What now for Labour? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Phil Hornby wrote:I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

boatlady wrote:You don't have to agree with him

What relevance is his opinion? Why is this being posted at all? He has no stake in any of this, he doesn't live in Britain and has no clue about the issues british society faces.

ghost whistler,

What relevance is your opinion? You have persistently failed to offer any realistic alternatives.
You answered my previous request for details of your alternative with an instruction to 'google the anarchist FAQ'. So once again you persist with ridiculous, unrealistic, fanciful, foolish ideas.

Therefore I ask you again.....what real relevance does your opinion have here?

What relevance has any of this to the future direction of the Labour Party? As it's committed to parliamentary democracy, it isn't going to start a revolution or advocate civil disobedience any time soon.

Cameron is in trouble at present, but as the Tories have a majority in Parliament (effectively 16, since the Sinn Féin members never turn up), it would need some of them to help bring the government down. So what, if anything, should Labour be doing? Tom Watson has already suggested that Cameron "may have to resign", but would there be any point in tabling a motion of no confidence in him? Would all the Tories rally round Cameron, or would the Brexit supporters help to evict him - but only to install Boris Johnson in his place? Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, a general election is not automatically triggered if a government loses a vote of confidence.

That fixed term parliaments act is a bit of a barrier to a really effective opposition response to the current revelations - in the past, Labour would have been calling for a motion of no confidence in the government, maybe, which might well have triggered a General Election, with unpredictable results, but at least an opportunity to effect change - under the circumstances it seems all anyone can do is rearrange the deckchairs while the boat sinks - you can see why some people talk revolution, although it's my firm view that revolutions solve nothing.
The only thing that I can see for Labour to do is to get firmly behind the elected leader, forget all talk of a coup, and focus strongly and constantly on the failures of this government while issuing clear statements of how a Labour government would be different

The tories will split fairly soon. The question is whether we can get a majority of MPs who stand for the Labour Party rather than their own interests.

That's a strong possibility, but it will also affect Labour as many of the red tories will jump ship as well.

boatlady wrote:That fixed term parliaments act is a bit of a barrier to a really effective opposition response to the current revelations - in the past, Labour would have been calling for a motion of no confidence in the government, maybe, which might well have triggered a General Election, with unpredictable results, but at least an opportunity to effect change - under the circumstances it seems all anyone can do is rearrange the deckchairs while the boat sinks - you can see why some people talk revolution, although it's my firm view that revolutions solve nothing.
The only thing that I can see for Labour to do is to get firmly behind the elected leader, forget all talk of a coup, and focus strongly and constantly on the failures of this government while issuing clear statements of how a Labour government would be different

Labour isn't interested in efective opposition. Just listen to John McDonnell's dismal attitude to the Tata crisis, calling for nothing more radical than temporary nationalisation with a view to finding another capitalist to buy it eventually. This is a flawed position: the state will simply avert the inevitable asset stripping after fattening it up in order to attract a buyer

Quote: Otto von Bismarck

Politics is the art of the possible.


Interview (11 August 1867) with Friedrich Meyer von Waldeck of the St. Petersburgische Zeitung: Aus den Erinnerungen eines russischen Publicisten. 2. Ein Stündchen beim Kanzler des norddeutschen Bundes. In: Die Gartenlaube (1876)

ghost whistler wrote:That's a strong possibility, but it will also affect Labour as many of the red tories will jump ship as well.

The more the better, as soon as possible.

What do Blairites think about this kind of activity?....

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/how-tony-blairs-family-have-built-a-buy-to-let-property-empire-in-manchester/ar-BBsbL8V?li=BBoPMmp

Just askin'

Despite it being just another example of somebody investing their available cash to accumulate wealth, it is not a good look for a former leading politician and , in any event, TB can do nothing right for many people whichever way he turns , given the knee-jerk fashion for berating him.

While I can understand the toxicity of the Blair brand, I can forgive him a great deal for ridding the country of Major and a long-standing Tory dominance. While it has been argued that anyone could have achieved this- given the horrors of Thatcher and her weedy successor - it was , nevertheless, Blair who did the deed- and I am grateful to him for that...

This is the trouble with the current obsession with fuhrers - we forgive the last-but-one because he got rid of the one before that and is not as bad as the current one. Better to take democratic power and change things, surely?

" Better to take democratic power and change things, surely?"

I am not sure what this would look like - nor what the process for 'taking power' would be...

Part of that may include joining a political party, engaging with policy formation at some level - and voting

Phil Hornby wrote:" Better to take democratic power and change things, surely?"

I am not sure what this would look like - nor what the process for 'taking power' would be...

Well, we'd start off by returning power to the members of the Party, and decide policy at Conference instead of turning it into a Nuremburg Rally, after which we would get out on the streets convincing people of the sense of what we'd decided.

There is a strong groundswell of support for the current policies of the (post-Blairite) Labour Party from a youthful organisation known as Momentum.

Claiming 100,000 members spread amongst 100 local groups, its HQ is next to Euston Station in premises provided by the TSSA Union. James Schneider is a prominent sympathiser who describes Momentum as a movement, hoping to be rather more than just a vote-catching machine.  Their campaign stickers include "Poverty is a Crime!"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/16/momentum-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-politics-john-harris

 Jackie Walker, who left Labour under Blair, but is now back

witchfinder wrote:-
Another sad reflection on the very sorry state of the Labour Party is the petition which has emerged today criticising John Mann MP.....

John Mann has publicly criticised Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn when they've been leading the Labour Party. I get the impression that the only person John Mann thinks is suitable for the role is John Mann.

Are you really surprised that there is a petition against him when he behaves in this aggressive manner to a 70-year-old man in front of journalists? We don't want racists in the Labour Party, but we also don't need finger-wagging bullies.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW5IujnSLU8

Phil Hornby wrote:" Better to take democratic power and change things, surely?"

I am not sure what this would look like - nor what the process for 'taking power' would be...

It's called direct action: making the state irrelevant by marginalising it and its agents.

If you want to know what it will look like, get involved and find out.

If you are afraid to do so then enjoy the spectacle of a Labour party tearing itself apart. Look at how the recent anti-Semitism farce has played out. Corbyn is meant to be a pro_palestinian activist. That's his history, and yet now he's been cowed - just as I've said - by the zionists that have even greater power. A Labour MP is suspended for saying nothing racist and the usual suspects pick on 'Red Ken' because...reasons. Look at the appalling John Mann screaming at him in public, without an ounce of self awareness. Hilarious. Give these clowns power? Not a chance.

Yer 'as to larff ....



Daily Telegraph

Noone is really taking any notice of Momentum. In fact their name is completely ironic since theyve entirely lost theirs.

I said long ago that the blairite careerists would sabotage the party as soon as they could, and now they have started. Ghost Whistler is right about the ludicrous quality of this 'anti-Semitism' performance. Heil bloody Murdoch and the child-killers of 'Israel'!

I don't even know why people are wasting their time with Labour at all. What do they actually think is going to come of it? Look at how the Labour councillors in Bristol recently voted for a 20% pay increase (along with Tories, lib dems and half the greens). That's opposing austerity how?

ghost whistler wrote:I don't even know why people are wasting their time with Labour at all. What do they actually think is going to come of it? Look at how the Labour councillors in Bristol recently voted for a 20% pay increase (along with Tories, lib dems and half the greens). That's opposing austerity how?

Because nothing else shows the slightest possibility of creating a real alternative to the one-party state that has developed.

All over Britain today there are local council elections, also Police Commissioner elections as well as Welsh Assembly, Ulster and Scottish seats.  But many people will take no action at all to cast their vote(s).

It's an opportunity to show the Tories that they do NOT by any means enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and Labour sympathisers should make sure to vote accordingly.

If you don't vote, it will be too late to complain afterwards.

As of Sunday our household had not received any election leaflets from the 5 candidates for Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner.........

I sent an e-mail to the main two parties, one via the PCC

nopcc nopcc@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk, robert.jenrick.mp robert.jenrick.mp@parliament.uk

On May the 5th there is the election for Nottinghamshire's Police and Crime Commissioner and to date my wife and I have not received any information on who is standing for this post.......

Is this post so unimportant that none of the candidates are bothered whether they get elected or not or is just a case of voters being expected to vote along party lines..........

Are the candidates taking voters for granted........

Not everyone has access to the internet and able to search out the names of the candidates.....

I can see a very low turn out in this election........If it so low <30%, the post should remain unfilled and the costs of the post put into the police budget....

This resulted in yesterday us receiving two leaflets one from Paddy Tipping, with a quick hand written and signed post-it, in a plain stamped envelope, the other from Robert Jenrick in a HoC postage paid envelope with at typed but hand signed letter.....

Given that these elected representatives want our votes why do they not bother to get their message out earlier?.......

The Murdochites and Blairites have been telling enormous lies to knife Mr Corbyn, and they have all blown up in their faces. The careerists will have to go back to pretending to be loyal Party members until the next assassination attempt (if that is not anti-Semitic in some way nobody need bother to explain!)

Sadiq Khan will no doubt be resigning soon as the MP for Tooting, following his wonderful victory in the contest for London mayor. No doubt the subsequent by-election will be seen as yet another test of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership by the likes of Laura Kuenssberg, the Tory press and the right-wing plotters in the Labour Party. I see that the Blairites on Twitter are saying that Sadiq’s victory was all down to him and had nothing to do with Corbyn. That may be true, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if Sadiq had lost, Corbyn would have got the blame. And let’s not forget that the cheerleaders for Tessa Jowell, the Blairite candidate in Labour’s selection race, suggested that Sadiq Khan was “unelectable” (now where have I heard that before?)

Whenever elections are held, there will always be no shortage of people putting their own spin on the results. Kuenssberg told us that every new opposition leader – even Michael Foot back in 1981 – made gains in the first set of council elections which they contested. Such comparisons are meaningless and totally out of context. 1n 1981, there were riots and Thatcher was creating mass unemployment, had almost doubled VAT and had presided over inflation which passed 20%. In 1981, there was no UKIP to drain a large number of working class votes from Labour.

Then Kuenssberg told us that the last time these elections were contested, 2012, was a high water mark for Ed Miliband and therefore a good year for Labour. She, and other commentators, predicted that Labour would lose 200 or more council seats. When it didn’t happen and, in Jeremy Corbyn’s words, Labour “hung on” in England and Wales to most of those gains from four years ago, you might have expected Kuenssberg to tell us that the results were reasonably good. No chance. And the two parliamentary by-elections went largely unreported, despite Labour holding its vote share in Ogmore and increasing it in Sheffield.

Jeremy Corbyn has only been Labour leader for eight months, so perhaps another way of looking at Thursday’s results is to compare the vote share with last year’s general election. That can be misleading because the turnout is always lower for council elections, but there has been an increase in support for Labour in England and Wales of about 4%, but ‘The Daily Express’ continues to tell us that Jeremy Corbyn is a catastrophe.

Labour did do badly in Scotland, fair enough. Some might argue that it was arch-Blairite Jim Murphy who broke Scottish Labour, making it more toxic than the Tories. But the issues in Scotland in these elections surrounded Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale, not Cameron and Corbyn. Even so, we’re constantly reminded that the Tories finished second on MSPs, but I’ve not seen anyone mention that they came third – just behind Labour – on votes cast. Nevertheless, despite winning only 22% of the votes, Davidson is trumpeted in the Tory media as a great success.

Will Labour win in 2020? At the moment, it looks highly unlikely, but four years is an eternity in politics and plenty of time for the Tories to excel in sleaze, corruption and in-fighting, just as they did in the 1990s. There could even be another global crash, which will no doubt be “all the Tories’ fault”, who knows? But what I do know is that Corbyn isn’t going anywhere. If there is a leadership challenge his name will be on the ballot paper, and after several months of another costly and inward-looking campaign (while the Tories get away with murder), the party membership will re-elect him. If Corbyn’s Labour opponents really care about the party, they should accept his democratic mandate and get behind him, aiming their fire outwards at the most vicious, right-wing government this country has had in living memory.

Too many people, including some on this forum, seem wedded to the idea that what worked before will always work again. That‘s not always the case; for example, racist filth worked for the Tories in Smethwick in 1964 but not in London last week. After four more years of Tory destruction, the needs of this country are more likely to resemble those of 1945 rather than 1997. In 1945, Labour didn’t win by a landslide by being not quite as bad as the other lot, but by offering a strong, distinctive programme of change.

Ivan - What a delightful change to read sense on these issues. Thank you.

Yes, it's a brilliant post - and not for the first time .

But the question for me is whether Corbyn- even armed with such a strong programme of change - can convince constituencies filled with previously Tory-supporting folk to change sides, when many of them are perfectly well-off thanks very much ( eg because of a personal financial cushion), despite the ongoing Tory vandalism. To do that he probably has to have not just a compelling programme but also a voter-attracting personal charisma...and does he...?

But we can rely upon the British voter not to be totally self-centred at the next GE.

Thank the Lord they won't have a chance to influence the current US Presidential campaign.

I know very little about politics, but once I have started thinking about the subject I have come to the conclusion that I am a socialist (i.e. I believe that everyone in the world should have an equal right to access to health care, housing, education and subsistence)

As a socialist, I would like to belong to a socialist party that represents my opinions on these issues. I thought the Labour Party might be a party that would do so and was excited when a socialist (Mr Corbyn) was elected as leader.

Since he took his post, he has done what I think a socialist leader in  England should do - he demonstrates solidarity with people experiencing misfortune and injustice; he goes into PMQ's and questions the Prime Minister about government policy that I consider unfair and wrong; he has also, like a sensible soul, continued with his normal life as far as possible.

The political narrative in common currency as I understand it is that Labour (under Tony Blair) wrecked the economy and therefore we have to let the Tories and other posh and rich people (business leaders etc) sort out the mess. If the electorate continue to believe this we have no hope of a socialist government. If the electorate, believing this, continue to believe that austerity is the only solution and is not at all wrong, then no socialist agenda is likely to get a hearing. As I therefore understand it, the function of a socialist opposition would be to seek to fight the winnable battles - to face down the incumbent government in any situation where their actions are manifestly against the wishes of the population. As far as I can  see, Mr Corbyn and his loyal team have pretty much done this, and I see many recent news items indicating that government policy has changed following an intervention by the opposition.

Personally. I don't see that he has done such a poor job - he seems to have  been very much let down by people in Labour who want to undermine him, saying that he is 'unelectable' ( but he's already been elected by an overwhelming majority of Labour Party members).

I'm starting to feel confused - I worked for the party during the canvassing for the last General Election and after that voted for the new leader.  Personally I felt Ed Miliband might be the man but as I was wrong I was pleased Corbyn came forward and I again had a credible party leader to support and vote for.

During the recent local elections for various reasons I have had less involvement, and I am disturbed to see a loss of support throughout the borough - I'm inclined to see this as a  result of recent negative publicity relating to Ken Livingstone (we have a number of loyal SUN readers locally) and the superior organisation locally of UKIP, who did rather well locally, having plenty of investment and a nice simple message for voters. Meanwhile, the local Labour CLP isn't sure they support the elected leader of the party, which to my mind is less than helpful.

Personally, I'd rather support an effective opposition that at least puts barriers in the way of some measures that I oppose than an opposition that, like Blair's, only pretends to be socialist but in fact serves only to get people in power in order to perpetuate the status quo- personally, I would consider that a zombie Labour Party and would be unable to support it - if we have to stay in opposition for a while, as long as we continue to uphold proper socialist principles, that may be no bad thing as long as the opposition continues to oppose (not always in a dramatic way) the more repugnant policies of the incumbent government.

The point, Boatlady, is that Mr Corbyn was elected by the Party, not by the MPs - amongst them he only had enough support to be allowed to stand because a few people thought it was right to support his candidacy, like Mr Khan, while not voting for him themselves.    The MPs are largely careerists who believe in working for 'the widest possible support' rather than doing anything for working people, which means, in practice, doing whatever the newspaper owners tell them.   You can't have socialism without democracy in my view, and the 'reforms' adopted by Mr Blair abolished that in the Party.   We need to get back to policy-making by Conference and to the de-selection of the MPs who are there only to follow their own interest.   Without these changes we are constantly going to be presented with the notion that new fuhrers somehow change everything, which they do not.

Phil Hornby wrote:Good old Tony is history now - forget him!

The constant references to Blairites and the blaming of him and them for all Labour's current woes is pointless. It almost makes one think that there is some diversion needed from the real reasons for why Labour currently isn't working ( to coin a phrase)...  

"Gone but not forgotten"  David Miliband has returned to our shores.  Possibly spotted the upcoming by-election in Mayor Khan's previous constituency.

Yes, I see your point - in my local CLP it is long-standing councillors on the whole who are expressing negative thoughts about Corbyn.
We do seem to have developed a 'political class' here in England who espouse the CARE principle (cover a---e, retain employment) and in that kind of environment principles and integrity often do rather badly.
I don't see why CLP's don't crack on and deselect MP's who fail to represent the electorate - except within every CLP there will be a number of very comfortably settled long-serving councillors, who usually didn't get that way by being principled but more likely by playing the 'politics as usual' game.

Although he would doubtless be the victim of the customary attacks from the usual media suspects - on  the basis of some concocted  past 'misdemeanour' - David Miliband would be a real bonus to Labour - and an instant threat to Corbyn, as the focus of many whose confidence the leader lacks...

We do seem to have developed a 'political class' here in England who espouse the CARE principle (cover a---e, retain employment) and in that kind of environment principles and integrity often do rather badly.

That's not just true of the political class........it's the prevailing attitude of most Brits. Sadly!

You're not wrong

Is this déjà vu all over again?

Phil Hornby wrote:
I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

Penderyn replied:
In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

Observations by a Corbyn-sceptic

What a polite man Sadiq Khan is, after his tremendous win for common sense, dignity and hope, as against "more of the same" Conservative dogma-powered policies which offer nothing to ordinary people in ordinary streets with ordinary jobs.

What a great speech, the son of a Pakistani immigrant, brought up on a council estate, becomes the mayor of one of the worlds greatest citys, I guess it says something about this country, all is not lost despite the backward government we currently have.

For me the sharpest moment was when Mr Khan politely informed the world that Labour must have a much wider appeal, and he did not say this to undermine anyone, its not a stab in the back, these are his long held views, and he is 100% correct. The new London mayor joins a long list of influentual men and women who want more than anything in the world to see an end to Tory rule, and its not meant to undermine the party.

The other interesting, or should I say "amusing" story to emerge this week is the Anti Kuenssberg petition, all of a sudden the BBC is right wing, or in the pockets of the government, strange then that I have spent many and many an hour at this keyboard defending the BBC against accusations of left wing bias, poor old BBC can never win.

One of the biggest proponents of the accusation of anti Corbyn bias is the well known left leaning on-line news magazine The Canary, the editor of which frequently appears on RT, that well known impartial (tounge in cheek) Russian TV channel.

This is part of what many call "The Loony Left" where anti establishment commentators enjoy the oxygen given to them by dodgy foreign news outlets, whilst slamming what in many peoples mind is the most impartial news outlet in the entire world.

Labour wins if enough people vote for them. One way is to be totally conservative to get tory votes, another to represent the mass of people, very many of whom have given up voting, and get them back into action. For careerists the first is preferable, doubtless, but what's in it for the rest of us?

I fully agree that Sadiq Khan has much to commend him - but let's see how he manages to handle the inevitable onslaught from the right-wing media vultures.

I wish him every success and Labour needs to listen to any of its number who can actually beat a Tory! No doubt if he should have the temerity to suggest that everything in the Corbyn orbit is nor perfect he will become labelled a 'Blairite' lackey, but let's hope sense prevails and lessons are learned.

Heaven knows , the Opposition needs to get as many footholds with the electorate as possible...