Who do you support for Labour party leader?

[Domh245]

What's needed now is for those centrists in the party to try to persuade Corbyn to ditch some of the more unrealistic leftist policies... which will only succeed if his inner-circle learns to compromise and to accept constructive criticism. The centre of the party also needs to compromise too, the two factions will have to meet somewhere in the middle. As long as there are Momentum bods screaming to deselect "Blairites" (are there really any left who wear that label with pride?) a compromise will be difficult.

It's rather diconcerting to hear Corbyn quoting Jo Cox in his victory speech, when prior to her death she was on Momentum's "hit list" of so-called Red Tories to be deselected. Her presence on that list also suggests that Momentum either hadn't researched their hit list very thoroughly, or that any purge would cast the net so wide that anyone who wasn't a card-carrying Trotskyist would be purged.

What is also needed is for Corbyn to start acting like the leader of a major political party and start running his shadow cabinet competently. We've all seen the reports of almost comedic levels of incompetence.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is that why so many more people buy it on a daily basis in comparison to the Daily Mirror? I think you would have liked the Reynolds News as Sunday reading.

Come on, Paul. A man of your wisdom and refined tastes should know that something being popular does not neccessarily mean that it is objectively of high-quality!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is also needed is for Corbyn to start acting like the leader of a major political party and start running his shadow cabinet competently. We've all seen the reports of almost comedic levels of incompetence.

Agreed. Reports? We've even seen footage of it!

 

[Phil.]

Yes, you're correct, didn't read your first post, have done so now.....but SWP is a tiny group of people and I think that you give them far greater influence in affecting the future of the Labour Party than they in fact have. You don't check under your bed for reds each night, do you?

There might be more of them with the power to inflict a greater amount of political damage than their comparative few numbers suggest.

 

[RichmondCommu]

well that's the next Conservative government elected then. Well done people. Well done.

And the government after that because we will lose so many seats at the next election that it will be impossible to win the following one.

Well done Momentum for driving good, decent moderate people from the Labour Party (you know those members who made modest donations to the party, had the courage to engage with the public and are in touch with reality). Instead we have new middle class members who wouldn't know poverty if they fell over it and graduates from middle class backgrounds who have bright futures, all of which in time will leave the Party and look for the next new 'right on' thing to get involved in.

 

[Trog]

There might be more of them with the power to inflict a greater amount of political damage than their comparative few numbers suggest.

If they are keen and play the system they can have an influence beyond what their raw numbers might suggest. Concentrating themselves on certain constituency's for example. Another tactic that was reported in the past was holding many long and boring meetings, so the normal members got bored or could not find the time to attend, then packing a meeting and passing votes that the normal members would vote down if they were there.

Looks like the Labour Party is going to be fit only for entertainment for years to come.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Come on, Paul. A man of your wisdom and refined tastes should know that something being popular does not neccessarily mean that it is objectively of high-quality!

I think that both of us accept that both the Sun and the Daily Mirror are not "objectively of high quality", as that particular attribute is not at the front of the mindset of those who buy these on a daily basis.

 

[Johnuk123]

There is a good possibility the next labour prime minister hasn't been born yet.

 

[backontrack]

Exit polls indicate that Owen won in the pre-2015 members category.

Says it all really.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Sun isn't a proper newspaper.

Is that why so many more people buy it on a daily basis in comparison to the Daily Mirror? I think you would have liked the Reynolds News as Sunday reading.

Oh come on, you can't be serious.

 

[northwichcat]

Robert Peston has pointed out the majority of Labour members in Scotland voted for Owen Smith and regaining seats in Scotland would be key to Labour winning a General Election.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the Blairite wing of Labour have been so good at opposing the Tories, right?

Oh wait... they don't oppose the Tories at all. Because they are Tories in all but name

Liz Kendall is a 'Tory' according to many of the Corbyn backers. However, she strongly opposed the Tory's changes to Trade Union legislation and was the person who pointed out much of what Boris Johnson called EU red tape meant that Britain could not opt out of giving employees decent holiday entitlement, maternity/paternity leave etc.

A certain someone called Jeremy Corbyn has actually voted the same way as David Cameron in more parliamentary votes than the Blarites in the Labour party.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well that is the end of the labour party as a serious progressive force.
The people will never vote for unilateralists.

In an interview Tim Farron described how the Lib Dems could draw inspiration from what happened in the Canadian federal elections where the Liberal party came third in 2011 with 18.9% of the votes and in 2015 came first with 39.5% of the votes. While that's unlikely to happen for the Lib Dems in Britain I imagine the odds of the Lib Dems increasing their share of votes at the next election have gone up.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Liz Kendall has been part of Labour for nearly 25 years, so that obviously makes her a Tory. :roll: She was smeared like that all throughout the leadership contest last year, and yet Corbyn supporters claim it's moderates who are distracting Labour from opposing the Tories, when it was them who began this whole sorry charade. Imagining where Labour could be right now if her or Yvette Cooper had become leader, instead of the shambles we've got now, makes me sad.

I really hope Tim Farron can capitalise on this. The Lib Dems have been running rampant in the local council by-elections this year (think they've won 18 seats since the May elections, from all major parties), yet their national share of support hasn't appeared to increase so far.

 

[Phil.]

If they are keen and play the system they can have an influence beyond what their raw numbers might suggest. Concentrating themselves on certain constituency's for example. Another tactic that was reported in the past was holding many long and boring meetings, so the normal members got bored or could not find the time to attend, then packing a meeting and passing votes that the normal members would vote down if they were there.

That's exactly the tactics.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh come on, you can't be serious.

Since I obtained my information from the official statistical returns complied from the actual sales of national newspapers, which fortunately are not yet in the hands of "Momentum" to so compile, I cannot see what your problem is.

You would do well to read the exact words in the posting that I made that was made in reply to a posting by Alter Ego.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Which 3 are you talking about? The New Labour wins from 97-05 when the Tories literally couldn't organise a p*ss-up in a brewery? Or some other time? Bear in mind that Labour lost the 2015 election precisely because they let the Tory called Ed Balls devise their economic strategy...

Anyway, Labour have fallen in the polls big time, because the Blairites/right wing people in the Labour party have chosen to focus attention on their attempted coup, rather than on the big split in the Tory party; inevitably the right wing press have jumped all over this. Now it's time for the Blairites to eff off and either get on with the job, or go and join the Tories that they've so loyally refused to oppose all the time they've been in "opposition"...

The tories have got behind May quite convincingly except Cameron who threw his toys out of the pram. Even Gideon has mostly kept schtum and I suspect he will continue to do so. May reminds me of another Tory leader and I suspect she will emulate her (god help the country).

The only way there could've been an effective opposition to that is with centrism sadly instead we have Michael Foot all over again.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is that why so many more people buy it on a daily basis in comparison to the Daily Mirror? I think you would have liked the Reynolds News as Sunday reading.

Yes, of course if people buy it that makes it a "proper newspaper"(!)

The Reynolds News sounds like it was a lot of left wing bottom water if you ask me. I'm a bit confused why you have kept insinuating I'm some sort of leftist or Corbyn acolyte.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

What is the best recent General Election performance of someone standing as a candidate for the Socialist Workers Party?

No idea. They are just as irrelevant as the Monster Raving Loony Party. They are kept alive by the media constantly saying what a threat they pose.

I'm grudgingly sticking with Labour for the meantime, but if deselections of Labour MPs happen,

Deselection is another myth. If the boundary changes happen, and two MP's are fighting to secure one seat, one will not be selected. Whenever I have voted for a candidate I have never thought that I am voting to give them a job come what may.

. Another tactic that was reported in the past was holding many long and boring meetings, so the normal members got bored or could not find the time to attend, then packing a meeting and passing votes that the normal members would vote down if they were there.

Labour party meetings have never been a bundle of fun, from my experience over forty odd years. Is your experience different or are you just relying on the usual media reports?

Liz Kendall has been part of Labour for nearly 25 years, so that obviously makes her a Tory. :roll: She was smeared like that all throughout the leadership contest last year, and yet Corbyn supporters claim it's moderates who are distracting Labour from opposing the Tories, when it was them who began this whole sorry charade. Imagining where Labour could be right now if her or Yvette Cooper had become leader, instead of the shambles we've got now, makes me sad.

I recall from last years election that Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall had a lot of respect for each other. You might also recall that Kendall and Cooper abstained in the vote on the Government's Welfare bill proposal. Andy Burnham, who has behaved with great dignity over the last year, said, quite rightly, that this really did put many members in the Corbyn camp.

 

[northwichcat]

Bear in mind that Labour lost the 2015 election precisely because they let the Tory called Ed Balls devise their economic strategy...

Really? Is that why Labour got almost as many votes as they did in 2005 when they won with a narrow majority?
The problems Labour faced at the last election were:
1. Loss of support in Scotland. With the FPTP system that allowed the SNP to be the third largest party in the House of Commons despite getting significantly less votes than the Lib Dems and UKIP and take a significant number of seats off Labour.
2. The demise of the Lib Dems benefited the Conservatives a lot more than Labour.

Neither the Conservatives or Labour put forward a full concise economic plan before the 2015 election. Labour promised to reintroduce the 10p income tax rate but did not reveal what the lower and upper thresholds would be for that tax rate. Therefore, you could not work out whether you'd be better or worse off under Labour and Labour could not reveal how quickly or not they would cut the deficit. The Conservatives promised to cut the deficit by a certain amount (which has now been scrapped) but wouldn't reveal all the cuts they were proposing to allow the deficit to be cut by as much as they were promising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Andy Burnham, who has behaved with great dignity over the last year

Burnham accepted the original result and moved on. He now wants his future to be as Labour Metro Mayor for Greater Manchester and has said he will stand down as Leigh MP if he is elected mayor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problems Labour faced at the last election were:
1. Loss of support in Scotland. With the FPTP system that allowed the SNP to be the third largest party in the House of Commons despite getting significantly less votes than the Lib Dems and UKIP and take a significant number of seats off Labour.
2. The demise of the Lib Dems benefited the Conservatives a lot more than Labour.

I think you forgot the most important problem:
3. The Conservatives got 2 million votes more than Labour did
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? Is that why Labour got almost as many votes as they did in 2005 when they won with a narrow majority?

Sorry, but that has to be one of the most misleading statistics I've seen in a long time. Labour got 35.2% of the vote in 2005 and only 30.4% in 2015. That's a pretty big fall over those 10 years.

The raw vote numbers were closer, (9.6M down to 9.3M) but that's because the fall in support was offset by a bigger electorate (44.2M up to 46.2M) AND a higher turnout (61.3% up to 65.8%). The higher electorate and the higher turnout both mean that it is not meaningful to compare raw voting figures.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you forgot the most important problem:
3. The Conservatives got 2 million votes more than Labour did

Which relates to the problems I listed. The Lib Dems lost 4.4 million votes, while the SNP gained 1 million votes. Labour lost too many votes to the SNP and didn't pick up enough from the Lib Dems, while the Conservatives manage to gain additional votes when they were already the biggest party at the previous election.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, but that has to be one of the most misleading statistics I've seen in a long time. Labour got 35.2% of the vote in 2005 and only 30.4% in 2015. That's a pretty big fall over those 10 years.

I said votes not proportion of votes.

2005 - 9,552,436 Labour votes
2015 - 9,347,304 Labour votes

Saying 98% is 'almost as many' isn't misleading at all!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which relates to the problems I listed. The Lib Dems lost 4.4 million votes, while the SNP gained 1 million votes. Labour lost too many votes to the SNP and didn't pick up enough from the Lib Dems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I said votes not proportion of votes.

2005 - 9,552,436 Labour votes
2015 - 9,347,304 Labour votes

Saying 98% is 'almost as many' isn't misleading at all!

The fact that it was literally correct does not change that it is misleading. Comparing the raw voting numbers, while ignoring that both the electorate and turnout were higher in 2015, does not make a meaningful statistic - and it is therefore misleading to quote it as if it was a meaningful statistic.

 

[northwichcat]

The fact that it was literally correct does not change that it is misleading. Comparing the raw voting numbers, while ignoring that both the electorate and turnout were higher in 2015, does not make a meaningful statistic - and it is therefore misleading to quote it as if it was a meaningful statistic.

If you read it in context someone was saying Ed Balls' financial plan costed Labour the 2015 General Election and I was pointing out Labour got almost as many votes as in 2005 when they won the election, meaning there's no evidence for Ed Balls being the difference between winning and losing. I went on to suggest other reasons for why Labour didn't win - more non-Labour supporters turning out and voting is the one thing I didn't mention which is relevant.

 

[PHILIPE]

Why don't Momentum just form their own party and invite Corbyn to be their leader ?
Jeremy Corbyn wants unity but it will have to be on his terms. Ripe coming from the man who destroyed the unity in the first place. The MPs, a majority of whom have no confidence in him, are the people who represent their constitutencies and do all the official nitty gritty so far as Parliament is concerned and who JC has to work with and should support. He preferred not to respect their wishes and resign, but instead said that if he did it wouldn't be fair to his supporters, a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies who have already shown their dark side by way of threats, bullying and trolling of people who don;t agree with them.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

........ it wouldn't be fair to his supporters, a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies who have already shown their dark side by way of threats, bullying and trolling of people who don;t agree with them.

A few days ago. you felt that I overstepped the mark in a comment to you, for which I apologised. Now you are calling Jeremy Corbyn's supporters (of which I am one) 'a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies' - I am none of these.
In this whole debate, the anti-Corbyn faction have hogged the media limelight claiming all sorts of nasty things have been said about them. It works both ways, from what I have seen and heard, the anti-Corbyn people, who are legion in the media, in Parliament and in various forums are more than happy to dish out their own brand of insults.

 

[PHILIPE]

A few days ago. you felt that I overstepped the mark in a comment to you, for which I apologised. Now you are calling Jeremy Corbyn's supporters (of which I am one) 'a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies' - I am none of these.
In this whole debate, the anti-Corbyn faction have hogged the media limelight claiming all sorts of nasty things have been said about them. It works both ways, from what I have seen and heard, the anti-Corbyn people, who are legion in the media, in Parliament and in various forums are more than happy to dish out their own brand of insults.

Apologise in return and your viewpoint accepted. Appreciate not all his supporters but those who signed up as a protest group.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Apologise in return and your viewpoint accepted. Appreciate not all his supporters but those who signed up as a protest group.

Accepted, of course.

 

[Busaholic]

It COULD just be that a turning point has been reached this weekend, in that Labour MPs are just going to have to accept the situation or engineer a split (unlikely before the next General Election imo) and, in a way more intriguingly, the self-imposed purdah in the Conservative Party has been broken and, again imo, that party will not be able to keep the lid on it. George Osborne is obviously not going to go quietly (why would he? - he still sees himself as the heir apparent) and his long-standing feud with May will be re-stoked with a vengeance, with Gove probably sniping from the sidelines. Then you have Fox and Davis, no lovers of Johnson (particularly the former), forced to co-exist with him and a recipe for disaster is created. Maybe Paul Hollywood could get involved!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why don't Momentum just form their own party and invite Corbyn to be their leader ?
Jeremy Corbyn wants unity but it will have to be on his terms. Ripe coming from the man who destroyed the unity in the first place. The MPs, a majority of whom have no confidence in him, are the people who represent their constitutencies and do all the official nitty gritty so far as Parliament is concerned and who JC has to work with and should support. He preferred not to respect their wishes and resign, but instead said that if he did it wouldn't be fair to his supporters, a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies who have already shown their dark side by way of threats, bullying and trolling of people who don;t agree with them.

I realize you've apologized to Arglwydd Golau, but I would suggest that on a wider level the bolded comment is not accurate, and is deeply unfair to most Corbyn supporters.

I'm not a Corbyn supporter - but I've spoken and discussed the issues with quite a few Labour members who are. From those interactions, it's very clear to me that, on the whole, most of those who support him are motivated by a desire for a better society, and a belief that Corbyn is the only plausible leader likely to deliver on things like an alternative to austerity economics. There is amongst his supporters a deep distrust of many moderates, which seems to derive from a feeling that the Blair Government was too right wing and missed the opportunity to create a fairer, kinder, society. There also seems to be a strong sense that Corbyn is much more honest and genuine then most politicians, and some anger at the perception that MPs didn't give him a chance to prove himself.

Personally, I don't particularly agree with most of those sentiments - I think Corbyn supporters are on the whole mistaken in several regards. But what I've given does seem to be the motivation for much of the 300K+ votes that Corbyn got in the leadership contest. Most of those people are very definitely not 'Trots, SWP and Commies', and to my mind it is rather insulting to say they are. Doubtless that's the picture some of the media present, but if so, from my experience, I'd be very certain that it is not correct. Of course there will be a minority of Corbyn supporters who do meet that description, but I don't see any reason to believe it's other than a small minority.

Ditto the issue of threats, bullying and trolling. It's absolutely awful when it happens, and personally I feel somewhat dismayed that Corbyn hasn't done more to stamp that out (I suspect that he hasn't done more is due mainly to lack of leadership abilities rather than lack of desire). However, again, the people doing this are a almost certainly a minority, and from my experience I feel very certain that it's not fair or accurate to tar most Corbyn supporters with that brush.

 

[DarloRich]

Why don't Momentum just form their own party and invite Corbyn to be their leader ?

because then they cant leech off the structure and funds of the Labour party for their support and use the existing party apparatus, organisation, media access and structure as a vehicle to spread their delusions.

Jeremy Corbyn wants unity but it will have to be on his terms. Ripe coming from the man who destroyed the unity in the first place. The MPs, a majority of whom have no confidence in him, are the people who represent their constitutencies and do all the official nitty gritty so far as Parliament is concerned and who JC has to work with and should support. He preferred not to respect their wishes and resign, but instead said that if he did it wouldn't be fair to his supporters,

It will be de selections next. Corbyn will deny any involvement ( as with the abuse) but will sit back and let his Momentum £3 army do their work. Good constituency MP's will be replaced by Corbots desperate to please their sainted leader and scour the party of those classified as Blaritie/Red Tory scum. It is sickening and will lead to the end of our party as a credible force.

Of course there may be no need for reselections. Once the election comes the electorate will deselect many Labour MP's at the ballot box. I wonder who the Corbyn goon squad will blame then?

a rabble of Trots, SWP and Commies who have already shown their dark side by way of threats, bullying and trolling of people who don;t agree with them.

There is a good percentage of his supporters who seem to be fellow travelers, not all of course, but enough. Momentum and their acolytes are the bridge that will allow the likes of Millitant back into the party. It is entryism pure and simple.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Ditto the issue of threats, bullying and trolling. It's absolutely awful when it happens, and personally I feel somewhat dismayed that Corbyn hasn't done more to stamp that out (I suspect that he hasn't done more is due mainly to lack of leadership abilities rather than lack of desire). However, again, the people doing this are a almost certainly a minority, and from my experience I feel very certain that it's not fair or accurate to tar most Corbyn supporters with that brush.

It might be down to Corbyn's lack of leadership, but I'm not clear how he can prevent anyone from writing a threatening comment on someone's facebook page or whatever. I don't do Twitter, and that seems to be the main medium where much has happened. I also hinted at those in Parliament, for example it is impossible to read anything concerning Jess Philips without reference being made to her telling Diane Abbott to 'eff off'. Now if that had been the other way round, Corbyn would have been told to rein her in, call off his attack dogs etc, but Phillips gets away with it (it's all a bit of a laugh)

It will be de selections next.
There is a good percentage of his supporters who seem to be fellow travelers, not all of course, but enough. Momentum and their acolytes are the bridge that will allow the likes of Millitant back into the party. It is entryism pure and simple.

With boundary changes two sitting MPs will be going for the same seat, as you well know.
You perhaps should read or listen to what Peter Kilfoyle has said about the difference between Momentum and Militant - he should know.

 

[DarloRich]

With boundary changes two sitting MPs will be going for the same seat, as you well know.

That's not the same thing and you know it. Are you for or against deselection of Mp's who dare to criticise Saint Jeremy?

You perhaps should read or listen to what Peter Kilfoyle has said about the difference between Momentum and Militant - he should know.

I know the difference between them thanks. The issue is that Momentum will be the means by which the other crackpots and fellow travelers get back into the party.

TUSC, SWP, Left Unity,SP & AWL are, seemingly, all friends of Momentum. With friends like those................

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It might be down to Corbyn's lack of leadership, but I'm not clear how he can prevent anyone from writing a threatening comment on someone's facebook page or whatever. I don't do Twitter, and that seems to be the main medium where much has happened. I also hinted at those in Parliament, for example it is impossible to read anything concerning Jess Philips without reference being made to her telling Diane Abbott to 'eff off'. Now if that had been the other way round, Corbyn would have been told to rein her in, call off his attack dogs etc, but Phillips gets away with it (it's all a bit of a laugh)

It's more a question of taking action against people who do post abuse - which then both deters others from doing the same, and makes it clear to people who might have assumed that mild abuse was OK that it isn't. I would suggest that, as soon as it became apparent that abuse was happening on a serious scale, Corbyn should have set up some monitoring of social media, and a well-publicised system by which members could report incidents - with those who post mild abuse being contacted and warned about it, and those who post actual intimidation or threats being directly reported to the police by the Labour Party. He should also have not merely condemned the abuse in general terms when specifically asked in interviews, but specifically, and proactively drawn attention to examples of things that are not normally acceptable (such as referring to members as 'trots' or 'red tories') - in order to make sure that there was no room for any doubt. If he'd done that kind of thing, then I would have been happy to say that he was displaying good leadership on the issue.

But Corbyn didn't do any of that. Until very recently, he didn't really comment at all - except when people specifically asked him about abuse in interviews, at which point he would condemn it in vague general terms. That's not good enough.

Incidentally, Labour has now taken action - and been investigating instances of online abuse - although as far as I'm aware this is without Corbyn's involvement or explicit support. I think this action has been lead instigated by the NEC.