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?

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.

But would Brussels actually welcome a return of the prodigal son?

There must be a number of EU members glad to see the back of perfidious Albion.

If Corbyn isn't on the ballot it means the PLP are sticking two fingers up to Labour party members.

.....the same PLP whose masterplan appears to be imagining the quasi Blairist, Angela Eagle winning an election.....haha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahaha ha ha ha. How dumb are these 172 rebels.....it beggars belief that these numskulls have been elected as mps.

The PLP are trying to disenfranchise the members. If they force Corbyn off the ballot they will just look like a bunch of nasty c-nts. They already resemble 172 clucking chickens.

Way to go, PLP. You idiots!

Thoughts of a Labour Leader in 2016?

To be or not to be-that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And, by opposing, end them.

Labour Party Executive Committee rule that Jeremy Corbyn will automatically be on any Leadership election ballot paper.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-executive-rules-jeremy-corbyn-must-be-on-leadership-ballot/ar-BBug49H?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp

Did any of the PLP seriously imagine they might get away with airbrushing an elected leader out of their preferred picture?

Did any of the PLP seriously imagine they might get away with airbrushing an elected leader out of their preferred picture?


The fact that they attempted to tells us a lot about them........and nothing that is good.

......there are ways and means of doing things decently. The behaviour of the 'coup' has been deplorable, shows massive mis-judgement, is irresponsible, and damaging to the party. Airing that much dirty laundry and ill feeling in public has seriously undermined Labour. There ought to have been greater efforts to sort the differences in the party behind closed doors in a more dignified manner. The PLP have instead chose to create a bloodbath broadcast to an incredulous public. McTernan was whinging and crying on BBC about the end of Labour and how Corbyn is responsible for Labour dipping in the polls. Does the idiot not understand that if the PLP were behind Corbyn then Labour would be doing far better in the polls. It is the PLP's ill judged coup and resulting chaos that has undermined public confidence in the party. They are the ones to blame for any dip in Labours rating in the polls. If they'd offered Corbyn their full backing and support from the outset, Labour could have been in a very strong position now - and indeed could have been holding the Tories to account and calling for a general election instead of having this ridiculous leadership challenge.

They have acted as a spoilt child stamping it's feet screaming 'we don't want that, we want the other', and when their petulance has not got the desired result the dummy came out and the toys were thrown around.......now they stand confused, and blubbing amid the chaos of their own making.

Corbyn has shown immense strength, integrity, and belief to remain so resolute; and has remained dignified, patient, and respectful in the face of such adversity. He has my support............especially when the best the 172 can offer is the uninspiring Angela Eagle!

......much of the PLP claim to agree with Corbyn's message and vision. Their beef is they don't think he's leadership material............they think Angela Eagle is!!!!???? The fact Eagle has been offered as their great hope, in itself, demonstrates how out of touch with party members, reality, and the public they are.

I would say Corbyn demonstrated he is strong enough to lead. His steadfastness and integrity during this coup attempt has been very impressive. He has shown a lot more dignity and leadership than the 172 clucking chickens who have frankly behaved like backstabbers and cowards.......and made themselves look very foolish - but worst of all the 172 rebels have undermined public confidence in Labour, which is clearly why Labour have dipped in recent polls.

Any Labour meltdown is entirely the fault of the leading pipers who organised this stupid coup, and the mps who are following the pipers over the cliff edge.

I would imagine Corbyn is as exasperated by their antics as many Labour supporters are. However, he is remaining courteous and seeking to bring the party back together.

I have a friend who lives in Whitby who joinned the Labour Party because of Jeremy Corbyn, he jumped from the Socialist Workers Party, I have another friend in Barnsley who voted for Jeremy and who is a member of Arthur Scargills Socialist Labour Party.

The Labour Party is not a far left political party, it is not a Marxist party, yet many thousands of people who are members of such parties have become Labour Party supporters, and are supporting Jeremy Corbyn, most of the so called "Momentum" members have come from nowhere, many from far left movements.

The Labour Party which I have always voted for has been in favour of retaining our nuclear detterent, has always been strong advocates of NATO and the EU, supported aspiration and hard work, and followed sane, trusted economic policy, and always supported the NHS and public services.

I have not changed - the Labour Party is changed

Corbyn was half hearted and luke warm on both NATO and Europe, most people are not happy with his links to the IRA and other terrorist organisations, most people are not republicans or anti monarchists.

Corbyn is far too much out of step, out of tune and out of touch with the electorate, and Labour MPs know it.

The Corbyn wing of the party, including the membership, must get used to the idea that JC will not lead the PLP, if necessary they will elect their own leader of the PLP, and this could be the start of the split.

My own view on a split is that if it requires a "second purge" to rid the party of people who really dont belong, then lets get on with it

My own view on a split is that if it requires a "second purge" to rid the party of people who really dont belong, then lets get on with it

Speaking as a lifelong Labour voter and a moderate socialist I'm sorry you feel I 'don't belong' in 'your' party - I personally would endorse all that sickchip has said about Corbyn - had lost faith in the party, although I continued to vote Labour, after the shambles of the Iraq war and the evidence that provided that the party was no longer listening to the electorate.
Corbyn does listen and has got a track record already of challenging the government and standing up for the ordinary people in a way that many in the PLP have failed to do.
I don't see him as out of touch at all, although I might want to argue that Angela Eagle for example is out of touch - going against the wishes of her own CLP to mount her challenge for the leadership.
Like you, I have not changed in the 40+ years I have been voting Labour - the party did change when the Blair government came in with its spin doctors and soundbites and its separation from the concerns of the person in the street. Now I'm beginning to recognise a Labour vision I can feel enthusiastic about again - #JC4PM

I have not stated anywhere in my post that the Labour Party is "my" party, indeed I left the party in late 2015.

Angela Eagles own CLP as I understand it, and direct from "the horses mouth" ( someone from Wallasey CLP ) has been much swelled by "new commers", or as some would say "entryists", who have jumped upon the bandwagon, and who wish to radically alter and change Labour direction and policy.

I agree that the Iraq war was very unpopular with many people, but Blair rescued the NHS and brought it back from the brink, he did more for ordinary people in this country since Atlee who gave us the NHS and the welfare state, and Blair did all this because of a succesfully managed economy creating wealth to invest.

I am afraid that Corbyns economic policies are at best "experimental" and at worst - cloud cuckoo land economics, he wants to spend spend spend using notes of promise, isent that what that Greek bloke tried to do. ?

Blair, Darling, Brown, Kinnock, and a whole host more people have put the present situation into a nutshell, Corbyn & Co are turning Labour into a presure / protest group, instead of a serious contendor for government, to manage the country on behalf of its citizens. If Corbyn becomes PM I will give my savings to the Tory Party.

witchfinder,

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the Labour party you want is the Tory Lite New Labour version.....the version that really wouldn't change much at all, or veer too far from what the Tories already do.

I re-state my boringly oft-repeated message : Corbyn was quite happy not to support the leadership of his Party when he felt so inclined, so it is the height of hypocrisy to complain when others don't follow now.

As for...

"...when the Blair government came in with its spin doctors and soundbites and its separation from the concerns of the person..."

...not to mention, whatever its shortcomings, its success at three General Elections...!  

You do have to laugh at the different standards applied, don't you..?

It’s not hypocrisy to follow your conscience and to vote for what you believe in, especially when it’s clear that the party leadership is deviating from the values and agreed policies of the party. Corbyn was only ever a backbencher until last year, so he was free to speak his mind; he was not bound by collective cabinet (or shadow cabinet) responsibility.

not to mention, whatever its shortcomings, its success at three General Elections...!

Not to mention its “success” in losing four million Labour voters between 1997 and 2005. Blair’s 9,552,436 votes in 2005 were only 205,132 more than Miliband’s 9,347,304 in 2015.

If you deny 100,000 members a vote, you are no longer fit to be elected in a Country that claims to be democratic - and on simple practical calculation the careerists seem determined to condemn the Party to death. As Tories, they would, I suppose.

witchfinder wrote:-
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

So if a ‘moderate’ Labour leader loses an election, it’s all about world events, but if a left-wing Labour leader loses it’s all because of policies, is it? Much the same mindset as from those who have been predicting disaster in every by-election, council election and mayoral election since Corbyn became Labour leader. Then when Jim McMahon gets elected in Oldham West and Royton with an increased percentage of the vote, and Sadiq Khan regains London for Labour, all the credit goes to the candidate, when we all know that if they’d done badly, Jeremy Corbyn would have been blamed.

So what went wrong in 2015? Ed Miliband is hardly the ‘Red Ed’ which the Tory tabloids tried to portray. I think Labour lost because (a) the differences between the policies of the three main parties were too subtle for most punters, so enough of them stayed with the devil they knew, and (b) because working class people felt that Labour wasn’t addressing their concerns and either didn’t vote or fell for Farage’s lies.

You don’t get much more ‘moderate’ than the German SPD, which formally abandoned Marxism in 1959, but it’s been out of power since 2005 and, like other ‘moderate’ left parties across Europe, is struggling to make any significant impact. It appears to be parties that offer real change, some on the left but most on the right, which are galvanising public support. We are living in very different times from the 1980s, it’s pointless to keep harking back to them.

In case you’ve forgotten, there was a plot to oust ‘moderate’ Gordon Brown in January 2010 (even he was too left-wing for the Blairites), but David Miliband chickened out of it. There were constant rumours of plots against Ed Miliband, but they never materialised. Of course the landslide victory of Jeremy Corbyn was too much for the Blairites to swallow, and they walked away from the minute he was elected. All party members had an email from Angela Eagle on 17 August last year, when she was standing for deputy leader, saying "I will serve whoever you choose to lead us". She didn’t add that she would do so for less than ten months.

Horsham is one of the safest Tory seats in the UK. It hasn’t even had a Labour councillor for many decades. Meetings of the local Labour Party have usually been attended by no more than a dozen people. In 2014, the total membership of the Labour Party in Horsham was around 150. I went to the monthly meeting on Monday evening, where two resolutions were on the table, one supporting Jeremy Corbyn and one urging against any activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. 54 members were present. We were told that the local membership now stands at 652, with 147 people having joined in two weeks since the EU referendum.

Both resolutions were passed. Speaker after speaker said they had joined the party because Corbyn gave then hope, offered something different and seemed more decent and honest than most politicians. An 80-year-old man, who has been a member for 60 years, said he was speaking at a meeting for the first time ever. He said he could remember Clem Attlee and Nye Bevan, and that they would be considered 'extreme' had they been around now. The new members weren’t weirdos, Trotskyites or revolutionaries of any description. Most (but not all) were articulate young people who fear for the future in terms of job security and the availability of affordable housing, and especially because of the suicidal vote to leave the EU, and they feel very strongly that the way of doing politics for the last forty years has to change.

Ivan - that's been my experience in out local CLP - the new members are people of all ages who are excited by a party that is proposing some socialist policies of the kind we used to associate with Labour and who very much hope for a fairer society and felt that the New Labour governments missed some opportunities to bring this about

Prime Minister May's not very subtle shifting of Tory policy more towards the Left of Centre is confirmation enough.  An ungenerous person might almost think that some right-wing Tories have been put in her Cabinet to fail.

In the two general elections since the Credit Crunch, the Labour Party continued as though it were still 1997, which suggests that most of its MPs are humming the wrong tune.  The stark fact which needs to be faced is that it is probably they who are unelectable as left-wing candidates in current circumstances, not Mr Corbyn.

And the propaganda is ludicrous: read 'The Times' to have alleged Party members calling someone they plan to kill 'Comrade' (just in case anyone pointed to the tory shit responsible) and never forget the hundreds of thousands of (obviously previously underground) Marxist infiltrators. And at what point, incidentally, did normal Labour conviction become 'hard left'?

I think the point that some of us ( ie 'the clearly mistaken folk ') on here make about Blair is that he knew how to win in the prevailing circumstances of his time - not that his approach and policies would necessarily succeed now.


But if the smart money is on Corbyn's continuing leadership and policies winning the support of vast swathes of the British people in the near future then all well and good.

I don't see it personally, but I will bow to the obvious confidence of others and await the triumph of the Left which may just be around the corner.

If you're sure, of course...    

witchfinder wrote:-
The Labour Party is not a far left political party, it is not a Marxist party, yet many thousands of people who are members of such parties have become Labour Party supporters

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? There are millions of angry and bewildered people in the UK, many wrongly blaming the EU and immigrants for what neoliberalism has done to them, but there aren’t “many thousands” of Marxists. As Captain Mainwaring would have said: “Let’s not drift off into the realms of fantasy”.

I have not changed - the Labour Party is changed

The Labour Party has certainly changed since the 2015 general election. Ed Miliband was ‘moderate’ by most people’s definition, yet where did that get us? Offering milk-and-water policies so as not to frighten floating voters gave the party 99 fewer seats than the Tories. So the members – yes, the members not any ‘infiltrators’ – decided that a change of direction was necessary. When last year’s leadership campaign started, I was intending to give my first preference to Andy Burnham, but I was sickened when he joined Harman, Cooper and Kendall in failing to vote against the latest round of Tory welfare cuts. I suspect that it was people who felt as I did who gave Jeremy Corbyn the massive majority among fully-paid up members, regardless of what registered supporters did.

What’s changed is the so-called ‘centre ground’ of British politics. It’s moved further and further to the right since 1979. As the 80-year-old man said on Monday, Attlee and Bevan would be called 'extremists' today. And as the playwright Alan Bennett commented: "Since the 1980s, one has only had to stand still to become a radical”.

I was intending to give my first preference to Andy Burnham, but I was sickened when he joined Harman, Cooper and Kendall in failing to vote against the latest round of Tory welfare cuts.

This has been the trouble with the PLP, and the Labour grandees, Ivan. They imagine the only way to get elected is to be more like the Tory party.

Sadly, they - the PLP, mostly don't get, don't see, and don't take Corbyn's politics seriously enough, and thus deem him unelectable. I believe that if they had fully supported him from the outset, and presented a united front, they'd have been in a strong position after the referendum to be challenging the Tories and demanding a general election. Instead they simply seem determined to quash Corbyn's values from the Labour movement, and position themselves as a Tory Lite party because they think that's what people want - which imo is pointless.

Their hypocrisy is astonishing they accuse Corbyn and his supporters of intimidation etc, after they themselves have tried to bully a man out of his job in the most vicious manner......don't they know bullying in the workplace is an offence. I'm sure Corbyn would have a decent case against them.

And the fact that out of 172mps they have presented Angela Eagle as the person they must think can lead Labour into government, just proves they are either stupid, don't want to govern, or are deliberately sabotaging the party. Where are the serious candidates from the 172? Perhaps none of them have the balls or enough conviction to want the job? Their plan to replace Corbyn, without hassle, with one of their own clearly backfired when Corbyn stood firm.......they must have been shocked to encounter an mp with integrity, conviction, who means what he says, and is prepared to fight for it........alien concepts to a bunch of cowardly compromising careerists concerned with dodging bullets rather than making a stand, an argument, or a difference.

Here is a list of unsuccessfull political parties of the UK

Socialist Party of Great Britain - Communist Party of Great Britain - Workers Revolutionary Party - New Communist Party - Solcialist Workers Party - Workers Party - Socialist Labour Party - Alliance for Green Socialism - Left Unity - Respect Party - Trade Union and Socialist Coalition.

These political parties have one thing in common, they are all "far left" political parties, and all of them are minority parties with little support, and yet some people wish to turn the Labour Party, which is not a far left party, into something resembling one of these organisations.

Not only do many Corbynites wish to turn the Labour Party into something resembling some of these political parties, many thousands of people from these fringe organisations have actually joined the Labour Party in order to prop up JC and hopefuly take over the party.

In 1996 Mr Arthur Scargill set up the "Socialist Labour Party" with good old fashioned Socialist values, and this was in response to Labour dropping the outdated Clause IV - today Arthurs Party is estimated to have around 400 members, so extremely popular.

Many of JCs ideas, beliefs and principles are not popular, his ideas on refugees and migrants are at odds with most working class people, his ideas on economics frighten the business world, and though I have never doubted his sincerity or his honesty, the kind of Labour Party he represents would be a disaster, and the word on the ground is that many ordinary members are coming to realise this fact.

witchfinder,

That's all very well, but what has it got to do with Corbyn? Corbyn is NOT far left.

If you imagine, or believe the press you read, that Corbyn is far left, you must also believe that the Labour party that gave us the NHS, comprehensive education, workers rights, council housing, etc are far left.

Surely the 100,000 members who have joined in the past 6 months can claim all their fees back - as they were conned into joining under false pretences....namely that they could vote in a leadership election.

100,000 members x £3.92 x 6 months. Demand your vote, or your money back.

Phil Hornby wrote:-
I think the point that some of us on here make about Blair is that he knew how to win in the prevailing circumstances of his time - not that his approach and policies would necessarily succeed now. But if the smart money is on Corbyn's continuing leadership and policies winning the support of vast swathes of the British people in the near future then all well and good. I don't see it personally.

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you. Blair was the master of the soundbite, for example “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Such glibness may have helped to set us on the path to where we are now, in what a ‘Guardian’ leader called “the era of post-facts politics”. The EU referendum showed how a small majority of voters didn’t give a damn about the catalogue of lies which Johnson, Farage and Gove spewed out; they’d made up their minds and no amount of evidence was going to change it. One former member of this forum is testimony to that.

I know a week is a long time in politics (even a day is in the present climate), but as I’ve said before - and I’m sorry if it disheartens other members - I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn stands a snowflake’s chance in hell of winning a general election. All those MPs who have thrown their toys out of the pram because they didn’t get their choice of leader have made sure of that. Just imagine the tabloids and the Tory leaflets pumping out their bile at the next election: “How can you elect this man as PM when 80% of his colleagues won’t work with him?”

The trouble is that I can’t see any other Labour leader winning the next general election, or the one after that. Angela Eagle? You must be joking. Owen Smith? Who is he? In common with other left-of-centre parties across Europe, Labour's future looks bleak. Witchfinder tells us that Corbyn’s “ideas on refugees and migrants are at odds with most working class people”, though I would have used the word “many”. The fact is that Labour, Green and Lib Dem ideas on refugees and migrants don’t resonate with those who use them as scapegoats for their own failings and for the inequality which the last 35 years have created.

Progressive parties cannot pander to racism and xenophobia; to do so would be totally against their principles. This is an issue where they must try to change public opinion rather than reflect it, to promote the benefits of immigration and to offer to provide funds for local authorities with a high influx of migrants. But changing public opinion on this won’t be easy, especially with the surge in nationalist sentiment fuelled by the Brexit vote. It all looks dangerously like the 1930s. Let’s hope that we don’t need to survive another world war before socialism seems relevant to a majority of voters once again.

There are some key or prime reasons why the LEAVE side won the referendum, and one such reason was the typical working class attitude to European migrant workers, and one of the nonsense's about typical left wing / progressive attitudes, is that we all adhere to the phrase "Let racist ignorance be ended" ( from The Internationale).

I see it everywhere, in the pub, on Facebook, even in my Buffs Lodge, ordinary working class people, traditionally Labour supporters, anti immigrant, anti migrant workers, and who often confuse the whole issue and get completely mixed up as to what are assylum seekers, and legal immigrants.

Such people watch their TV screens and see crowds of Corbyn supporters, Momentum demonstrations, and more recently the SWP with SWP placards in favour of Corbyn declaring we need more refugees -- rather like someone campaigning for the NHS saying we need more people like King Herod to run Maternity Services.

Its not true that most ordinary working class voters connect with the type and style of Labour that JC represents, in my opinion most of the electorate, including most who are inclined to vote Labour, want more curbs and more controls on immigration, and dare I say it, are ever so mildly xenophobic.

There is a however a substantial minority of people who are left / progressive inclined, who see no great problem with people who come here to work from Europe ( me included ), but the emphasis here is "minority", and the party needs to connect with the many, not the few.

This is precisely what Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and others mean whent they say "dont turn the Labour Party into a presure group" campaigning on issues that large swathes of the electorate either dont agree with, or dont care.

witchfinder,

....just because people are working class doesn't mean their mild racism / xenophobia should be pandered to. Just because they're working class doesn't make their ignorance, stupidity, and attitudes somehow more forgiveable / acceptable. It doesn't mean you give them more curbs on immigration and aiding refugees.......you keep trying to educate and tell the ignorant, misinformed classes they are wrong and why they are wrong.

I hate this current clamour that suggests the Labour party should pander to xenophobes who now vote UKIP by 'understanding' / 'respecting' their concerns (xenophobia) and altering party policy......that is akin to conceding ground to racists / xenophobes. You stick to principles, don't sell out, and don't pander to thick and ignorant people, just because they happen to be working class.

witchfinder wrote:-
in my opinion most of the electorate, including most who are inclined to vote Labour, want more curbs and more controls on immigration, and dare I say it, are ever so mildly xenophobic.

I agree with sickchip. We can’t turn the Labour Party, with its principle of internationalism and the brotherhood of man, into a watered down version of UKIP, in order to placate what is often just racism and ignorance. In any case, I doubt if to do so would attract xenophobes back to Labour. It would just add credibility to UKIP’s policies, and why would anyone so minded opt for a pale imitation when the real deal is on offer?

Harold Wilson’s government from 1964-1970 introduced a series of important measures which were more popular with politicians than voters. Capital punishment was abolished, when a large majority of people favoured it. Homosexuality and abortion were legalised in a much less tolerant age, despite what people tell you about the 1960s. The compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars and the introduction of the breathalyser were controversial measures, yet nowadays only an extreme libertarian crank would seriously object to such laws.

An act was passed in 1968 making it illegal to refuse housing, employment or public services to people because of their ethnic background. Many people said that would be unworkable because you can’t change people’s opinions. You can. The point is that sometimes the government has to lead public opinion and not follow it, and I think that’s especially true with immigration. It doesn’t help when the government stirs up hatred with ‘go home’ vans, and of course it doesn’t help when a progressive party isn’t in power. And maybe in the 1960s, when voting tendencies were more defined by class divisions, working class people believed that Labour was more likely to look after them even if it had policies which weren’t always to their liking.

We should take our share of refugees. How can we turn away people who have had to flee their own countries in fear of their lives? We didn’t turn our backs on them in the late 1930s and no civilised country should now. I think Angela Merkel realised that those who have managed to escape from Syria have mainly been educated people with enough initiative (and probably money) to get themselves to Europe, and that they might well be assets to the countries which take them in. And as somebody posted on Twitter yesterday, if you export armaments, you should expect to import refugees.

When an issue is ‘difficult’ for a political party, it needs to be confronted, it won’t just go away. The positive case for immigration needs to be hammered home – that immigrants are net contributors to the economy, that they tend to have more children to help provide the workforce to sustain our ageing population, and that the NHS would collapse without them. At the same time, the fact that the UK is currently the most densely populated country in Europe (probably in more than one sense if the Brexit vote is anything to go by!), the pressure on local resources if there is a sudden influx of immigrants in a particular area, and the fear of terrorists moving here, are genuine concerns which have to be addressed. It’s not easy to change people’s opinions, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

Here is a brief passage from Polly Toynbee's column in todays Guardian ... "The threat from the right menaces not just Labour but the country itself. Some 70% of Labour MPs’ constituencies voted Brexit, in a rightward shift pollsters say was mostly due to fear of immigration, even in areas with virtually none. In those “heartland”, “safe”Labour seats working-class votes are easy meat for Ukip candidates, risking an epic rightward shift in the next parliament"

Clearly we can dispute what Polly states, but I happen to believe that there is at the very least, some truth in it.

As a person who regards myself to be progressive and liberal in thought and attitude, I find it distasteful to consider pandering to the irrational fear of foreign workers or anyone who is a bit different, however, to simply ignore the issue may mean the loss of support, loss of elections.

The issue of immigration is The Political Ghost of the Labour Party in its heartlands, it keeps coming back to haunt the party, and its time for a complete rethink.

I absolutelly agree 100% with Ivan that the party ( or what emerges as The Labour Party(s) ) should never be a watered down version of UKIP, but I think there is an answer which could resolve the issue.

The answer should involve education, including producing facts and figures, the percentage of Euro migrants who come here to "scrounge", and I also believe there should be Task Forces set up to look at places under strain, like Boston in Lincolnshire, funds must be provided to build more homes, provide better services, upgrade schools and improve infastructure.

In this country we let the burdon become intollerable, and then we consider relieving the burdon, instead of been prepared and acting as and where required.

In Boston, around 11% of the population has arrived since 2004 from eastern Europe, yet almost all these people are working, they went to Lincolnshire because there was work and money to be earned, and in an effort to change attitudes, we should celebrate the fact that the UK is, and has been a great place for people to come to and "make it", to better themselves.

There should have been hundreds, if not several thousand council houses built in the Boston area, there should have been money provided to build a couple of new schools, and funds to improve the town, its roads, but instead virtually nothing was done, and the biggest cry is often that "our housing and public services are under strain".

The left side of politics must listen to what The People are saying on door steps, and we cannot simply brush them off and say "your wrong", because it wont work, in some places people really do feel as though they are been swamped.

The problem with political indoctrination (or education if you're more comfortable with that description) is that people usually believe what they want to believe - in much the same way as governments can always afford the things they want to afford.

The Tory propaganda machine, aided by a complicit right-wing Press, knows just what buttons to press in order to spook voters away from exercising their basic common-sense.


The Labour Party is currently devouring itself, but hopefully it's not too late to identify a common purpose, which is obviously the need to gain power before anything else can be achieved.  Get Elected, boys and girls!   Argue later.

No - the purpose is to do something useful - WITH power. What is the point of simply electing one gang of careerists rather than another?

Some correspondents to this thread clearly believe that Labour must do "anything and everything" to get elected - including stealing the Tory clothes. Agreed that leads to a hollow victory of dishonest politicians who don't even believe in themselves, but the alternative seems to be Tory rule without end forever and ever, Amen.

Pragmatism beats all other bets.

witchfinder,

Good post! I agree with your assessment with what is needed to go someway to resolving immigration issues and voter fears.

The problem lies in which party will have the courage to act on those ideas. Corbyn is the most likely to adopt such an agenda imo......I believe those seeking to displace him would just give us much the same policies as the Tories already do. Unfortunately the repeated mantra from the media, PLP, and assorted bloggers that "Corbyn is unelectable" seems to be having it's effect..........say something often enough, and loudly enough, and people will begin to believe it - and repeat it themselves. This is a shame because if Corbyn had been fully supported by the PLP I feel he, and Labour, would be doing pretty well. It seems the PLP want to replace him with Eagle or Smith.......two people who it is difficult to envisage leading Labour to anything but defeat in a general election. Some suggest these are just 'holding leaders' until a real leader emerges.......but surely that's a very weak and poor plan to have; it would have been better to support Corbyn and let him take Labour into the next General Election.......if he failed the PLP could then justifiably say we gave the Corbyn brand every chance now we need to move on. However the damage is done now and even if Corbyn wins the leader vote and the party unify behind him, the electorate will correctly assume that that unity is a sham. The PLP, by their ill timed, and ill conceived, coup have destroyed Labour's chances of being elected for many years and substantially weakened Labour's political credibility/standing. It's difficult to see a way forward for Labour, and therefore difficult to see a way out of years of Tory rule.

In order to remind myself of just what kind of nonsense Jeremy Corbyn subscibes to, I have had another read through the website of "stopthewarcoalition", where you will find that all the problems of the world are the fault of Britain, Britains military, NATO and British politicians.

The new cold war is entirely the fault of NATO, and has nothing to do with either Putin or Russia ( according to stopthewar).

The words of hate contained within stopthewar website aimed at Labour MPs who have a free conscience are despicable, and are only matched by the hostile and agressive on-line abuse that stopthewar supporters have committed against people who disagree with their line.

stopthewar have made some pretty vicious and nasty comments directed personaly towards Hillary Benn and others, some of their statements and opinions on Islamic State and the killing of a known terrorist by drone is so far removed from general British opinion, that it is in outer space, on Mars.

Yet some Labour Party members cannot understand why many people feel that the JC brand of Labour is unelectable, and I have to say that the first responsibility of every single MP is to the people who elected them - NOT to a party that wants to shift or change its policies under which that MP was elected.

At the 2015 election I would not have voted for a party with a policy of unilateralism, or for a party which seemed to blame NATO for the events in Ukraine, or for a party who s leader appears luke warm on NATO membership, I am not a republican, and I am no supporter of CND or stopthewar.

Like many people I voted Labour for what it stood for in May 2015, and for many years previous to that, and if the members want to change what the party stands for, then thats fine, they are entitled to do that, but remember that it may not fit with the beliefs or consciences of both the PLP or the people who voted Labour last time.

The PLP is not in the pockets of the thousands of ex SWP and Green Party members who have recently signed up, they are firstly answerable to the electorate - thats democracy.

Mr Corbyn, on the whole, believes much the same things most decent people believe, and when he doesn't he believes his own opinion for good reasons he can explain. People like Smith believe in what is convenient, particularly if it pleases Murdoch, and I can't see how that benefits working people.

The Entirely Fake Owen Smith

Source: Craig Murray

Even the mainstream media feel compelled to drop hints that Owen Smith is not what he is being promoted as. ‘The Guardian’’s words were unintentionally revealing: “The former shadow work and pensions secretary plans to pitch himself as the soft left option”. Note “to pitch himself”. For PR professional Smith, political stance is to do with brand positioning.

On Channel 4, an incredulous Michael Crick pointed out that the 'soft left' Smith had previously given interviews supporting PFI and privatisation in the health service. As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services, even suggesting direct payments from the public to doctors replacing current NHS services.

As head of policy and government relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right-wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services. Owen Smith went to Pfizer from a Labour Party job, while Labour was in government, and his hiring was an example of the corrupt relationship between New Labour and big business.

http://www.speymouth.co.uk/the-entirely-fake-owen-smith/

Some things never change......


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn2BwJuW8AA2mqU.jpg

Just ten months ago:-
Jeremy Corbyn  251,417
Andy Burnham    80,462
Yvette Cooper    71,928
Liz Kendall          18,857

I can see the attraction of left-wing Socialism and the benefits for a whole range of people.

The problem for it is that it is unlikely to make the sort of headway nationally with the electors that the purists would like.

How do you resolve a dilemma like that...?

Phil Hornby wrote:I can see the attraction of left-wing Socialism and the benefits for a whole range of people.

The problem for it is that it is unlikely to make the sort of headway nationally with the electors that the purists would like.

How do you resolve a dilemma like that...?

It is only a dilemma to those who believe the newspapers, surely?

Nice to see that the character assassination of Corbyn is now in full swing.....It would seem that a majority of the PLP is going to jump on the band wagon of what a terrible, nasty piece of work Corbyn is, of course their behaviour is above reproach ........

Nice to see that the character assassination of Corbyn is now in full swing

Researcher Greg Dash tweeted this last night:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn6p-LqXYAAh_2c.jpg