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?

It is a truly wonderful chance to save the party from these tory puppets!

boatlady wrote:Just watching events unfold - can't really believe what's happening - wtf

You're not alone Boatlady! I wouldn't know where to start with the wider national meltdown since the EURef result on 24th June so will focus on the crisis within the Labour Party.

For a long time, I've known that the Green Party struggles to appeal to large numbers of working class people, not because its policy platform would not benefit them greatly, but because of the perception that the Green Party is full of middle class libertarian lefties. Of course we have working class members and trade unionists in our ranks but that is not how we project. We are growing (four times more votes in 2015 than 2010) but we remain a minor party.

Onto Labour.

I think that the Labour Party's role in UK politics is and will remain crucial. Labour remains the only party that can connect with, properly represent and act in the best interest of the large mass of the working class. That it failed to do so through 13 years in power is only unforgiveable if that doesn't change. Labour has hemorrhaged support to the SNP north of the border and to UKIP south of it. SNP and UKIP will both use the working class vote for their own political ends then discard it when their objectives are achieved. Labour's tradition obliges it to continue to act in the best long term interests of the working class, that of labour and social justice against capital. Labour has evolved into a Party of the middle class liberal, replacing MPs from union / working class occupation backgrounds with middle class professionals like QC's. Many are London-centric in action. The disconnect between the social make-up of the PLP and their constituents is almost absolute. The hard right and nationalists with their easy answers and scapegoating are moving into and taking over Labour's core areas of support.

I am utterly appalled by the timing of the PLP rebellion. The nation is in full blown political and constitutional crisis. The need for opposition unity, however fragile, was absolute. The Tories were at their very weakest. The schism is between the politics of the grass roots Labour movement (members) and the social background and apparent motives of the majority of the PLP. Without being judgmental, the Leadership and PLP should have put any internal crisis on hold to drive a political stake through the wounded Tory Party. Opportunities are rare and need to be siezed. The rebellion will repel the public and I fear may never be forgiven.

A Labour split is looking quite possible. If it occurs and the Tories heal as quickly as often they do in their ruthless pursuit and retention of power, the left may consign itself to the dustbin of UK history as we will have missed the chance to reform the broken voting system that will continue to deliver a hegemony of the right on a minority of votes cast. From the outside, I would implore Labour unity at all costs but I fear events, like all others are fast running away.

Chas,

I've long suggested that the Labour party should embrace Green party policies, and that there ought to be some attempt to incorporate the Greens and their agenda fully into the Labour party manifesto. I really wish the two parties would merge - and assist each other in ousting a Tory government.

The facts are that with the emergence of the Green Party, UKIP, etc giving voters more choice.....it is more likely that we will see a one party (Tory) dominating politics. The Greens and UKIP seem more likely to take votes from trad lefty middle class/enlightened working class voters, and disaffected, poorly informed, and neglected working class/underclass voters respectively. It is my contention that anybody voting for UKIP, or the Green party is simply voting, reality, to return a Tory government. Wider choice is contrary to what we would imagine serving to narrow democracy to give us the prospect of a permanent Tory government.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, the majority of the PLP appear intent on turning the Labour party into an unelectable, untrustworthy laughing stock.

I have to say, I've been disgusted with the actions of the PLP - now and since JC was elected to the leadership.

I don't know what will be the way forward for Labour - on the one hand I can see the point of those who urge Corbyn to step down for the good of the party - but I also feel quite strongly that the party is the members - who overwhelmingly seem to want him to stay - as you say, a Labour split leaves the Tories firmly in charge for the foreseeable future - but who else is there in the labour party that can deliver like Corbyn has? Who can attract thousands of new members, and who has the moral courage to stand against the neo-liberal consensus?

Answers on a postcard - there is no prize

boatlady,

The only Labour mp I have heard challenge the Tories in the past few days is Corbyn.

Why aren't other Labour mps challenging Cameron and the Tories after the godawful mess they have plunged us into by allowing a referendum on the EU?

The PLP are a ***king disgrace.

sickchip wrote: Wider choice is contrary to what we would imagine serving to narrow democracy to give us the prospect of a permanent Tory government.

Sickchip

The policy and philosophical gap between Labour and Greens is still very wide although many Corbynites' personal values are far closer to the Green position.

Labour has allowed itself to become a victim of our unfair and corrupting first past the post electoral system, in effect willingly painting itself into the corner it currently finds itself. Recent general elections have proved that two party politics is dead. We are now a pluralist political country but the two major parties have consistently resisted attempts to move to a proprtional voting system to accommodate the multi-party system.

PR allows each party to fearlessly promote its own policy platform and to gather the WM seats that its vote share deserves. Bigotry like that of UKIP must be defeated by open debate not by a voting system. The Big Two would no doubt split under a PR system, a far more honest position. Neither of them is only one party but first past the post has forced politicians to maintain virtually untenable alliances.

After losing Scotland and bleeding out to UKIP south of the border, Labour needed to unite and reconnect with the white working class in order to have a chance of winning the next election. However difficult, it could have sought a one issue electoral pact with pro PR parties to maximise the chance of victory. Tragically, it has done none of these over one year after the last general election.

Both of the Big Two have perfected tailoring their policies to attract the support of swing voters in key marginal seats, a process of policy compromise and corruption in order to win.

Labour would not have needed to merge with the Green Party in order to attract enough Green votes its way. All that was needed was to adopt one or two key Green policies that were clearly vote winners prior to a general election e.g rail nationalisation and a fracking ban. Attracting SNP and UKIP votes back was a far bigger challenge for Labour and far more important as many more votes leaked in those directions than towards the Greens and for very different reasons.

The minor parties are already on the PR page. Set out your stall and voters either buy or they don't, a far more positive, consistent and honest position.

I am not contesting that Labour's overriding priority was to find a way of winning the next general election to prevent right wing hegemony in a rumpUK (probably without Scotland). Far from it. I am saying that if that was its objective, its failure has been complete, a failure that all progressives in politics will pay the heaviest political price for.

IMO, key issues that would have unlocked the door for Labour would have been:
Electoral pact based on electoral and constitutional reform - single issue pact
OR
Anti austerity
Fracking ban
Rail renationalisation and improvement
Strict enforcement and increase of national Minimum Wage
Consider Basic Income Scheme as part of welfare reform
Post EU - Fair immigration system to reduce net migration, fair treatment of refugees, internationalism
Regional Government for England with real devolved powers
House building
Rent controls
Tackling tax avoidance, tax and secrecy havens
Making UK a world leader in energy efficiency, renewables and smart grid technology - 1 million climate change jobs

The public knows our democracy is broken and our institutions failing. Having an agenda for modernisation would in my view be knocking on an open door. I just hope it's not far too late.

Chas,

IMO, key issues that would have unlocked the door for Labour would have been:
Electoral pact based on electoral and constitutional reform - single issue pact
OR
Anti austerity
Fracking ban
Rail renationalisation and improvement
Strict enforcement and increase of national Minimum Wage
Consider Basic Income Scheme as part of welfare reform
Post EU - Fair immigration system to reduce net migration, fair treatment of refugees, internationalism
Regional Government for England with real devolved powers
House building
Rent controls
Tackling tax avoidance, tax and secrecy havens
Making UK a world leader in energy efficiency, renewables and smart grid technology - 1 million climate change jobs


I'm pretty sure Corbyn's Labour is 'on board' with most, or all, of that list. Unfortunately, I doubt the idiots in the PLP who have turned on him are even bothered about policy too much - they seem more bothered about looking after themselves, their careers, and keeping the status quo in their cozy Westminster bubble. Corbyn has conviction/integrity.....the rest don't.

However I still maintain a vote for Green, or UKIP is simply a vote to return a Tory government. The Green party is really more of a lobby group for a 'single issue' - and various issues related to that single issue. There would really be far more chance of their policies getting passed into law with a Labour government who could be persuaded by 'environmentalists' to act on issues the Greens are concerned about. The Green vote, to me, is a self-indulgent and inconsequential vote - far better to have a Labour government and petition them to act on environmental issues - at least then we might see something being done.

Keep voting Green. Keep voting UKIP. Keep getting Tory.

Your wish-list is convincing, sickchip, but as things stand today, Britain looks like having a Tory government for the foreseeable future, even though their majority could easily be overturned if all the other parties were to present a united front.

So let's concentrate on the really important debate - Who will Daenerys marry when she finally gets to Westeros?

The intense sense of entitlement amongst the PLP is astounding. They have done nothing whatever for the Party, those who vote for it, or the class that founded it, but yet they seem to suppose they deserve to sit on a good income and do nothing for anyone but themselves. It may be a long slog, but they've been betraying us all for many years now, and it is imperative that we begin to see them off.

ow,

Britain looks like having a Tory government for the foreseeable future

Sadly, I can't argue with that.

So, threats of violence - and even death - for some Labour MPs who are opposed to Corbyn.

If that tells us anything about the view of democracy and principles of some of those who support him, I think it tells us all we need to know about 'what now for Labour'.

The whole sad sage looks sicker by the minute.

Michael Gove for PM , anyone...?

Chas Peeps wrote:

sickchip wrote: Wider choice is contrary to what we would imagine serving to narrow democracy to give us the prospect of a permanent Tory government.

Sickchip

The policy and philosophical gap between Labour and Greens is still very wide although many Corbynites' personal values are far closer to the Green position.

Labour has allowed itself to become a victim of our unfair and corrupting first past the post electoral system, in effect willingly painting itself into the corner it currently finds itself. Recent general elections have proved that two party politics is dead. We are now a pluralist political country but the two major parties have consistently resisted attempts to move to a proprtional voting system to accommodate the multi-party system.

PR allows each party to fearlessly promote its own policy platform and to gather the WM seats that its vote share deserves. Bigotry like that of UKIP must be defeated by open debate not by a voting system. The Big Two would no doubt split under a PR system, a far more honest position. Neither of them is only one party but first past the post has forced politicians to maintain virtually untenable alliances.

After losing Scotland and bleeding out to UKIP south of the border, Labour needed to unite and reconnect with the white working class in order to have a chance of winning the next election. However difficult, it could have sought a one issue electoral pact with pro PR parties to maximise the chance of victory. Tragically, it has done none of these over one year after the last general election.

Both of the Big Two have perfected tailoring their policies to attract the support of swing voters in key marginal seats, a process of policy compromise and corruption in order to win.

Labour would not have needed to merge with the Green Party in order to attract enough Green votes its way. All that was needed was to adopt one or two key Green policies that were clearly vote winners prior to a general election e.g rail nationalisation and a fracking ban. Attracting SNP and UKIP votes back was a far bigger challenge for Labour and far more important as many more votes leaked in those directions than towards the Greens and for very different reasons.

The minor parties are already on the PR page. Set out your stall and voters either buy or they don't, a far more positive, consistent and honest position.

I am not contesting that Labour's overriding priority was to find a way of winning the next general election to prevent right wing hegemony in a rumpUK (probably without Scotland). Far from it. I am saying that if that was its objective, its failure has been complete, a failure that all progressives in politics will pay the heaviest political price for.

IMO, key issues that would have unlocked the door for Labour would have been:
Electoral pact based on electoral and constitutional reform - single issue pact
OR
Anti austerity
Fracking ban
Rail renationalisation and improvement
Strict enforcement and increase of national Minimum Wage
Consider Basic Income Scheme as part of welfare reform
Post EU - Fair immigration system to reduce net migration, fair treatment of refugees, internationalism
Regional Government for England with real devolved powers
House building
Rent controls
Tackling tax avoidance, tax and secrecy havens
Making UK a world leader in energy efficiency, renewables and smart grid technology - 1 million climate change jobs

The public knows our democracy is broken and our institutions failing. Having an agenda for modernisation would in my view be knocking on an open door. I just hope it's not far too late.

And to pay for it? Just asking.

Looks like 172 Labour mps have organised a coup, without a plan, and none of them really want the job of party leader.

I think they were merely hoping Corbyn would bow to pressure and walk......now none of them appear keen to take him on in a leadership challenge.

It increasingly appears that 172 Labour mps - couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery! They are making themselves look extremely foolish.....if not totally stupid.

If they had a plan then they should have followed through. It's pretty cowardly and self interested to try and force someone to resign so you can bag their job but when they refuse to go, not standing against them.

sickchip wrote: Keep voting Green. Keep voting UKIP. Keep getting Tory.

I don't agree sickchip for reasons I have previously set out.
The charge that the Greens are a 'single issue party' is as false now as it was 30 years ago. Anyone who wants to spend at least a day of their life that they will never get back reading the Green Party's policy platform will not need to be reminded of this. The main reason is that Greens are trying to develop a dynamic blueprint to move society from where it is now to where it needs to be to be sustainable and just. If anything, Greens struggle with the immediate issues and policies rather than medium or longer term ones because of the long transition that will be necessary.

trevorw2539
After WW2, this country was bankrupt and its infrastructure largely ruined. Despite that, a socialist government embarked on a brave programme of national renewal - house building, national health service, social security etc and made sure it was afforded. The role of tax and secrecy havens and industrial tax avoidance must not be underestimated in terms of explaining why this country, still the 5th largest economy in the world, cannot still afford to provide public services, health & welfare provision that we have all benefited from since 1945. The answer lies not in excessive public expenditure but rather inadequate tax receipts and a conspiracy by the Establishment and wealthy to enable our once civic society to be bled dry by the rich and powerful. As well as a fairer and more effective tax collection system, Greens also believe strongly in co-operative community action and local means of production to meet local needs wherever possible - it's not all about the State.

I think you have a rosy view. Without large loans from the US and Canada the Labour party - or any party - would have been able to do little. Using the money Labour did a good job but not always affordable. Some prescription charges had to be introduced to help the country.

I agree about tax havens etc.

The fact we have the 5th largest Economy in the world does not mean we can afford spending willynilly.
The US is the largest, but it cannot even afford to treat it's poor. Our economy depends on Manufacturing, Financial Services and the Services Industry - which is the largest and in general recycles money internally. We need a bigger Manufacturing Industry and strong Financial industry to bring money into the country.

Still, I'm not getting involved in Economics.

By the way, I was a young boy during WWII and remember those days after the War.

trevorw2539. Since Brexit, the UK has slipped to become the sixth largest economy in the world.

Of course the USA could look after its poor - if the political will was there. Ever since Pinochet, Reagan and Thatcher succumbed to the ideological claptrap of Milton Friedman, inequality has increased vastly, which in the end does nobody any good. Poor people need to spend any money they get, which stimulates the economy. However, there are only a certain number of fridges, washing machines and freezers which the rich will buy, and once they've acquired a couple of luxury yachts, the rest of their dosh gets stashed in tax havens. When inequality increases, so does debt, and when it becomes unsustainable we get crashes on the scale of 1929 and 2008.

Please have a read of 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein, which I think is one of the best books that I've ever read:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t601-the-shock-doctrine-by-naomi-klein

Can it? Health costs in the US stand at 17% GDP - well ahead of the world average and twice the UK. How high can it go without affecting other factors and more borrowing. The US budget deficit fell to a new low last year after running a deficit for 45 out of the 50 preceding years. But it still had to borrow. Admittedly much of its borrowing is 'in house' or it would be in trouble in the world.
If you can access the 20-30 trillion in private accounts - good on you. Unfortunately we have to live with reality. That reality dictates that this country (and the US) has to live within its means.
There is no problem for most countries to live with debts - within their means. That means giving confidence to World Banks and markets of their capability to borrow and pay back at certain rates. Only an economy that dominates world markets is ever likely to pay back its debt.

Anyway, you and I will stand on either side of a fence, as it used to be,and I doubt there will ever be a gate between.

sickchip wrote:Looks like 172 Labour mps have organised a coup, without a plan, and none of them really want the job of party leader.

I think they were merely hoping Corbyn would bow to pressure and walk......now none of them appear keen to take him on in a leadership challenge.

It increasingly appears that 172 Labour mps - couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery! They are making themselves look extremely foolish.....if not totally stupid.

If they had a plan then they should have followed through. It's pretty cowardly and self interested to try and force someone to resign so you can bag their job but when they refuse to go, not standing against them.

Over the years it has got worse and worse. The current gang are liketory lies about those who get benefits: idle, selfish and exprecting to live on the rest of us forever. If they do nothing for us, what is the use of them?

Apparently Stoke-on-Trent CLP have passed a no confidence motion in Tristram Hunt......good! If it's true.

There are hopeful signs that Jeremy Corbyn's principled stand against being railroaded out of town by self-seeking dissidents in the Labour Party is receiving popular support.

"60,000 New Labour Party Members In One Week"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/60000-people-join-labour-party-in-one-week-huffpost-reveals_uk_5775777ee4b073366f0ebb28

Ivan wrote: When inequality increases, so does debt, and when it becomes unsustainable we get crashes on the scale of 1929 and 2008.

Agree absolutely Ivan.

Since Thatcher was elected and the fragile post war consensus broke down, the UK has moved closer and closer to the US model of crony capitalism based on rigged markets and oligarchies where taxpayers subsidise corporate profits on a huge scale. Our economy is infested with private monopolies where taxpayers have often underwritten the loss making aspects of the operation while shareholders skim off notional and actually non-existent profits. As in the US, the poorest workers tend to pay more tax and the richest less as proportion of their income. Taxpayer funded welfare systems are used to subsidise wage levels which are insufficient to live on, creating a direct transfer of funds from taxpayers to private business revenues and profits.

The Continental European approach has been very different. Inequality tends not to be as acute and the right (of a Christian Democratic hue) has shared certain core values with the left around the need for adequate infrastructure investment by the state for the benefit of all.

The challenge for the progressive left in the UK is to pull the 'Overton Window' back to the left so that it once again becomes the mainstream consensus that investing in our society's assets benefits us all and is worth defending. The Tories have played a 'Smoke and Mirrors' trick over taxation for the masses while enabling the richest and most powerful to siphon vast amounts of wealth out of our economy in tax and secrecy havens. The debate needs to move away from our public services being 'unaffordable' towards tax avoidance being intolerable. It is not that our public services are too costly, but rather that tax receipts are unsustainably low.

Only when tax receipts are at sufficient levels will the UK be able to rebuild its public services and clear the National Debt. A progressive tax system must also reduce the tax burden further on low and average earners in relation to the higher earners in order to allow the vast amount of private 'household debt' to be paid down (currently at an unprecedented level of 3% of GDP). Many households are increasing their debt simply to survive or maintain living standards during a period of falling incomes. This has created a Zombie economy which is dampening economic activity.

As Ivan rightly says, their are only so many yachts etc. that one rich person can use whereas everyone needs a fridge.

The difficulty is that while the great majority of 'Labour' MPs are more-or-less Thatcherite, it is difficult to pull anything back in the direction of decency. It will be a long and messy business, but unless we see them off, the Party is finished.

Labour led by Corbyn looks to be greener than the Greens - or maybe just as Green as the Social Democrats in Germany

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2978777/jeremy_corbyn_the_green_britain_i_want_to_build.html

methought wrote:Labour led by Corbyn looks to be greener than the Greens - or maybe just as Green as the Social Democrats in Germany

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2978777/jeremy_corbyn_the_green_britain_i_want_to_build.html

If only it were true methought. When I was an active member of the Labour Party, I was in the pro PR democratic left represented by the late Robin Cook MP. Corbyn was on the hard left which was traditionally opposed to electoral reform thinking it to be a middle or chattering class obsession rather than a pre-requisite for safeguarding the progressive left in UK politics.

This was one of many areas where Corbyn's traditional brand of command and control socialism is at odds with the often misunderstood Green agenda. While there are definitely significant areas of overlap between Green and Corbynite policies, fundamental differences remain. Traditional socialism is still wedded to the centralisation of power whereas Greens want decentralisation to the lowest possible levels for reasons of democracy and a more ecological economic system. Socialism is still hanging on to the idea of a paternalistic state with wrap-around provision for its citizens whereas greens believe in empowered individuals taking more control of their own lifestyles and local community activity while underpinned by a state provided Basic Income Scheme. A Green  eco-socialist society would still require a centralised state administration but with a very stripped down remit of co-ordinating and implementing national strategic objectives and projects e.g. foreign policy, defence, agricultural planning, a smart grid for renewable energy and national integrated public transport systems among others. Greens are of the libertarian left whereas Labour remains on the authoritarian right of the political spectrum, despite Corbyn's year of leadership within a Blairite PLP. These are very stark differences of political ideology and position and the reason why Greens have been permanently lost to the modern Labour Party.

In short, I do not believe that Greens will be tempted by the Corbyn offer and I have seen this with my own eyes as the Chair of a local Green Party over the past year. The reason members have remained with us is that they simply didn't believe that Corbyn could survive as leader in a PLP infested with Blairites. Tragically in my opinion, Labour has clung on to the First Past the Post electoral system for at least 15 years too long which may now be its undoing. If Labour splits before the next General Election, it is finished and with it, any chance of winning another election under First Past the Post. I predict that if it does split, many on Labour's progressive left will ultimately join the Green Party when they look into its ACTUAL rather than perceived policy platform. The Conservative Party is far more likely to come back together than Labour and therefore the only Party capable of winning power under own unfair and broken voting system. I am praying that Labour hangs together for one more General Election in the fundamental interests of democracy in the UK but looking at events, that's probably a pipe dream.

I don't know anyone in the Green Party that wants Labour to split now or views its crisis as anything other than very serious within the current national context. I believe that my 2014 prediction of a Conservative hegemony via elective dictatorship in England & Wales is still looking odds on although I will only have desperation to show for being proved right without so much as a grain of satisfaction.

I like Ed Miliband. He’s essentially a decent and honourable man who would have made a far better PM than Cameron or any of the misfits now hoping to replace him. He also held the Labour Party together after it lost power in 2010, so very different from what had happened after 1979.

Ed was also keen to extend democracy in the party, and sadly the unintended consequences of his well-intentioned actions have left us (whichever side of the argument you’re on) with the chaos and anarchy we have today. There would appear to be three ‘constituencies’ now – MPs, party members and registered supporters, and potential Labour voters – and they may be irreconcilable:-

MPs. Their argument is that they have been endorsed by their constituents. (Let’s hope they also use their ‘sovereignty’ to refuse to vote for the triggering of Article 50, as the vast majority of Labour MPs are pro-EU.) However, I’m sad and disgusted that so many of them, especially people such as Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves and Chuka Umunna, walked away when Jeremy Corbyn was elected by a landslide, and that so many more have done so recently. They have made it impossible for Corbyn to contest an election effectively, when Labour’s opponents can hammer home the message that even his own MPs don’t support him, so why should voters? I hate to admit it, but the Tory leadership election procedure (devised by William Hague), which does involve balloting party members but only with a choice from two, makes it impossible for their leader not to have the support of a sizeable number of MPs.

Party members and registered supporters. Their argument is that party members choose the candidates who go on to become MPs on a Labour ticket, and that those people couldn’t get elected without their endorsement and their contribution as foot soldiers during election campaigns.

Potential Labour voters. Much harder to identify and to assess what would now attract them. The conventional wisdom, which may or may not hold water but which has been sincerely expressed on many occasions by two members of this forum, is that Labour must appeal to middle-of-the-road ‘swing voters’ to get elected. Perhaps that did apply in the eighties, nineties and noughties, but I’m not sure that it does now. The political landscape has changed throughout Europe since the global crash of 2008, and ‘extreme’ parties of the right and left have flourished at the expense of more centrist parties. Take Germany, for example. The SPD could in no way be called left-wing or ‘extreme’, but it struggles to get 25% of the popular vote these days.

The future looks grim for centre-left parties anywhere in Europe for the foreseeable future. The refugee crisis, and the media hysteria and right-wing opportunism which has accompanied it, have made those of us who are internationalist in our outlook look as weak and ineffective as the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s. And we all know what happened next.

The customary erudite arguments and learned comment.

However - as I have mentioned previously - Corbyn was not a man eager to support the Party leadership when he was a backbencher, so it is a bit rich for him to be offended now by rebellion since he was just as capable as the current so-called traitors as pulling the rug from under those whose wanted his support.

That sort of hypocrisy should surely be the province of the Tory Party...

Circumstances alter cases, and Corbyn's opposition to "assumed authority" has never apparently wavered. He's not opposing any current colleagues except those who would seek to disregard the rules of the Labour Party governing election of a Leader.

The facts are that a number of MPs owing their election to Blairite principles now have to accept that the game has changed and things have moved on, as explained above by Ivan. None of the rebels have so far put themselves forward as a candidate in a Leadership contest, and until someone does, Mr Corbyn is perfectly entitled to continue on his chosen path. Which incidentally many members of the Labour Party think is the right one.

OW - I find myself in agreement with you - I feel you have articulated the position rather well.

I will always argue for the Social Democratic line as against good old fashioned Socialism for many reasons, but by far the most important reason is quite simply ...electability ( is there such a word ? )

The last time a Labour leader stood on a soap box and declared we are going to be a good old fashiones Socialist government, and we are going to nationalise things and do away with our nuclear weapons, was in 1983, the year which saw Labours worst performance since the First World War, it was a time when Labour was torn apart by Militant, and the faction that split away to form the SDP, and today is a case of "De Ja Vous".

I really dont know what the answer is, except to say that I am with the PLP on this one, and the reason been that word again "electability", because I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that if the Labour Party goes to the country as it stands, with Jeremy leading the party, and with the kind of agenda he believes in, the Labour Party will be wiped off the map.

THe main thrust of the argument of those who believe in Jeremy, is that he was elected by the members, well thats a fair and just reason, except its not exactly true, many thousands of 3 quid people joinned and voted, including many Tories, and my friend who was chairman of Whitby Liberal Democrats, and then there are the affiliates from unions, including another friend of mine who is a member of the Socialist Labour Party and a good friend of Arthur Scargill.

Now - lets imagine what kind of government we may now have if the Tory Party adopted policy as decided by the membership of the party, we would have left the EU a long time ago, hanging and flogging would have been readopted, and single mothers would be put into workhouses, oh isent it a good job that party members dont decide policy. ?

The bottom line in all this is that a floating voter in Warwickshire who comes from a working class background, and who has made it in life, and who is now a self employed plumber, joinner, painter or builder, will vote for any party which champions aspiration, and which believes in rewarding work, whilst upholding the values of social justice and fairness.

I do not believe Jeremy Corbyn could ever win an election for Labour, and for the benefit of all those people who desperately need to see a fairer, more just society, he should do the right thing and leave.

witchfinder wrote:-
"THe main thrust of the argument of those who believe in Jeremy, is that he was elected by the members, well thats a fair and just reason, except its not exactly true, many thousands of 3 quid people joinned and voted, including many Tories, and my friend who was chairman of Whitby Liberal Democrats ...."

Some votes are more equal than others, witchfinder?  What do you think about the people who have just voted for Britain to leave the EU and precipitated a financial revolution?  Which event will more influence our children's and grandchildren's future, do you think, and is Democracy a busted flush?

Personally I want a Labour party that respects the views of the members - my memory is that the members overwhelmingly elected a leader - I'd like to see the PLP get behind him and support him in fighting against the abuses being perpetrated by the Tories.

Actually Boatlady, the members of the Labour Party did not overwhelmingly elect Jeremy as leader, in fact fractionaly less than 50% of members voted for Jeremy.though I will admit that Jeremy had more votes than anyone else.

I happen to believe that there is a big rift between what the electorate feel is an electable leader, and what grass roots Labour Party members think is an electable leader.

Our MPs are firtstly accountable to the electorate who elected them. not to a local committee who might think that abolishing the monarchy is a great idea, contrary to public opinion.

I won't vote for anyone who is in favour of war, or austerity, or tax breaks for multinationals or who is willing to stand by without protesting when such things take place.

I am a lifetime socialist and Labour voter - like many such, I believe the elected leader of the party should have the support of the PLP - I have no time at all for the kind of political game playing indulged in by the 172 resigners - I note most of their CLP's support Corbyn - to my mind, that's their mandate and that's what they should be doing

Firstly, let’s remind ourselves that we’re all basically on the same side on this thread. We want a better, fairer, more humane and less corrupt government than what we have now and what will be coming in a few weeks from either May or Leadsom, with the prospect of an end to the Human Rights Act and that pesky ‘red tape’ – in other words, workplace rights. Most of us on this forum supported Remain, and I haven’t given up hope that Brexit can be stopped, either by a legal challenge, or a vote of MPs, or even a second referendum on the terms of any deal which can be obtained from the EU. In some countries (and even some clubs and societies in the UK), any constitutional change requires more than a simple majority, maybe a 2:1 vote, and it’s absurd that our whole future should be blighted because of a vote by 51.89% of the 72.2% who voted (37.46% of the electorate), but that’s a matter for another thread.

I think it was a mistake to allow anyone to pay £3 and get a vote in the Labour leadership election. When my local constituency party chose its candidate for the 2015 general election, only those of us who had been full members for at least six months and attended the hustings were given a vote. In my opinion, you should have to be a full member for a similar period to get a vote in any leadership election. However, the final tally last September, with registered and affiliated supporters, made no difference to the order of the candidates and brought in a lot of much-needed cash for the party.

Full members of the Labour Party did vote overwhelmingly for Jeremy Corbyn. His 49.59% of the votes amounted to more than twice as many as what Andy Burnham in second place achieved (22.69%):-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_2015

Since the Second World War, the Tories have never had fewer than 165 MPs and Labour has never had fewer than 209. In effect, that means that 374 of the 650 seats in Parliament are never likely to change hands, and whoever is allowed to wear the appropriate blue or red rosette in those constituencies will get elected regardless of any other consideration. When Francis Maude announced that he was standing down as MP for Horsham, the local Tory association chose the next MP. They drafted in a nonentity from Buckinghamshire, knowing that the voters would rubber stamp their choice (and they did, with 57.3% of all votes cast). That was also overwhelming!

So let’s not pretend that “the local committee” which chooses a candidate isn’t important. It is, and it’s the members who provide the foot soldiers to canvass and distribute leaflets, so they ought to be entitled to a say. 172 Labour MPs have behaved despicably in showing contempt for the overwhelming democratic mandate given to Corbyn. The new system of voting was approved by the party conference in 2014, and that was the time for MPs to voice any objections. They stood as Labour candidates in 2015 knowing how future leaders would be elected.

There’s no point in constantly harking back to 1983. The world has changed rapidly since then and the Tories have moved further and further to the right without, it seems, it doing them much harm. The elusive centre ground moved rightwards and has now all but disappeared, and in terms of the popular vote, the right-wing UKIP has replaced the so-called centrist Liberal Democrats as the third party in the UK. There is a lot of misplaced anger in the country, with foolish people blaming the EU and immigrants for all their ills, rather than 35 years of neoliberalism and more recently austerity. Labour can never pander to anti-immigrant sentiment and the ugly racism which has seen various outpourings since the Brexit vote. Offering the voters more of what worked in 1997 and 2001 is hardly likely to work in the current climate, but quite frankly I don’t know what will.

And that, of course, is the point - no-one really knows what will work and many are betting on something different - a form of socialism that to my mind seems not extreme but clearly to others is awakening frightening memories of bad old days.

As a relative newcomer to the matter of politics, I am strongly attracted to both the style and the substance of the current leadership of the party and I have been quite impressed by the steadfast nature of Corbyn's response to the current crisis - even if as some say it is largely orchestrated by Seumas Milne and John (forget his surname) - I want Corbyn to stay as leader and I want him to have a chance to take the party forward in a new direction (of course I accept there's nothing new under the sun, but actual socialism is a tolerably new thing in English politics)

As an aside - Do you really think there's a chance we can avoid coming out of the EU?

I agree with virtually everything that Ivan states above, but where our paths differ substantially is on why Labour failed to win an election in 2010, and again in 2015, and on how Labour can achieve victory once again.

According to Ivan's figures, which I am sure will be correct, it means there are 276 seats which can, and have changed hands.
Most of Labours heartland can be described as the industrialised and former industrialised urban areas, where incomes are lower than average, in other words the traditional working class areas, and most of these people will vote for Labour regardless of the leader.

I do not agree that success lies in attemting to shift further left, indeed I am convinced that to do so will only make matters worse.
It is my firmly held belief that shifting policy further left, will make a Labour victory move further and further away.

The most poignant sentence in Ivan's post is this "We want a better, fairer, more humane and less corrupt government".

Sadly I believe that Jeremy's kind of Labour Party is going to ensure that Labour remains in opposition, leaving all those vulnerable people who need a Labour government sitting and waiting longer for a more compassionate and caring government.
I really dont doubt for one moment that JC is a very sound, and very well principled guy, he's a man of conviction, with deeply held principles who has inspired many young people.

But lets be brutally honest here, much of his economic ideas are at best "experimental", which have been criticised by Labour MPs who have held ministerial posts in The Treasury, including Alistair Darling. His ideas on the EU are at best luke warm, and spurious.
His foreign policies are ( in my view ) dodgy, he apperas to think that Israel is a terrorist state, that Ukraine is to blame for Russian aggession on its soil, and his attitude to NATO is also luke warm at best.

Now today comes the news that the House of Commons will likely vote on the replacement of Trident a week on Monday, a vote which will be won by the government, and which will inevitably drive the wedge between the Corbyn flank and the rest of the Labour Party even further in.

But I go back to my point about the electorate, because the majority of the electorate will not back the abandonment of our nuclear ability, though the majority of grass roots Labour members will probably back abandonment of any replacement - its my whole point, the membership of the party are ( in my view ) out of tune with the electorate, the PLP is not, the PLP is in step with the electorate.

The Trident vote could be the final nail in Jeremys coffin, indeed, with some sadness, I sincerely hope it is.

Quote:  ".... most of these people [the traditional working class] will vote for Labour regardless of the leader."

Are we excluding Scotland from this debate, or is it already being thought of as a foreign country following the Brexit referendum?

http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/pages/history

If opposition to a cruel Tory government is to mean anything viable, it has to be in the form of Social Democracy and not red-blooded socialism.

As witchfinder suggests, the wider voting public will not buy into Corbyn's brand of politics - even if they should for their own good. As a nation, we have lost the habit of doing what is best for us collectively and have become fragmented into any number of interest groups - some of which prefer lazily swallowing propaganda to giving serious matters real and analytical thought.

It is this type of willingness to be led by the nose to the tune of Murdoch et al which has resulted in many regarding socialism as old-fashioned and irrelevant to solving the nation's problems. Accordingly, any alternative to Toryism has to be something which is not tinged with the dusty yesterday of the traditional Labour mantras, but is more attractive in providing an alternative to right-wing domination.

If I thought socialism of the Corbyn variety would rid us of the Conservatives, I would willingly support it, but I don't have confidence that it can. That being the case, we have to find something compelling which will...

The post by Phil Hornby could have been written by me, I almost fear to admit that I am not a devout Socialist, the Labour Party updated itself and modernised into a popular moderate, left of centre political party with which most people in society could feel comfortable about.

The modernisation included widening the appeal of Labour further into the middle classes, people who believed in the market system, and in capitalism, but also believed there must be Social Justice at the same time, it was a departure from traditional "red flag" Socialism, and it was a winning formula.

The compressed version of why Labour lost in 2010 - the credit crunch arrived in 2008, which resulted in the government rescuing the banks, along came a global recession, the Tories said it was all Gordon Browns fault, and too many people believed the lie, Hey Presto we got the coalition.

I am convinced that had the serious world problems not happened, credit crisis, banking crisis and recession, then Gordon Brown would today be thinking about handing over the reigns to a third Labour prime minister in a row, after ten years in the post.

The downfall of Labour in 2010 was due to world events, and the much repeated lie that it was all Labours fault, it had nothing to do with where the Labour Party stood in terms of policy, and nothing to do with the abandonment of "Socialism" or Clause Four.

boatlady wrote:-
As an aside - Do you really think there's a chance we can avoid coming out of the EU?

Yes:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1129-open-letter-to-the-uk-s-450-mps-who-support-membership-of-the-eu#74309

witchfinder wrote:I will always argue for the Social Democratic line as against good old fashioned Socialism for many reasons, but by far the most important reason is quite simply ...electability ( is there such a word ? )

The last time a Labour leader stood on a soap box and declared we are going to be a good old fashiones Socialist government, and we are going to nationalise things and do away with our nuclear weapons, was in 1983, the year which saw Labours worst performance since the First World War, it was a time when Labour was torn apart by Militant, and the faction that split away to form the SDP, and today is a case of "De Ja Vous".

 It was actually destroyed, as you know, by the 'Social-Democrat' traitors and their God, Murdoch - much the same gang as are trying to destroy it now.