Jeremy Corbyn

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

I am happy to say that the chicken coup has almost been crushed. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-...

Before the coup membership was 390,000 or so.  Less than 2 weeks later membership is 600,000.  And no people are not joining the party to support the chicken coup.  210,000 new members in less than 2 weeks!!!!! People had their fill of neoliberalism, these people want to open the party so the grassroots members will make policy rather than being told what the policy is.  Where is our Corbyn?  

What amazes me is that the Blairites are whining that the membership of the party is increasing and seem to think it is some sort of really bad thing. Imagine claiming he is losing members when the membership has almost doubled. It is obvious that they have no use for grassroots democracy. I hope they face tough nomination battles and a new wave of Labour candidates is elected with Corbyn as PM.

Quote:

One senior MP told The Telegraph: "It's finished. He will win easily in a second contest if he is on the ballot, it's everything we wanted to avoid."

They added: "He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them. He is Teflon in that sense."

 

sherpa-finn wrote:

Not to put too fine a point on it, a movement-based Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn is The Telegraph's wet dream scenario for the next election.

FWIW, these Tories are not trembling at such a scenario, they are celebrating.

I recall quite clearly the Democrats celebrating the nomination of Ronald Reagan for president. Oops. The "experts" are not always correct in their prognostications.

I've only started following recently.  And yes, I've no idea what will happen.  There's the increased interest from members, which is good.  Yet there's also the mediocre local election results and the so-so polling and the fumble on the Brexit campaign (sure, 65% or so Labour supporters voted Remain, but still a third went Leave, which isn't great for a party that was supposed to be firmly in the Remain camp) and the open split in caucus.  It looks pretty chaotic.  But, I do feel that the increased member support cannot be undervalued.  If it leads to increased donations and increased volunteers during the election, that would be significant.  And people do like Corbyn, from what I can see.  Whether they feel secure in him with running the country will be another question though.  It will be interesting.

..this struggle, i don't think, is about electability but about policy and democratic control. incrementalism is as good as death.

..the series of tpps are not incremental. the attack on the environment is not incremental. constant state of war is not incremental. the attack on social justice is not incremental. they are in the here and now and require an immediate response. they membership have demanded it.  the  membership who is supporting corbyn is not a conservative dream. it’s the movements that will defeat conservatives.

sherpa-finn wrote:

So if you think a rump Labour Party led by Corbyn comprising fewer but more progressive MPs with a revitalised membership will turn the Tory tide, - I have some swamp land in Essex I would like to show you.

A Blairite resurgence will mean nothing for working people just more austerity lite and militarism. You are either fight for something worth fighting for or why bother?

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Anatomy-of-a-Failed-Coup-in-the...

What a strange time in British politics. The outcome of the attempted overthrow of Jeremy Corbyn is thus a hugely improbable and unexpected strengthening of the Left. Since the EU referendum result, 200,000 people have joined the Labour Party, the great majority of them supporting Jeremy Corbyn. Total membership is now approximately 600,000. The shadow Cabinet has become more left wing, more multiracial, and more female. Corbyn’s own standing, having withstood the extraordinary barrage of attacks and even some friendly fire, has emerged greatly strengthened. The coup plotters, weak and disorganized by their own miscalculations, disgraced by their links to and affinity with a discredited past, are an undignified mess.

Worst. Coup. Ever.

 

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...

Well that's interesting. I suspect they don't want to take a chance that Corbyn would win an election.

sherpa-finn wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..this struggle, i don't think, is about electability but about policy and democratic control. incrementalism is as good as death.

I think that is a fair characterization of the "Corbyn doctrine". 

epaulo13 wrote:

the  membership who is supporting corbyn is not a conservative dream. it’s the movements that will defeat conservatives.

 

That last bit is the wishful thinking part. The only movement in the (history of the) UK that has had both the potential capacity and political will to take on and defeat a Conservative Gov't has been the trade union movement. And they are nowhere near that place today.

Today's anti-war and anti-globalisation movements are marginal players, - and the anti-austerity movement trails the anti-EU/immigrant forces considerably in mobilizing the working class.  

So if you think a rump Labour Party led by Corbyn comprising fewer but more progressive MPs with a revitalised membership will turn the Tory tide, - I have some swamp land in Essex I would like to show you.

 

It's not as though it would be worth electing a Labour government that presented itself as a "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here" party.  Or one that treats socialists and other activists for change as the enemy.  Why should Labour treat its most loyal supporters as if they are a pestilence? That wants Labour policies to be decided solely by the leader?  Why should it go back to the Blair positions of being to the right of the Tories on crime and defense, and of being just barely distinguishable from the Tories on economic policy and spending? 

What good at all would it be to elect Labour in that form, when Labour elected on a centrist/militarist/pro-austerity manifesto couldn't do anything to help anyone?

Hmm.  Will Corbyn be required to get the endorsements of 20% of MPs to run (50 MPs)?  Or will he be on the ballot by default?  Because if the former, he may not be able to get 50 MPs to endorse him.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36654418

Ken Burch wrote:

It's not as though it would be worth electing a Labour government that presented itself as a "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here" party.  Or one that treats socialists and other activists for change as the enemy.  Why should Labour treat its most loyal supporters as if they are a pestilence? That wants Labour policies to be decided solely by the leader?  Why should it go back to the Blair positions of being to the right of the Tories on crime and defense, and of being just barely distinguishable from the Tories on economic policy and spending? 

What good at all would it be to elect Labour in that form, when Labour elected on a centrist/militarist/pro-austerity manifesto couldn't do anything to help anyone?

I think the political calculus is pretty straight forward, Ken.  Even at current (historically high) levels of individual (non-affiliated) membership, there are another 10 million historic Labour voters who are not party members but remain generally loyal at election time. The last time the Labour Party took this sort of leap of faith with a strongly left-leaning leader was when it chose Michael Foot to face down Margaret Thatcher. Millions of Labour voters crossed over to the Lib-Democrats, and the Labour Party (and country) paid for it with another decade in the wilderness. 

I know Babblers like to draw parallels between Corbyn and Sanders, and the hoped for rise of an activist left. To his credit, Bernie had a viable political strategy, - mobilize a progressive constituency, leverage what one can in terms of a progressive platform, - and then support the mainstream Democratic candidate against the opposing right-wing demagogue. 

On the US scene, though, the counterpart to Corbyn is actually Donald Trump.  While we may relish the damage that Trump believers are surely doing to the Republican party in the US, we are slow to recognize when the same thing is being done on the left.  When people start sloganeering in the style of "Better to go down in flames than live on our knees!" they are setting the rest of us up for a bonfire they intend to light and then walk away from.

sherpa-finn wrote:

I think the political calculus is pretty straight forward, Ken.  Even at current (historically high) levels of individual (non-affiliated) membership, there are another 10 million historic Labour voters who are not party members but remain generally loyal at election time. The last time the Labour Party took this sort of leap of faith with a strongly left-leaning leader was when it chose Michael Foot to face down Margaret Thatcher. Millions of Labour voters crossed over to the Lib-Democrats, and the Labour Party (and country) paid for it with another decade in the wilderness.

Times change. The last time the Labour Party took this sort of "leap of faith" neoliberalism and austerity had not been decimating the middle and lower classes. It was easier for the right to use the argument that taxes were impoverishing the working and middle classes to the benefit of lazy no good parasites and mass media was still the only way most people got any information.

 

epaulo13 wrote:

The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media has never had much time for Jeremy Corbyn.

Within a week of his election as Labour Party leader in September, it was engaging in a campaign the Media Reform Coalition characterized as an attempt to “systematically undermine” his position. In an avalanche of negative coverage 60 percent of all articles which appeared in the mainstream press about Corbyn were negative with only 13 percent positive. The newsroom, ostensibly the objective arm of the media, had an even worse record: 62 percent negative with only 9 percent positive.

quote:

Coup Collaboration

The British media’s bias against Corbyn made it a useful weapon in the coup attempt against his leadership orchestrated by right-wing Labour MPs.

In the days after the Brexit vote forty-six MPs resigned from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet in forty-eight hours, spacing out their announcements to allow them to occur on an hourly basis live on air. The narrative for these resignations was set up in a BBC article on June 26th by Kuenssberg which accused Corbyn of having “deliberately sabotaged” the Remain campaign despite providing no evidence of such a plot.

This was to be only the beginning of the inaccuracies about Corbyn in the mainstream press.

eta:

At the time of writing there is not a single mainstream media outlet in Britain with an editorial line supporting Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. This is despite the fact that, under Corbyn, Labour this week became the largest social-democratic party in the Western world with 600,000 members.

The newspapers in the UK are as bad as the newspapers in North America. Even the so-called left papers are anti-left.

The histogram at the top is titled "Corbyn and Sanders:  youth movements", but is then subtitled "% of supporters by age-group for the following candidates in each race".

What, specifically, makes them "movements"?  One might think that would have to involve communication, co-ordination, leadership, and maybe even some branding ("Youth Movement for a New Country") or whatever, not just being slotted into the 18-24 group.

Quote:

.i don't have an answer to your question magoo but i see that they exist from their unity in action and demand.

OK, but that's sort of why I asked.

If younger voters prefer Corbyn or Sanders, that's fine, but it's not a "movement" just because there are many of them.  There's no specific unity, no specific action and no specific demand, outside of a bunch of people from the same demographic preferring the same thing.

And I'm not holding you accountable to explain it; I just wonder why whoever made that histogram equated a statistical trend with a political movement.

If younger voters prefer Corbyn or Sanders, that's fine, but it's not a "movement" just because there are many of them.  There's no specific unity, no specific action and no specific demand, outside of a bunch of people from the same demographic preferring the same thing.

..but there is a specific demand. which is things must change. how that is further defined is in in the policies adopted by both saunders and corbyn and the continued support and growing. since the party is the vehicle for the demand for change in this instance. but this could also come in other forms, a different vhecle, such as issues as climate and pipelines. why are those movements called movements?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

..but there is a specific demand. which is things must change.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but that's literally the LEAST specific demand one could possibly make.

..not in the context of changing the behaviour of a political party. this is huge.

eta:

..although sometimes it may look different i'm not looking for a fight either.

Trump won fair and square, as did Corbyn. That's the only comparison between the two that is valid.

Sherpa-Finn wrote:  The last time the Labour Party took this sort of leap of faith with a strongly left-leaning leader was when it chose Michael Foot to face down Margaret Thatcher. Millions of Labour voters crossed over to the Lib-Democrats, and the Labour Party (and country) paid for it with another decade in the wilderness.

Josh wrote: The Tory percentage of the vote fell in 1983 compared to 1979. Labour lost votes because the Gang of Four bolted from the party to form the Liberal Democrats with the Liberals. And the issue then was largely defense policy, not domestic.

You are engaged in magical thinking if you think that defense / national security issues will not be Exhibit A in conservative efforts to wholly discredit a Corbyn-led Labour Party.  Attacks on him as being soft on defense and terrorism started long ago and there is no shortage of self-supplied ammunition from Corbyn's 30 year track record as an activist, dating back to his history of engagement with the IRA, Hamas, etc. Labour will surely try to counter that Corbyn was on the right side of the Iraq decision in 2003. But I suspect that will stand him in little stead when the ordinary voter reflects on the ballot box question - "Given the situation of the world today, do I see this guy as Prime Minister, defending the security of the nation?" 

For its part, a Corbyn-led Labour campaign will produce a dense, well reasoned election manifesto reminiscent of the one that accompanied the heroic yet out-of-touch Foot campaign against Margaret Thatcher, - and was described by one of Labour's own MPs at the time as "the longest suicide note in history". Indeed, the Foot Campaign was memorably characterised by The Guardian  as follows: "There was something magnificently brave about Michael Foot's campaign but it was like the Battle of the Somme".  

And over the top they went ....

sherpa-finn wrote:

Sherpa-Finn wrote:  The last time the Labour Party took this sort of leap of faith with a strongly left-leaning leader was when it chose Michael Foot to face down Margaret Thatcher. Millions of Labour voters crossed over to the Lib-Democrats, and the Labour Party (and country) paid for it with another decade in the wilderness.

Josh wrote: The Tory percentage of the vote fell in 1983 compared to 1979. Labour lost votes because the Gang of Four bolted from the party to form the Liberal Democrats with the Liberals. And the issue then was largely defense policy, not domestic.

You are engaged in magical thinking if you think that defense / national security issues will not be Exhibit A in conservative efforts to wholly discredit a Corbyn-led Labour Party.  Attacks on him as being soft on defense and terrorism started long ago and there is no shortage of self-supplied ammunition from Corbyn's 30 year track record as an activist, dating back to his history of engagement with the IRA, Hamas, etc. Labour will surely try to counter that Corbyn was on the right side of the Iraq decision in 2003. But I suspect that will stand him in little stead when the ordinary voter reflects on the ballot box question - "Given the situation of the world today, do I see this guy as Prime Minister, defending the security of the nation?" 

For its part, a Corbyn-led Labour campaign will produce a dense, well reasoned election manifesto reminiscent of the one that accompanied the heroic yet out-of-touch Foot campaign against Margaret Thatcher, - and was described by one of Labour's own MPs at the time as "the longest suicide note in history". Indeed, the Foot Campaign was memorably characterised by The Guardian  as follows: "There was something magnificently brave about Michael Foot's campaign but it was like the Battle of the Somme".  

And over the top they went ....

Labour has not gotten a over 35% of the vote in the the last three general elections, including the one they won in 2005. To read you, you would think that Labour was in danger of being driven to defeat after a series of strong general election showings. The non-Corbyn way has not produced victory.m And historical comparisons are dangerous. This is not 1983. And Corbyn has already shown far more steel than Foot ever did.

They don't let him on the ballot, the party almost certainly will split.

Major unions pledge their support to Jeremy Corbyn as a leadership challenge looms

Len McClusky and the general secretaries of unions Unison and the GMB have come out in support of Jeremy Corbyn after news that "peace talks" had broken down, and a formal leadership challenge could be expected imminently.

McClusky called Tom Watson's statement earlier today, in which the deputy leader said he believed there "is little to be achieved by pursuing wider conversations with our union affiliates at this time", "deeply disigengenuous".

According to New Statesman political editor George Eaton, Unison and the GMB then followed suit, pledging their support to Corbyn at today's Durham Miner's Gala.

quote:

Read McClusky's full statement below.

“I am dismayed at the statement issued by Tom Watson announcing his withdrawal from talks aimed at resolving the crisis in the Labour party

“Extraordinarily, I received no notice of this statement before it was issued. I had made arrangements for a meeting of trade union leaders, Tom Watson and representatives of the PLP and the party leader for tomorrow, arrangements requested by Tom Watson and his colleagues, specifically for Mr Watson’s convenience.

“In that context, when the possibility of a workable plan had never seemed closer, Tom Watson’s actions today can only look like an act of sabotage fraught with peril for the future of the Labour party.”

“I must clarify one point in Tom Watson’s statement – I made it absolutely clear from the outset of these discussions that Jeremy Corbyn’s resignation as the leader was not on the agenda.

“Watson knew that, and it is entirely wrong to suggest that any public statement by Jeremy represented any change in the situation. This is a deeply disingenuous manoeuvre.

“I will continue to work with trade union colleagues and others to chart a way forward, including meeting the legitimate concerns of Labour MPs.

“Should there have to be a leadership election, I must warn that any attempts to keep Jeremy Corbyn, elected just 10 months ago with an enormous mandate, off the ballot paper by legal means risks a lasting division in the party....

 

sherpa-finn wrote:

Josh wrote: Labour has not gotten a over 35% of the vote in the the last three general elections, including the one they won in 2005. 

Geez, can't imagine how Labour could ever get over 40% of the popular vote with absolutely crushing Parliamentary majorities.

Oh yeah. Now I remember. Hmm, that's awkward. Well, we don't want to do that again!

Yup, better head left instead. That will teach those damnable Tories. 

WIll you quit acting as if there is nothing to discuss?  We've already demonstrated to you that no on in the UK WANTS Blairism back, and no one there wants another Labour government that's just as willing to bomb Arabs as the Tories are.

Ken Burch wrote: We've already demonstrated to you that no on in the UK WANTS Blairism back, and no one there wants another Labour government that's just as willing to bomb Arabs as the Tories are.

Actually, I think that first point is very much up for debate, Ken.  Personally, I would hazard a guess that about 25% of the electorate (and two thirds of the Labour caucus) continues to show its willingness to endorse a broadly "Blairite" domestic policy agenda. Which I would define as accepting of the pre-eminence of the market place while supportive of increased investment in public services, with a focus on middle-class preoccupations, such as education and law enforcement. 

The second point I think we can agree on. "No one wants another Labour government that's just as willing to bomb Arabs as the Tories are". In that regard, I have seen arguments made on both sides of the question as to whether the 2003 decision to go to war in Iraq was integral to a Blairite strategic vision of the world. Or just a monstrous mistake rooted in a combination of individual hubris and systemic mismanagement. Not sure that Chilcot shed any new light on that one. But both Corbyn and the rebels are making determined efforts to show the public that Labour acknowledges its mistakes, has learned from them and has moved on.