Jeremy Corbyn

Yes.  The leader should be considered to already have passed any preliminaries.  The burden should have to be solely on the challenger to initiate a challenge.  Once that burden is met, then a vote can be held.  So I feel Corbyn should not have to seek MP's nominations to run for leader in this challenge, since he is already leader.  If the rules are silent on it regarding the current leader, then it's not applicable to him, IMO.

So Leadsom drops out of the Tory leadership because she admits that she does not have adequate support in caucus to govern effectively. 

Welcome to the realpolitik of British parliamentary politics, folks.

Over to you Mr Corbyn. 

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

sherpa-finn wrote:

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

Why are you so afraid of Jeremy Corbyn?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The party ran things exactly as you say they should in 2010 and 2015.  The losses in those elections prove that centrist, elitist campaigns can never work for Labour again.  Young people in the UK can't feel enthusiasm for any party that isn't on the left, isn't idealistic, and doesn't present a visionary program of change.  And Labour can't win if young voters stay home.

You can also mention that the Labour government took big losses under Tony Blair in 2005. That makes 3 consecutive elections with seat reductions for Labour.

When it only got 35% of the vote.

Fixed it.

Quote:

Apparently Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/labours-nec-set-ensure-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-ballot

I think the headline of this story which proclaims that a decision has been made is misleading.  From within the article,

Quote:

Labour's National Executive Committee is is due to meet at 2pm tomorrow to decide the terms of the contest, including whether Corbyn is automatically on the ballot. The party's HQ and the leader's office have received contradictory legal advice on whether he requires 50 nominations. But it is the NEC that will ultimately decide.

So it's not yet known what their decision will be.  I'm guessing that they would prefer a contest rather than having Eagle win by default.

It's pretty sad that 80% of Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn. Of the 40 who supported him on that ballot seven now have said they will not support him as leader. So he is down to 15% support among the people who work with him every day.

Even Greg Selinger retained majority support in his caucus and he went down to an ignominious defeat. His stubornnness ensured his party's slaughter. Corbyn looks to do the same.

One of the attributes of leadership is putting your party's interests above your own ego.

sherpa-finn wrote:

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

Your smugness suggests that you feel some sense of accomplishment.

Mulcair maintained the support of 85 % of his caucus. Corbyn lost 85% of his.
Have any of you Corbyn supports watched him in Parliament or looked at his poll ratings? His MPs did and voted accordingly, even many on the left.

nicky wrote:

Mulcair maintained the support of 85 % of his caucus. Corbyn lost 85% of his. Have any of you Corbyn supports watched him in Parliament or looked at his poll ratings? His MPs did and voted accordingly, even many on the left.

Corbyn didn't 'lose the support of his caucus'. He never had it. The Labour caucus didn't want him as leader, ever. It was the members of the party who elected him to the position, with full knowledge that the caucus didn't want him. That was the membership of the party rejecting the caucus, who apparently didn't get the message, or did get the message and decided to ignore it.

Now they will try to keep Corbyn's name off the ballot, knowing full well the membership of the party will elect him again if his name stands. This isn't a battle between Corbyn and the caucus, it's a battle between the caucus and the party membership. I suggest that if the caucus wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The next election will see Labour voters staying home in droves, and the Labour caucus reduced to a rump that will take decades to recover.

Here's chunkymark on Angela Eagle and the phony 'he's unelectable' line of the caucus. Note chunkymark channeling sherpa-finn at around the 3 minute mark.

Tony Blair has been been through the mill

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

Gee Magoo, I gave you more credit than that bogus comparison.

Notalib wrote:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/embarrassing-video-cracking-everyone-...

Filling in for Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the MP for Wallasey said:

"Instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their narrow self interest."

Eagle is speaking of the Conservatives using the EU referendum to joust for the leadership of their party.

 

There's a Yiddish word for that.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

Corbyn lost a meaningless vote held by his party's MPs, a group which never supported him or accepted him as leader...Mulcair lost a vote of the rank and file, most if whom did support him until his indefensibly disastrous performance during the 2015 election campaigb.  You honestly can't see the difference?

I think his reaction to the Brexit vote miffed a few people.

Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn has said Article 50 - which triggers Britain's formal exit from the EU - must be invoked now.

The Labour leader told the BBC that the British peoples' wishes must be respected and the two-year withdrawal process should be started immediately.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/jeremy-corbyn-invoke-article-5...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-lost-support-trade-84...

Big majority of union members want Corbyn out

Clearly Corbyn is winning on social media.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angela-eagles-call-support-facebook...

Yes Josh,  Corbyn is doing something "right" - ensuring a massive conservative victory in the next election

nicky wrote:

Yes Josh,  Corbyn is doing something "right" - ensuring a massive conservative victory in the next election

He was cruising to a win until the Thatcherites in the Labour party decided to knife him in the back. But I guess caucus solidarity is merely something to bludgeon lefties with and centrists get to ignore it.

nicky wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-la...

Labour forecast to lose 100 seats if Corbyn remains leader

And here's the "source":

One Labour MP said the party could lose more than 100 seats - close to half of the 230 they currently hold - while another said the losses would more likely be around 50. 

Here's the latest actual polling:

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

Post #189 wrote:

I don't think there is a good analogy between Mulcair and Corbyn.  [..] all the hot air from the establishment Labour parliamentarians does not convince me that Corbyn can't win, and I would still be supporting him if I were a Brit.  If he actually leads the party through a disastrously incompetent election campaign, as Mulcair did, then I would quickly change my mind.

The possible analogy is the Brexit referendum that some in the Labour Party may have felt Corbyn could have done a better job with.  I think it's easy for us to discount this, but from reading articles, it was a very big deal to people in the UK.  Consider the reports of the petition on people wanting to have a redo of it.  This had a handful of signatures initially and grew to over four million after the result.  People (largely Labour supporters) were freaked out.  And Corbyn calling for Article 50 to be invoked immediately likely didn't play well either.

Labour suffered losses during the local (council) elections.  Also, they've not been polling well (even before the "coup").  So, given that an election could occur soon, and given that Labour is a party that's been in power and strives for this (IE, most of them don't even consider the idea of "conscience of parliament") it makes sense that some may want to dump the risk of Corbyn.  Also, I've heard the last time a more left leaning campaign was attempted that it was a failure (1983 with Michael Foot).

That said, I still think it would be wise for Labour to keep him.  The enthusiasm of the youth and new members that have been attracted to Labour should not be discounted.  This could lead to a good ground game and a lot of excitement for an election.  There's been a lot of new members who've signed up.

Elections, especially close ones, are won and lost by the level and enthusiasm of party volunteers. One of the jobs of the party leader is to energize those volunteers.

In this respect, the comparison of Mulcair with Corbyn is utterly fallacious. Corbyn has energized the party, has made huge increases in the party membership. Mulcair did neither.

The members of the Parliamentary Labour Party don't care whether the party forms the government. They only want to keep their seats. Well, I supose I can't blame them for that. After all, who wants to be the next government of the UK. Since all of the 'Leave' campaigners are gone, whoever in next Prime Minister will be a 'Remain' poliitician who'll have to negotiate the terms of separation.

And as far as the criticism of Corbyn for saying Article 50 should be declared now, well, why not. What's to be gained by delaying the declaration? The only possible reason for the delay would be to hope that people forget there was a referendum, and that the whole thing just goes away. The situation as it is, is just plain ridiculous. Having had the vote, having the leader of the Conservatives saying she will honour the wishes of the voters, then saying 'well, we will honour the wishes of the voters, but not right now. Let's wait for six months or so' is just plain humourous.

What is to be gained by waiting? I can't see anything, and at the same time, the instability and uncertainess are bound to increase. Corbyn is exactly right. If you're going to go ahead with the separation, waiting won't do anything for you. If you're not going to go ahead with it, just say so, and take the flak.

By the way, what's Angela Eagle's position on declaring Article 50?

Ah, here it is:

Angela Eagle on Article 50

Quote:

Jeremy did not campaign with enough confidence to stay in the European Union. He then came out and said we need to sign Article 50 straight away. That would cause chaos.

We need to spend more time disentangling ourselves from the European Union in a way which does the least damage.

We need to be very focussed on that.

Which betrays a complete misunderstanding of what declaring Article 50 means. It does not mean that the UK would leave the EU immediately. It only means the negotations to 'disentangle' begin. The effective date is two years from the declaration. It seems like Eagle wants to do the negotiating with the EU with referendum in hand, and then if things don't go well, to threaten to declare Article 50. Somehow I doubt the EU is going to go along with this strategy. In fact they are already demanding the UK make the declaration so the negotations can begin.

If I was the leader of the Labour right now, I would call a press conference, I would ask for an election to be called to allow voters to give their opinion on Theresa May as Prime Minister, and I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum. At least we'd get to see whether the voters preferred straight talk to the weasling of the Conservatives and the Eagle led Labour MPs.

As I mentioned earlier I think a more apt comparison is how the Liberal Party treated Dion.  Dion was chosen by delegates of the Liberal membership, but he was rushed out the door by insiders.  Seems similar to what's going on with Corbyn, except Corbyn is resisting whereas Dion did not.

Rev Pesky wrote:

If I was the leader of the Labour right now, I would call a press conference, I would ask for an election to be called to allow voters to give their opinion on Theresa May as Prime Minister, and I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum. At least we'd get to see whether the voters preferred straight talk to the weasling of the Conservatives and the Eagle led Labour MPs.

So what you are saying is that the referendum results should be overthown and voters should be told it isn't an option.