Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[Butts]

no it didn't - Tony Blair came after John Smith

Early alzheimers a terrible thing

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Quite- Kinnock's demise saw John Smith as his successor.

I often wonder how things might have been if John Smith hadn't died when he did. (I know it's no use speculating, but sometimes it can't be helped!). He does seem to be quite forgotten, his tenure at the top of the party was brief and perhaps he didn't have time to make too many enemies, as far as I can tell, and the Tories were, of course, becoming hopelessly weak and divided. His death was good timing for the New Labour project, I suppose.

 

[HSTEd]

I think John Smith would have won easily in 1997. He seemed to actually be on the ball - rather unlike Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Busaholic]

I often wonder how things might have been if John Smith hadn't died when he did. (I know it's no use speculating, but sometimes it can't be helped!). He does seem to be quite forgotten, his tenure at the top of the party was brief and perhaps he didn't have time to make too many enemies, as far as I can tell, and the Tories were, of course, becoming hopelessly weak and divided. His death was good timing for the New Labour project, I suppose.

Although John Smith was regarded as being on the centre-right of the party, the hard left, as represented by Tony Benn et al, preferred him to a soft leftwinger like Kinnock, because of the latter's fighting of Militant Tendency, and the splitting of the party with the formation of the SDP previously meant the stomach for more infighting was lessened; sadly for the Labour Party, I see no such accord now, whatever the result of the hustings.

 

[DarloRich]

Damn those Jonny come latelies! Their opinions are sick, bordering on perverted, and massively less valid than anyone who joined a day before the £3 fee was introduced. Cretins! Why couldn't those plebs join another party and not ruin it for us? [emoji24] [emoji6]

I wonder how many have attended a branch meeting, knocked on doors, posted flyers, rasied funds, talked to people, run community events or any of the other things CLP people do all the time - like trying to get a labour government elected to power.

Thats why it annoys some of us they get a vote for doing little at all. There is more to membership than parroting pro Jeremy/ down with Tory slogans.

Corbyn is letting the Labour representatives, MPs the people elected, make their own decision in the best interests of their constituents. How oppressive! What a terrible dictator he is! He's the next Pol Pot I tells ya!

He is the party leader and has an obligation to support and champion Labour policy. Trident is part of our manifesto and commitment to our voters. HE and all other Labour MP's were elected on the basis of a pro trident manifesto. He should be backing that policy which was democratically approved by members via conference.

His chaps are happy to whine on about their democratic rights being respected. How about offering the same to the electorate? Or is it a case of one rule for Jeremy and one rule for the rest. He expects loyalty yet shows none himself!

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder how many have attended a branch meeting, knocked on doors, posted flyers, rasied funds, talked to people, run community events or any of the other things CLP people do all the time - like trying to get a labour government elected to power.

Thats why it annoys some of us they get a vote for doing little at all. There is more to membership than parroting pro Jeremy/ down with Tory slogans.



He is the party leader and has an obligation to support and champion Labour policy. Trident is part of our manifesto and commitment to our voters. HE and all other Labour MP's were elected on the basis of a pro trident manifesto. He should be backing that policy which was democratically approved by members via conference.

His chaps are happy to whine on about their democratic rights being respected. How about offering the same to the electorate? Or is it a case of one rule for Jeremy and one rule for the rest. He expects loyalty yet shows none himself!

Perfectly put replies to both posts. Have a like

 

[Senex]

He is the party leader and has an obligation to support and champion Labour policy. Trident is part of our manifesto and commitment to our voters. HE and all other Labour MP's were elected on the basis of a pro trident manifesto. He should be backing that policy which was democratically approved by members via conference.

His chaps are happy to whine on about their democratic rights being respected. How about offering the same to the electorate? Or is it a case of one rule for Jeremy and one rule for the rest. He expects loyalty yet shows none himself!

Very well put -- it does indeed seem to be one rule for Jeremy Corbyn (and his coterie) annd another one for everyone else. This is fine for a leader who simply expects to be obeyed because of his office, but not very convincing for a leader who wants people to follow him because they are convinced by his choices and arguments.

 

[asylumxl]

Perfectly put replies to both posts. Have a like

Simple pleasures for simple men .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder how many have attended a branch meeting, knocked on doors, posted flyers, rasied funds, talked to people, run community events or any of the other things CLP people do all the time - like trying to get a labour government elected to power.

Thats why it annoys some of us they get a vote for doing little at all. There is more to membership than parroting pro Jeremy/ down with Tory slogans.

Perhaps that may be true of some of the recent members, but conversely some new members feel strongly about their cause and do participate in such things. Whether or not you personally agree with them shouldn't make their work any less valid.

He is the party leader and has an obligation to support and champion Labour policy. Trident is part of our manifesto and commitment to our voters. HE and all other Labour MP's were elected on the basis of a pro trident manifesto. He should be backing that policy which was democratically approved by members via conference.

His chaps are happy to whine on about their democratic rights being respected. How about offering the same to the electorate? Or is it a case of one rule for Jeremy and one rule for the rest. He expects loyalty yet shows none himself!

That's hilariously ironic, given the current going ons on both sides of the party divide. Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

And there in lies half the problem, everyone is too busy at each others throats to try and unite against the Tory government. And that is the REAL reason Labour is unelectable.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I wonder how many have attended a branch meeting, knocked on doors, posted flyers, rasied funds, talked to people, run community events or any of the other things CLP people do all the time - like trying to get a labour government elected to power.

Thats why it annoys some of us they get a vote for doing little at all. There is more to membership than parroting pro Jeremy/ down with Tory slogans.
!

It has ever been thus. I've been active since the early 1980's, depending on personal circumstances. I've always found that there is a hard core of people in the branch who are constant activists. However I think that the use of Social Media is taking over from the door knocking and 'phone canvassing...it's far more efficient.

 

[Gutfright]

He is the party leader and has an obligation to support and champion Labour policy. Trident is part of our manifesto and commitment to our voters. HE and all other Labour MP's were elected on the basis of a pro trident manifesto. He should be backing that policy which was democratically approved by members via conference.

His chaps are happy to whine on about their democratic rights being respected. How about offering the same to the electorate? Or is it a case of one rule for Jeremy and one rule for the rest. He expects loyalty yet shows none himself!

So a manifesto that the electorate rejected at the last General Election should not be changed? Do you want the Tories to stay in power forever? The people made their voices heard, and their message was that Labour need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better manifesto. Corbyn is right to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and to try to offer them something different than the failed Tory-lite manifesto of last year.

Corbyn didn't whip Labour MPs to vote against Trident. He did the best thing for democracy and allowed a free vote. I fail to see how allowing the democratically elected representatives of the people to make their own decision makes Corbyn a dictator,

 

[Domh245]

So a manifesto that the electorate rejected at the last General Election should not be changed? Do you want the Tories to stay in power forever? The people made their voices heard, and their message was that Labour need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better manifesto. Corbyn is right to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and to try to offer them something different than the failed Tory-lite manifesto of last year.

Corbyn didn't whip Labour MPs to vote against Trident. He did the best thing for democracy and allowed a free vote. I fail to see how allowing the democratically elected representatives of the people to make their own decision makes Corbyn a dictator,

A manifesto that the 232 labour MPs were elected on? It should be changed in the run up to the 2020 election, not part way through this parliament.

 

[asylumxl]

I was under the impression that MPs would make different promises to their constituents based on the needs of the area they serve.

Shows what I know. They should all apparently be mindless drones following the party line.

 

[furnessvale]

Corbyn didn't whip Labour MPs to vote against Trident. He did the best thing for democracy and allowed a free vote. I fail to see how allowing the democratically elected representatives of the people to make their own decision makes Corbyn a dictator,

Corbyn made a pragmatic decision knowing that a major revolt against the whip would simply be another nail in his coffin.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Corbyn made a pragmatic decision knowing that a major revolt against the whip would simply be another nail in his coffin.

Are you privy to his thinking? I would suggest that Gutfright is correct. Jeremy Corbyn knows that most MP's are pro Trident and therefore it was fair to allow a free vote. A 'revolt' by pro-Trident MP's wouldn't have done any more damage than they have already.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was under the impression that MPs would make different promises to their constituents based on the needs of the area they serve.

Shows what I know. They should all apparently be mindless drones following the party line.

Clearly, MPs should be able to make their own decisions on matters of conscience, and should be able to vote for or against Trident, according to their best judgement.

However, I think the point is that many Corbyn supporters - and to some extent Corbyn himself - appear not to follow this logic when it comes to support for the leader. The no confidence vote, and the fact of MPs challenging Corbyn for the leadership has been widely condemned amongst Corbyn-supporting circles on the basis that MPs should (presumably, mindlessly) follow what the members voted for a year ago and anything else is an act of (so far as you can judge from many comments) treachery. This seems somewhat hypocritical to me. If you defend Corbyn's right to vote according to his conscience on Trident - even though his vote is against party policy - then you should likewise defend the right of MPs to follow their consciences on the matter of challenging Corbyn.

 

[AlterEgo]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Tories have their house pretty much in order.

May gave a solid, if not stellar performance at PMQs today. Labour continue to be a joke. Sad.

 

[asylumxl]

Clearly, MPs should be able to make their own decisions on matters of conscience, and should be able to vote for or against Trident, according to their best judgement.

However, I think the point is that many Corbyn supporters - and to some extent Corbyn himself - appear not to follow this logic when it comes to support for the leader. The no confidence vote, and the fact of MPs challenging Corbyn for the leadership has been widely condemned amongst Corbyn-supporting circles on the basis that MPs should (presumably, mindlessly) follow what the members voted for a year ago and anything else is an act of (so far as you can judge from many comments) treachery. This seems somewhat hypocritical to me. If you defend Corbyn's right to vote according to his conscience on Trident - even though his vote is against party policy - then you should likewise defend the right of MPs to follow their consciences on the matter of challenging Corbyn.

Apart from the fact the election of a leader of the Labour party is not decided by its MPs, but rather decided by its members

Corbyn is allowing another leadership election. Please explain how that is undemocratic?

 

[DarloRich]

So a manifesto that the electorate rejected at the last General Election should not be changed? Do you want the Tories to stay in power forever? The people made their voices heard, and their message was that Labour need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better manifesto. Corbyn is right to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and to try to offer them something different than the failed Tory-lite manifesto of last year.

Corbyn didn't whip Labour MPs to vote against Trident. He did the best thing for democracy and allowed a free vote. I fail to see how allowing the democratically elected representatives of the people to make their own decision makes Corbyn a dictator,

Not without the will of the members via the party conference. That is the democratic policy setting vehicle of the Labour party. If Corbyn want sot change it he can propose it via the usual channels and let us as members decide.

It is interesting that we hear a lot fomr the Corbyinans about thier democracy and allowing thier £3 army to decide the direction of our party. we hear little about respecting democracy when it doesn't suit thier vague agenda. I, for one, am sick of it. I want them out of the party and Corbyn out of the leaders chair.

I didn't vote for him last time. I wont this time. If we return him as leader ( which i think we will) we hand the Tories the next election. How does that help our people?

A real leader would have whipped and dealt with the rebels and/or actually led the party rather than opposed our own policy because it didn't suit his views. That is the difference between a 30 year rebel and a leader; Understanding that with the power comes a responsibility to, sometimes, get dirty.

I was under the impression that MPs would make different promises to their constituents based on the needs of the area they serve.

Shows what I know. They should all apparently be mindless drones following the party line.

They are elected on our manifesto which is approved by conference of member representatives. Whilst there is always local focus the central strategy comes from the manifesto.

Odd that it is OK for the leader and his hencemen to expect MP's to be mindless drones when it comes to supporting him. That requirement is in no way contradictory!

 

[asylumxl]

Not without the will of the members via the party conference. That is the democratic policy setting vehicle of the Labour party. If Corbyn want sot change it he can propose it via the usual channels and let us as members decide.

It is interesting that we hear a lot fomr the Corbyinans about thier democracy and allowing thier £3 army to decide the direction of our party. we hear little about respecting democracy when it doesn't suit thier vague agenda. I, for one, am sick of it. I want them out of the party and Corbyn out of the leaders chair.

I didn't vote for him last time. I wont this time. If we return him as leader ( which i think we will) we hand the Tories the next election. How does that help our people?

A real leader would have whipped and dealt with the rebels and/or actually led the party rather than opposed our own policy because it didn't suit his views. That is the difference between a 30 year rebel and a leader; Understanding that with the power comes a responsibility to, sometimes, get dirty.



They are elected on our manifesto which is approved by conference of member representatives. Whilst there is always local focus the central strategy comes from the manifesto.

Odd that it is OK for the leader and his hencemen to expect MP's to be mindless drones when it comes to supporting him. That requirement is in no way contradictory!

Has he expected them to be mindless and support him, again I'll reiterate that he is not preventing another leadership race being run?

You've also not touched on other points. Is someone only a real Labour party member to you if it's your idea of Labour?

 

[DarloRich]

Has he expected them to be mindless and support him, again I'll reiterate that he is not preventing another leadership race being run?

You've also not touched on other points. Is someone only a real Labour party member to you if it's your idea of Labour?

He doesn't have the power to prevent a leadership contest! His acolytes have been very quick to condemn anyone who dares to voice an opinion against their man. Very quick and very vociferous.

And I have no issue with members voting for people I don't vote for in an election. I just wish some of them would turn up and help with branch activities and take a full part in helping to deliver a labour government. Although I guess just chanting pro Jeremy slogans is much easier and less time intrusive. It would also be nice if they made the same financial contribution to party funds that full members make.

What other points have I not addressed?

And there in lies half the problem, everyone is too busy at each others throats to try and unite against the Tory government. And that is the REAL reason Labour is unelectable.

No - the reason we are unelectable is that we have a leader who doesn't lead, has a vague policy message, doesn't look like a PM in waiting, doesn't interact with anyone one other than his own supporters, has sod all media profile ( and doesn't want to change that) and is encouraged by people who don't want to win an election and deliver a labour government!

And you wonder why people are angry and concerned - Although I guess it is much easier just to blame traitorous red Tory Blairites than look at the real reasons for our current, seemingly terminal, decline from serious political party to a right on pressure/discussion group! The real reasons land at the door of the leader. It is simply inconceivable that he will win an election despite his supporters almost certainly returning him as leader.

 

[asylumxl]

No - the reason we are unelectable is that we have a leader who doesn't lead, has a vague policy message, doesn't look like a PM in waiting, doesn't interact with anyone one other than his own supporters, has sod all media profile ( and doesn't want to change that) and is encouraged by people who don't want to win an election and deliver a labour government!

And you wonder why people are angry and concerned - Although I guess it is much easier just to blame traitorous red Tory Blairites than look at the real reasons for our current, seemingly terminal, decline from serious political party to a right on pressure/discussion group! The real reasons land at the door of the leader. It is simply inconceivable that he will win an election despite his supporters almost certainly returning him as leader.

And you've proven my point. How can Labour form an effective government if it can't even form an effective opposition to anyone but each other?

Where did I even mention or blame the Tory Blairites for the parties lack of unity? Or did you just decide to make a gross assumption? The blame for this mess rests with both sides. The Labour party needs a united message, one with balance and compromises made on both sides.

The Tory party, despite their recent issues, are literally laughing at the Labour party tearing itself apart from the inside. They can't believe their luck I'm sure.

I feel we are both saying the same thing in different words (Labour needs one message, united). Somehow wires still get crossed. I suppose it's indicative of the entire party at the moment. Like beating your head against a brick wall.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was under the impression that MPs would make different promises to their constituents based on the needs of the area they serve. Shows what I know.

They should all apparently be mindless drones following the party line.

I see that you appear to have had what is sometimes termed as a "Damascene moment"...

 

[asylumxl]

I see that you appear to have had what is sometimes termed as a "Damascene moment"...

That's hardly blaming the red Tory Blairites. It's pointing out that local MPs will have different issues to deal with.

 

[Domh245]

Some more polling on voting intention has come about, it makes grim reading for Labour.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/755750259263938561

Then there is also this bar chart that suggests that Labour are behind the conservatives in everywhere bar the north, make of it what you will.

 

[ainsworth74]

They're potentially losing in Scotland to the Tories. In Scotland!!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They're potentially losing in Scotland to the Tories. In Scotland!!

I suspect the Scottish picture would look a bit different if the SNP vote share was included in the graph
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apart from the fact the election of a leader of the Labour party is not decided by its MPs, but rather decided by its members

Actually, the election of the leader is decided by both MPs and members. MPs get a say by virtue of the need for MPs to nominate the candidates - which is presumably a nod to the fact that the leader has two jobs: Run the party in the country, and run the party in Parliament, and it's therefore appropriate for both groups - MPs and members - to have a reasonable say in the decision. (Ignoring the ambiguity in the rules about an existing leader getting nominations - I would guess that ambiguity is only there because the people who drafted the rules never thought about the possibility of the current situation arising).

Corbyn is allowing another leadership election. Please explain how that is undemocratic?

Oh the leadership election is reasonably democratic. I never said it wasn't. The targets of my comments were there the many Corbyn supporters who were basically saying (words to the effect that) that the MPs had no business questioning Corbyn's leadership, and by implication therefore that the leadership election shouldn't have been instigated.

 

[Butts]

They're potentially losing in Scotland to the Tories. In Scotland!!

And your point is.....:roll:

As the ONLY Scottish Domiciled Conservative Voter on the whole of this forum, I am somewhat pleased ...grasps at straws

 

[Busaholic]

And your point is.....:roll:

As the ONLY Scottish Domiciled Conservative Voter on the whole of RailUK Forums I am somewhat pleased ...grasps at straws

There is no-one more Conservative than a Scottish Conservative! I speak as a relative of somebody who was not only a Tory MP for a Scottish seat but also a Cabinet Minister in a Conservative government. Actually, there has always been a core support for that party in Scotland, just as there has been (maybe still is) for the Liberals in parts of the country, but a first-past- the- post system doesn't throw this up.

 

[PHILIPE]

Reported 180,000 more Labour Party members have signed up by paying their £25. I wonder where is the woodwork they have crawled out of. If Corbynites thay are members who, so far as the future of the party is concerned, can see no further than the end of their noses. I think I read that earlier mass signings up earlier prompted suspicions over the numbers being genuine.

 

[Busaholic]

Reported 180,000 more Labour Party members have signed up by paying their £25. I wonder where is the woodwork they have crawled out of. If Corbynites thay are members who, so far as the future of the party is concerned, can see no further than the end of their noses. I think I read that earlier mass signings up earlier prompted suspicions over the numbers being genuine.

The credit/debit card details of these 180,000 people should not be validated without an address and postcode that corresponds with the billing address given to those card companies, so the vast majority should be genuine. Some wiil have registered in order to back Corbyn, but the only two I know of have done so in the hope of helping to depose him by voting for Smith, even though both would rather have supported Eagle.