Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The PIT

Labour Leadership

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, davehsug said:

But the public won't vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. I'm afraid if we're ever going to be rid of the Tories, he has to go.

And Eagle is really that much more appealing to the public? I don't think so.

We'll never be rid of the Tories anyway once Scotland goes independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nick L said:

And Eagle is really that much more appealing to the public? I don't think so.

We'll never be rid of the Tories anyway once Scotland goes independent.

I agree with that  I dont think it matters who is in control of labour  Tories will be in charge for at least 2 or 3 more terms    The country (by that i mean England)  is lurching to the right  i dont see labour getting in much time soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Nick L said:

And Eagle is really that much more appealing to the public? I don't think so.

We'll never be rid of the Tories anyway once Scotland goes independent.

The Scottish connection makes no difference.

Say the SNP had only won 50% of the seats they did win in May 2015 GE and the others were won by Labour - The Tories would still have had a majority.

Labour's real problem is that it lost votes and, more importantly, seats (or failed to gain seats) in E&W. In fact the only areas Labour picked up votes was in its heartlands and in a FPTP system those extra votes were irrelevant.

Labour will only get back into power by moving towards the Centre.

They absolutely HAVE to win back some of the Over-50 demographic that they've been losing out to over last couple of GEs. That demographic will NOT vote for a Left-wing party that threatens to have an aggressive Re-Distribution of Wealth approach. People in that demographic *may* accept some need to 'contribute' more, but they wont vote a Left-wing government in if they fear their carefully-built wealth will be under threat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

The Scottish connection makes no difference.

Say the SNP had only won 50% of the seats they did win in May 2015 GE and the others were won by Labour - The Tories would still have had a majority.

Labour's real problem is that it lost votes and, more importantly, seats (or failed to gain seats) in E&W. In fact the only areas Labour picked up votes was in its heartlands and in a FPTP system those extra votes were irrelevant.

Labour will only get back into power by moving towards the Centre.

They absolutely HAVE to win back some of the Over-50 demographic that they've been losing out to over last couple of GEs. That demographic will NOT vote for a Left-wing party that threatens to have an aggressive Re-Distribution of Wealth approach. People in that demographic *may* accept some need to 'contribute' more, but they wont vote a Left-wing government in if they fear their carefully-built wealth will be under threat.

Bit of a maths misunderstanding there, BB. The current working majority is 16 in a house of 650 seats. Scotland has 59 seats, 58 of which are not held by a Conservative. Take out these 59 seats in the scenario where Scotland is independent, we get 591. 329 seats would be Conservative, 262 other parties, 4 of which are Sinn Fein so knock that down to 258.

= overall majority of 71. It will make a huge difference losing a large part of the UK that is hostile to the Conservatives. 

Edited by Nick L
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Nick L said:

Bit of a maths misunderstanding there, BB. The current working majority is 16 in a house of 650 seats. Scotland has 59 seats, 58 of which are not held by a Conservative. Take out these 59 seats in the scenario where Scotland is independent, we get 591. 329 seats would be Conservative, 262 other parties, 4 of which are Sinn Fein so knock that down to 258.

= overall majority of 71. It will make a huge difference losing a large part of the UK that is hostile to the Conservatives. 

I was only using the current UK set-up in my post. Didnt realise you were talking in terms of UK without Scotland. Sorry misunderstanding by me.

Yes, see where you are coming from.

Edited by Bristle boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with the Labour membership is that they have a "rather be right than President" mentality. It is this that has kept them in Opposition for a good part of their history. 

Blair is vilified now, he is cast as Tory-lite but he is the only Labour leader that has won office in the last 40 years. No one else has. For some reason, sections of Labour Party can't see this and they will look at excuses every time to say they could have won with this or that. 

If Labour loses the next election, I can see the factions blaming each other for the failing. If Corbyn is deposed, I can see the left wing blaming the rest of the party that they would have won with their guy and if Corbyn is still leader and loses, the left will blame the rest because they showed no loyal and came across as a divided party. 

Labour seem incapable of learning from their history.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Weather-history said:

The trouble with the Labour membership is that they have a "rather be right than President" mentality. It is this that has kept them in Opposition for a good part of their history. 

Blair is vilified now, he is cast as Tory-lite but he is the only Labour leader that has won office in the last 40 years. No one else has. For some reason, sections of Labour Party can't see this and they will look at excuses every time to say they could have won with this or that. 

If Labour loses the next election, I can see the factions blaming each other for the failing. If Corbyn is deposed, I can see the left wing blaming the rest of the party that they would have won with their guy and if Corbyn is still leader and loses, the left will blame the rest because they showed no loyal and came across as a divided party. 

Labour seem incapable of learning from their history.

 

But doesn't that beg the question of what exactly is a political party for, if it's not to stand for a particular set of principles and hold to them? If that makes them un-electable due to those principles being unpopular with the electorate then does that mean they should change their principles? If Labour, as they arguably did somewhat under Blair, change their policies and principles to more closely match those of the Tories in an attempt to get elected, they then have to enact those policies once in government. What then makes Labour any different from the Tories in that case?

It's somewhat akin to asking the Greens to support nuclear weapons and new coal powered power stations because they are 'popular'. What about UKIP changing to be supporters of the EU if they thought it would gain them votes? The SNP saying, "on second thoughts, we quite like the union"? The LibDems....ehm...well...their principles have already proven to be 'flexible'.

Labour have got a problem because there is such a huge disconnect between the ordinary party members who have a common belief in 'the cause' and their elected MPs who are probably less motivated by principle and more by the thought of losing their jobs. Who is more representative of the electorate though, the 172 MPs or the thousands of party members?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first time this week, Jeremy Corbyn looked like a Prime Minister

I’ve always known that Corbyn is a leader - not one cast from the typical macho mould, but a democratic and thoughtful leader whose strength comes from his ability to listen and understand.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-prime-minister-iraq-war-chilcot-inquiry-labour-party-mps-coup-a7125311.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could all get very, very messy......

 

The BBC has seen a copy of a letter sent by a firm of lawyers on behalf of Jim Kennedy and other trade union members who sit on Labour's ruling National Executive Committee. 

The five-page letter, addressed to the Labour Party general secretary Ian McNicol, cites "serious concerns" about Tuesday's meeting about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, which began at 14.00 BST and is expected to last several more hours. 

It claims that members are being asked to consider the "matters of the most fundamental importance" with the "minimum possible notice".

It also threatens legal action if Mr Corbyn is barred from standing automatically in a future leadership contest. 

Here is a flavour of the arguments in the letter, drafted by the firm Howe & Co solicitors. Firstly on the timing of the meeting. It says.

"The manner in which this special meeting has been arranged has all the hallmarks of anything but “open democracy”. The meeting has been called at such short notice that you are fully aware that it will be very difficult for some NEC members who live outside of London to drop everything and rush to London the next day. The calling of the meeting in this manner goes against the spirit of fairness, transparency and open democracy."

The letter goes on to express concerns that the crucial vote on whether Jeremy Corbyn is entitled to stand automatically in a leadership contest or requires the support of 51 MPs and MEPs to get on the ballot paper could be held in secret and that Mr Corbyn himself might not be able to cast a vote.

"We put you on notice that should legal action be necessary in this case we will seek specific disclosure of the results of any such secret vote that you impose upon the NEC. Voting on such an important matter at NEC level must be open and transparent. It flies in the face of open democracy for it to be behind a veil of secrecy."

The letter then delves into a considerable amount of detail about the party's internal rules and states it would be "wholly unacceptable" for an election to go ahead without Mr Corbyn's name on the ballot.

It cites what it says is "unequivocal legal advice" from two leading QCs that not to do so would be a "clear and patent" breach of the party's rules. It also claims that advice sought separately by the Labour Party also reaches the same conclusion. 

It says that these views must be disclosed in full to the National Executive Committee before any decision is taken.

Raising the possibility of legal action if the decision goes against Mr Corbyn, it says all correspondence relating to the meeting and records of phone calls, e-mails and other material relating to the leadership situation - including involving deputy leader Tom Watson and leadership contender Angela Eagle - must be preserved in case the matter ends up in Court. 

"Any attempt to keep Jeremy Corbyn’s name off the ballot for leader, whilst he remains leader, in light of the current challenge by Angela Eagle (or any other challenger) will be met with legal action for breach of contract, specifically for breach of the 2016 Rule Book Chapter 4 Rule 2Bii. We put you on the clearest notice that we will be instructed to apply to the High Court for immediate injunctive relief should Jeremy Corbyn’s name not go forward automatically to the ballot."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I increasingly like this Corbyn fella.

Also, I thought Scottish politics was quite radical, but it's really tame compared to English politics, which is totally batpoo crazy mental.

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weather-history said:

The trouble with the Labour membership is that they have a "rather be right than President" mentality. It is this that has kept them in Opposition for a good part of their history. 

Blair is vilified now, he is cast as Tory-lite but he is the only Labour leader that has won office in the last 40 years. No one else has. For some reason, sections of Labour Party can't see this and they will look at excuses every time to say they could have won with this or that. 

If Labour loses the next election, I can see the factions blaming each other for the failing. If Corbyn is deposed, I can see the left wing blaming the rest of the party that they would have won with their guy and if Corbyn is still leader and loses, the left will blame the rest because they showed no loyal and came across as a divided party. 

Labour seem incapable of learning from their history.

 

Moreover, he won a second term with a landslide majority. The disastrous adventure in Iraq is what cost him his reputation and that will be his legacy. I'm sure Corbyn is a decent man, but he's practically anonymous on the national stage, preferring instead to address rallies of his own supporters. He was ineffectual during the EU referendum debate and appears to be completely lacking in leadership and personality. It's laughable to think he could win a general election.

I still believe the correct Miliband will step into the fray at some point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The PIT said:

The unions ought to look at there membership Yougov clearly shows that most of the union membership don't support him http://election-data.co.uk/poll-of-trade-union-members

Time they consulted their rank and file me thinks.

Yes, maybe they should....

"Finally 38% of trade union members say they would vote for Mr Corbyn in a leadership election compared to 35% that wouldn’t."

Just because they may think that Labour won't win the next election, or that Corbyn is doing badly, doesn't necessarily mean they don't want him as leader. Of course, the direct choice between Corbyn and Eagle wasn't asked in that poll.

Edit: All the unions are asking for is that Corbyn be included in any ballot. The MPs are trying to avoid that because they know it's likely he'll win.

Edited by Ravelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ravelin said:

 Who is more representative of the electorate though, the 172 MPs or the thousands of party members?

 

Neither. You can fill a stadium with 50,000 cheering Corbyn supporters but what good is that if there is 5 million outside the stadium thinking they're crackers?

Edited by Weather-history
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/ben-bradshaw-tells-corbyn-call-off-your-momentum-thugs/story-29503699-detail/story.html

Apparently it's Corbyn's fault that Angela Eagle's office was bricked.  Twitter's going mad over his remarks. He was interviewed on the BBC but I can't find a link. I don't see how Corbyn can 'control' individuals bent on violence, he too has received death threats etc. All getting very nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weather-history said:

Neither. You can fill a stadium with 50,000 cheering Corbyn supporters but what good is that if there is 5 million outside the stadium thinking you're crackers?

So that means you automatically drop all your principles in an attempt to get into power 'at any cost' ? Ask the LibDems how that worked out for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Barbmac said:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/ben-bradshaw-tells-corbyn-call-off-your-momentum-thugs/story-29503699-detail/story.html

Apparently it's Corbyn's fault that Angela Eagle's office was bricked.  Twitter's going mad over his remarks. He was interviewed on the BBC but I can't find a link. I don't see how Corbyn can 'control' individuals bent on violence, he too has received death threats etc. All getting very nasty.

I'm not surprised she was targeted rent a  mob is a very powerful tool. Expect more trouble and more intimidation of mp's who don't support Corbyn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ravelin said:

So that means you automatically drop all your principles in an attempt to get into power 'at any cost' ? Ask the LibDems how that worked out for them.

I'd argue that he has already abandoned his principles by "supporting" Remain, when his heart clearly wasn't in it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ravelin said:

Yes, maybe they should....

"Finally 38% of trade union members say they would vote for Mr Corbyn in a leadership election compared to 35% that wouldn’t."

Just because they may think that Labour won't win the next election, or that Corbyn is doing badly, doesn't necessarily mean they don't want him as leader. Of course, the direct choice between Corbyn and Eagle wasn't asked in that poll.

Edit: All the unions are asking for is that Corbyn be included in any ballot. The MPs are trying to avoid that because they know it's likely he'll win.

They are still supporting him though I think they should ask their membership I don't think they'll get the support they want. Interesting that there has to be a secret ballot due to intimidation at the executive meeting. Soon as this vile man goes the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ravelin said:

So that means you automatically drop all your principles in an attempt to get into power 'at any cost' ? Ask the LibDems how that worked out for them.

What do you if you keep beating the same old tune and you keep getting the same response? No thank you. That's the problem. Do you keep to the same tune because its fundamental or do you change the tune that will appeal to listener? How do you balance between keeping the core principles and be in a position to deliver them.

Labour and Tories are in effect each coalitions themselves. Tories are a group of centre-right people under the same banner, Labour are a group of centre-left people under the same banner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

I'd argue that he has already abandoned his principles by "supporting" Remain, when his heart clearly wasn't in it.

 

He only has one principle and that's his own power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick L said:

Bit of a maths misunderstanding there, BB. The current working majority is 16 in a house of 650 seats. Scotland has 59 seats, 58 of which are not held by a Conservative. Take out these 59 seats in the scenario where Scotland is independent, we get 591. 329 seats would be Conservative, 262 other parties, 4 of which are Sinn Fein so knock that down to 258.

= overall majority of 71. It will make a huge difference losing a large part of the UK that is hostile to the Conservatives. 

Of course there was a dynamic playing out in some English seats at the last GE where the fear of the SNP propping up a Miliband Government helped the Tories win a few marginal seats they might otherwise have lost.

I suppose it's possible that if, by Scotland gaining independence, this factor is removed it might help Labour? In saying this, the challenge for them is to win in places like Nuneaton and Swindon which, as things stand at the moment, looks like an uphill struggle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Spring has sprung: Warm sunshine today and more to come this week

    At least the weather's doing its best to cheer things up in these difficult times, as spring arrives in earnest. While there'll be a few hiccups on the way, the coming week also looks fine and warm at times, particularly over England and Wales. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Spring warmth and sunshine this weekend but we've got to stay at home

    In normal times we'd be talking about the excellent timing of the sunshine and warmth coming through at the weekend. But of course,a0these aren't normal times, so even though temperatures could get to 20-21c in places tomorrow, we're all going to have to enjoy it from home. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...