nicky wrote:
That's due to the new Tory PM still being in her honeymoon phase. The exact same thing would have happened if any of Corbyn's opponents in the 2015 leadership race had been chosen.
Jeremy Corbyn
Fri, 2016-08-12 00:44
#340
Fri, 2016-08-12 06:49
#341
Corbyn's numbers have always been pretty abysmal. His apologists say they have only tanked because of May's honeymoon ot the revolt of the Parliamentary Labour Party. NOT true.
And to say, as SAP does, that Corbyn is "thriving" is just delusional. He's the best thing that ever happened to the British Conservative Party.
Fri, 2016-08-12 08:12
#342
Again, they have not always been abysmal. He had the lead in three separate polls in April, and was only one point down in the last poll done before May's elevation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdo...
Fri, 2016-08-12 10:02
#343
nicky wrote:
Corbyn's numbers have always been pretty abysmal. His apologists say they have only tanked because of May's honeymoon ot the revolt of the Parliamentary Labour Party. NOT true.
And to say, as SAP does, that Corbyn is "thriving" is just delusional. He's the best thing that ever happened to the British Conservative Party.
He's the best thing that ever happened to the British Conservative Party.
He's the best thing that ever happened to grassroots politics.
Your dislike of Corbyn's politics seems to blind you to the fact Corbyn has opened the party to the masses. Can any Canadian politican go to the media and increase their party numbers by 135 000 members in less than 10 days. This man has made the political party revelant again. The Labour party is no longer play thing for the neoliberal elites. People joining the Labour party have shaken of apathy that have taken over the political left. I am eager and awaiting the political rebirth of the left in canada.
Lets be honest your brand of politics ran into the wall of economic of puh that was 2008 economic crisis. My politics are ascending your politics are in decline. Don't take it personally.
Fri, 2016-08-12 10:18
#344
josh wrote:
The PLP starts a civl war in the party seeking to bring down Corbyn, and then gets to point to the poll numbers they created as justification for bringing him down. The worse, the better. Guess they're just Leninists in disguise.
smells and looks like what happened here to the NDP
Fri, 2016-08-12 11:05
#345
Court of Appeal uphold NEC's voting restrictions.
It means nearly 130,000 members will not be able to vote in the contest.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37057589
Fri, 2016-08-12 11:08
#346
quizzical wrote:
josh wrote:The PLP starts a civl war in the party seeking to bring down Corbyn, and then gets to point to the poll numbers they created as justification for bringing him down. The worse, the better. Guess they're just Leninists in disguise.smells and looks like what happened here to the NDP
LOL. Right.
Fri, 2016-08-12 11:31
#347
Michael Moriarity
quizzical wrote:
josh wrote:The PLP starts a civl war in the party seeking to bring down Corbyn, and then gets to point to the poll numbers they created as justification for bringing him down. The worse, the better. Guess they're just Leninists in disguise.smells and looks like what happened here to the NDP
Logically, it is the opposite of what happened here. In Britain, the masses of the Labour Party membership supported and continue to support Corbyn, while the members of the parliamentary caucus oppose him. In Canada, the masses of the NDP membership (as represented by delegates chosen at riding association general meetings) opposed Mulcair, while the caucus supported and continue to support him. Not parallel at all.
Fri, 2016-08-12 13:12
#348
josh wrote:
Court of Appeal uphold NEC's voting restrictions.
It means nearly 130,000 members will not be able to vote in the contest.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37057589
The link did not work for me so here is a new one, that hopefully works.
This little nugget stood out for me....
“Crucial to the outcome today was the introduction of a new argument by the Labour party HQ’s lawyers, who invoked an obscure clause in the Labour party rules (chapter 4, clause II, 1A), which could be read as giving the NEC the right to ignore all of the rules laid out for leadership elections,” a campaign spokesman said.
“In other words, this is a ‘make it up as you go along’ rule. We do not think that making it up as you go along is a reasonable way to conduct democracy in our party.”
Edited to add link: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/12/labour-wins-appeal-again...
Fri, 2016-08-12 15:21
#349
Quote:
In Canada, the masses of the NDP membership (as represented by delegates chosen at riding association general meetings) opposed Mulcair, while the caucus supported and continue to support him.
That's unknown. It was not OMOV. It was a delegate vote, which may or may not have represented the membership at large.
Fri, 2016-08-12 15:40
#350
Michael Moriarity
mark_alfred wrote:
Quote:In Canada, the masses of the NDP membership (as represented by delegates chosen at riding association general meetings) opposed Mulcair, while the caucus supported and continue to support him.That's unknown. It was not OMOV. It was a delegate vote, which may or may not have represented the membership at large.
So, do you think the delegate slates were stacked with secret Trotskyists, or what?
Fri, 2016-08-12 17:10
#351
Heather Mallick weighs in on "Why Jeremy Corbyn is destroying British Labour".
"I don’t like Corbynistas or Ukippers, because I’m centre-left and object to extremism whether left or right. Post-war Labour history is a hobby of mine and I do very much like the Labour Party, which was always big-tent left. Now, as members prepare for a leadership vote in September, they are fighting each other in court on several fronts. In politics, once you’re in front of a judge, you’ve already lost. Omnishambles, here we come."
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/12/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-destr...
Labour is challenging a High Court ruling giving recent members a vote in its leadership contest, with the appeal hearing expected on Thursday.
The party lost a legal challenge to its rules banning anyone who joined as a member after 12 January from taking part unless they paid an extra £25.
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell had urged Labour not to appeal.
But the party said it would defend the right of its governing NEC "to uphold the rule book".
The court's decision, handed down on Monday, could add anywhere between 126,592 and 150,000 people to the list of those eligible to vote in the contest - according to different estimates.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37009871
18% approval ratings. 80% of his colleagues voting non-confidence. A sure Conservative landslide looming.
Any responsible leader would step aside for the good of the party.
Instead Corbyn seems intent on dragging his party with him into some Gotterdammerung to satisfy some bizarre political deathwish.
I grieve over the agony of a great historic party that deserves so much better than Corbyn.
No, Corbyn deserves a lot better than a parliamentary party that morphed from a socialist into a neoliberal, neocon party.
ICYMI, - this blog by Owen Jones, a well known left-wing journalist, activist and Corbyn fellow-traveller is probably the single piece of political writing over the past couple of months that has most resonated with me, - articulating my concerns, reflecting my perceptions.
And as Jones observes in passing "I’ve spent my entire adult life in socialist politics, and trying to popularise it as best as possible, and I campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn, and I’m now being attacked as a Blairite, crypto-Tory and Establishment stooge."
Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer
Labour and the left teeter on the brink of disaster. There, I said it. I’ll explain why. But first, it has become increasingly common in politics to reduce disagreements to bad faith. Rather than accepting somebody has a different perspective because, well, that’s what they think, you look for an ulterior motive instead. Everything from self-aggrandisement to careerism to financial corruption to the circles in which the other person moves: any explanation but an honest disagreement. It becomes a convenient means of avoiding talking about substance, of course. Because of this poisonous political atmosphere, the first chunk of this blog will be what many will consider rather self-indulgent (lots of ‘I’ and ‘me’, feel free to mock), but hopefully an explanation nonetheless of where I’m coming from...
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.7xhl23lkw
If Labour's on the brink of anything, it's because of the PLP. It's a manufactured crisis.
Intersting piece from someone who supported Corbyn. This was especially interesting to those who followed the Muclair no-deficits fiasco:
from the Owen Jones article posted:
Actually the whole article was self-indulgent. What Owen Jones, and others fail to understand is that the working class is gone. The basis for the Labour Party in the UK, and the basis for the NDP in Canada doesn't exist anymore. As I've said elsewhere, Mulcair was a hopeless leader, but the problem with the NDP is much deeper than his leadership. That is also true of UK Labour. The largest single part of the UK economy now is the financial services industry. Not an industry where any 'socialist' party is likely to make any advances.
The UK Labour Party couldn't win with Jesus Christ as leader.
And in the end what is Owen Jones recipe for Labour? To quote from his article:
'Love bombing the rest of the population', that's Jones' strategy for a Labour win.
Maybe Corbyn should forget poicy entirely and just hand out little plush toys. At least Jones and the PLP would be satisfied.
link doesn't work
Corbyn supporters sweep the Natonal Executive Committee constituency election, giving him a majority on the NEC.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37020815
Fixed. Sorry. I keep forgetting.
Yes please, would you be so kind as to send the memo to Mulcair?
From the BBC story posted by Josh:
There's those damn Trots again! Man! They're everywhere!
Meanwhile, closer to the heart of the problem (same source as above):
In other words, those 'safe seat' Labour MPs may have to justify their existence to the party. That's what's creating this 'climate of distrust'.
I think we've entered the time machine and gone back 35 years.
I'm not aware of the details of Labour Party procedure, but it sounds to me as if "mandatory reselection" simply means that other members of the Labour Party are free to challenge the incumbent MP for the nomination. Is that correct? So what these special snowflakes are complaining about is that they might possibly be forced to obtain a mandate from the party members in their riding before each election. How terrible.
Fear of mandatory re-selection is what led the gang of four, and some two dozen other MP's, to bolt the party and form the SDP in 1981. As Tony Benn once said, it's not socialism that the British establishment fears, it's democracy.
I do not think the process (or history) is quite as linear as you imply. The process for candidate selection (and deselection) in the Labour Party was quite different in 1981. If I recall correctly, a big complaint of the 1981 rebels was that they considered the process at that time insufficiently democratic - as it strongly favoured union block votes over the votes of individual members. And many 'moderate' MPs anticipated that they would not be viewed sympathetically by the leadership of the more 'radical' unions.
And while the nomination votes nowadays will be one-member-one-vote, - I believe the "trigger" mechanism currently in place - by which constituencies with an incumbent MP vote whether or not to have a competitive race for the nomination - still retains some form of institutional (union / affiliated society) vote. But am not clear on the operational details, - or the political implications for incumbents.
Notalib writes "Yes please, would you be so kind as to send the memo to Mulcair?"
If Mulcair should have voluntarily stepped aside given the landscaped he faced then Corbyn should be gone in a flash. Mulcair maintained a strong net positive rating in the polls and the explicit support of 3/4 of his caucus. In fact not a single MP openly called for his ouster.
Corbyn's ratings are abysmal and 80% of his caucus voted non-confidence.
Yes, he has the support of the MPs, but only 10% in the latest poll in the country. Since Corbyn's polling performance is what his opponents in parliament are pointing to, why shouldn't the same hold true for Mulcair. Who's doing far far worse.
Actually, if you take the time to read the letters and statements of Corbyn's caucus critics, by far their overarching concerns related to his basic leadership management abilities or lack thereof, - ie his perceived inability to deal effectively with issues of complexity, coherence and nuance, - be that related to policy statements, working relationships or communications and operational management. The sorts of things that would be wholly visible to colleagues in caucus and the party, but not immmediately obvious to the broader membership and public.
The polling concerns followed, rather than lead.
Doesn't really answer the question. And the "complaints" seem to shift. When they get push back on performance, they switch to polling. And vice versa. Basically, they didn't want him to begin with, and have been looking for a way to oust him from day 1. They could at least be honest.
The Mulcair NDP lost over half of the seats they had going into the election. As the old saying goes, that's the only poll that counts.
The strategy of the PLP seems to be to go around telling all and sundry what a hopeless leader Jeremy Corbyn is, then pointing to polls that suggest their undermining is having a effect. Well, it's a strategy. In the end it won't save the Labour Party because the residual effect of the strategy is most likely to be more of a 'pox on both their houses' reaction from the electorate.
But if some of those 'safe' seat Labour MPs can save their jobs, that'll be worthwhile, right?
The Labour establishment would rather see the party crash and burn than to be led by a leftist.
I'm no expert, but it sure does look like that to me.
Miliband too was a leftist, and no rebellion of the PLP happened against him that I'm aware of.
He was not a leftist.
'Leftist' is kind of a subjective word. What did Milliband in was the loss of 48 seats in the last UK election.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/jeremy-corbyns-fir...
This is fun! My turn!
Corbynistas would rather see the Labour Party crash and burn than -
.... compromise the purity of their political beliefs.
.... to be led by a moderate who understands political compromise and incrementalism.
.... admit that Jeremy is actually incapable of leading his way out of a paper bag.
.... have to convince any non-died-in-the-wool socialist why they should ever vote Labour again.
Rather remarkable assertions since people like Corbyn stayed in the party even after it became a Tory lite party led by the likes of Blair, Brown and Mandelson.
Jeremy Corbyn ally Steve Rotheram to stand as Labour candidate for mayor of Liverpool
Steve Rotheram has been announced as Labour's mayoral candidate in the Liverpool City Region.
The close ally of Jeremy Corbyn beat current elected mayor Joe Anderson and former frontbencher Luciana Berger to be selected to fight the election next year.
Mr Rotheram, a parliamentary aide to the Labour leader, said he was “deeply honoured and humbled” to be picked and pledged to “stand up for ordinary people”.
“I am extremely grateful to the thousands of party members who have chosen to place their trust in me and I am determined not to let them down,” he said....
TNS Poll: Who would make the best leader for Britain? ABC1 Voters: May 49% Corbyn 13%
The PLP starts a civl war in the party seeking to bring down Corbyn, and then gets to point to the poll numbers they created as justification for bringing him down. The worse, the better. Guess they're just Leninists in disguise.
nicky, could you please post the source of this polling chart? I'd be interested in correlating the numbers with events. The caption indicates that this is Jan. 14 to the present. So, it would seem that there was a time about a month ago when Labour was almost tied with the Cons, before a precipitous fall. I suspect this huge drop is associated with the Cons choosing May, in an orderly fashion, while the PLP were intentionally sabotaging their own party.
Despite the well-documented media bias attacking Corbyn from day 1, and later supporting the Labour NEC coup, this is not really about Corbyn and "Corbynistas" anymore than the Sanders campaign was about Sanders.
It's about a sizable portion of the population sick of the neoliberal staus quo represented by "New Labour" and the other parties.
There may never be enough voters in a general election to generally elect another progressive candidate against the shitstream of the corporate media in any modern nation.
What is clear is that a sizable portion of the population wants at least a voice, at least a faint chance, for something other than the "New Labour" non-alternative.
Under the alternative represented (for the moment) by Corbyn, Labour Party membership has swelled to 500,000, more than the membership of all the other parties put together (that's an awful lot of "trots" and "entryists").
Even the corporate press consensus no gives "Unite" candidate Owen Smith no chance at all of winning the leadership, now that the NEC attempts at thwarting democracy have failed.
This is hardly surprising given that the the only thing the former Pfizer executive seems to stand for with consistancy is opportunism:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ian-sinclair/who-is-owen-smith
Michael, it is a TNS you can find on the New Statesman website
Here is more confirmation Corbyn is taling Lanour down the toilet
http://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/763634857830473729/photo/1
I had to put with neoliberal washingson consences until the crash in 2008 and listen that history has ended. American capitalism had won the day and we all must submit to its material charms. I did not give in at that point because I believed in my heart and head that marx was right that capitialism is prone to instability. Before the crisis I know that day would come but I did not know the mechanics of the collaspe that marx predicted. When I use the word collaspe I dont mean it will happen in a day or a month. It will happen over a decade. Just watvhing the reponse to the 2008 by our economic overlords I have come convinced that they can manage the decline but they can stop the decline. I like to think the situation can be explained by saying the decline of capatialism is just leaving very rich compost. From the compost every kind of life is growing with new ideas, old ideas, and old ideas masquarding as new ideas.
So when you see Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, Le Pen, etc thriving it not just trick of fate. People are living in interest times the messages of the statis quo politcians is being rejected. Corbyn is a solution to have people are feeling on a daily basis. He is not somekind of outlieier with no suppirt. He is just a refelction of the needs of a growing part of the country. Even if you get rid of Corbyn it will not mean that you have solved anythng. There are people out there will demand to heard.