offered to abandon the boycott and G4S said too late as it takes a long time to plan these -- and get stuffed. So the event is cancelled.

Looks like mismanagement and bad planning by the party to me unless there is some other explanation.

Sean in Ottawa

The boss of GMB, Tim Roache, has said the union will picket the conference if Showsec provides the security, leaving Labour MPs and members facing the choice of crossing a picket line to attend their own conference or missing the event entirely. Sources have told the Guardian such a scenario would make it impossible for it to go ahead.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/labour-conference-in-per...

Pages

Topic locked