Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Tubey]

That the membership should not be able to vote for candidates?

You are not advertising centrism very well tonight.

It's too open to entryism. It's a free-for-all. And you know it is, deep down you do, you just won't admit it.

There's honestly no difference between the Tories allowing white right wing nationalists to join en masse and have the power to put in a Tommy Robinson. You're never going to have a counter-balance of half a million centre-left people join in the same way as they simply don't mobilise in that way, but the country by and large is moderate in their political views.

So you have a membership who in no way reflect the mainstream, dictating the direction of a party who is meant to try and gain power by attracting mainstream votes!

The old Labour leadership rules accommodated for steady swings in view - for example, Ed Milliband; he came to be leader because the party as a whole had edged left after the Blair/Brown years, and rightly so.

 

[tsubaki]

It's too open to entryism. It's a free-for-all. And you know it is, deep down you do, you just won't admit it.

There's honestly no difference between the Tories allowing white right wing nationalists to join en masse and have the power to put in a Tommy Robinson. You're never going to have a counter-balance of half a million centre-left people join in the same way as they simply don't mobilise in that way, but the country by and large is moderate in their political views.

So you have a membership who in no way reflect the mainstream, dictating the direction of a party who is meant to try and gain power by attracting mainstream votes!

The old Labour leadership rules accommodated for steady swings in view - for example, Ed Milliband; he came to be leader because the party as a whole had edged left after the Blair/Brown years, and rightly so.

Entryism means "people joining a party" now? That kind of makes all party memberships invalid, doesn't it?

Anyway, your whole argument appears to based on the idea that Corbyn is somehow equivalent to Tommy Robinson, and that Centrists represent the mainstream.

There is close to zero actual evidence to back any of that up. For a start, Corbyn was a Labour MP under Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband - he is blatantly not some kind of extremist and he is representative of a very real and long established trend within Labour. If you had any knowledge of Labour Party history, you'd realise this.

Secondly, the recent political history of the UK is not one that would support the idea that centrism - as defined by political centrists - is popular. You claim that people are by and large moderate in their views, and that is correct - the point is that moderate views are not centrist views. People are not out there on the streets demanding a greater number of public-private partnerships, they are not out there fetishizing entrepreneurs, calling for the NHS to adopt the genius of the private sector or insisting that the merits of globalization demand that people become more flexible in their work habits.

Finally your Ed Miliband point is just bizarre - he became leader because he managed to get the Union block vote; the membership and the MPs voted for the other Miliband. This was why the "registered supporters" wheeze was dreamt up by the right, to try and counter the block vote and because they assumed - as you do - that centrism was popular.

 

[Aberblue]

Smith?

Policies in a leadership campaign perhaps, but ideologically a world apart from Corbyn.

Just like the private schools and free borders, random 'policy' like that never really comes to fruition - they are more often than not soundbytes that are indicative of the route they'll take if elected. They aren't manifestos. The reality is Smith had to lean left to have any chance of winning any votes from Corbyn - in the end of course he was soundly thrashed because, again, the membership has been infiltrated heavily by Momentum/the hard left.

And because Smith was a laughably weak candidate. Be honest, can anyone think of a single thing he's done or said since that abortive attempt to win the leadership of the Labour Party?

 

[Tubey]

Entryism means "people joining a party" now? That kind of makes all party memberships invalid, doesn't it?

Anyway, your whole argument appears to based on the idea that Corbyn is somehow equivalent to Tommy Robinson, and that Centrists represent the mainstream.

There is close to zero actual evidence to back any of that up. For a start, Corbyn was a Labour MP under Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband - he is blatantly not some kind of extremist and he is representative of a very real and long established trend within Labour. If you had any knowledge of Labour Party history, you'd realise this.

Secondly, the recent political history of the UK is not one that would support the idea that centrism - as defined by political centrists - is popular. You claim that people are by and large moderate in their views, and that is correct - the point is that moderate views are not centrist views. People are not out there on the streets demanding a greater number of public-private partnerships, they are not out there fetishizing entrepreneurs, calling for the NHS to adopt the genius of the private sector or insisting that the merits of globalization demand that people become more flexible in their work habits.

Finally your Ed Miliband point is just bizarre - he became leader because he managed to get the Union block vote; the membership and the MPs voted for the other Miliband. This was why the "registered supporters" wheeze was dreamt up by the right, to try and counter the block vote and because they assumed - as you do - that centrism was popular.

Spot on, which meant it worked as intended - Labour as a whole leaned left, the leadership did too.

The problem now is that Labour as a whole didn't go far left, but the membership did because of the one member, one vote system which overrode the influence of the PLP, who reflected the electorate - after all, they were elected by them.

And no, I'm not saying Corbyn is equivalent to Robinson - I'm giving the analogy of how daft it would be if the Tories enabled the same thing.

My knowledge of Labour is fine thanks. Corbyn isn't representative of Labour since the 80s at best. A Corbyn/Foot type has not won an election for a very long time. It's outdated. It's too much of a swing one way at once, and doesn't reflect wider society. Most people are moderate in the sense they care about their jobs, their taxes, their homes, their kids. They don't want extreme swings in policy, because they know that if they screw up then the electorate will pay for it - and that's why Labour under Corbyn are so easy to attack - they represent risk, pure and simple risk.

There's a very good argument for a centre-left alternative now, left of New Labour for sure. But this is too extreme; my view is the electorate will reject it. Johnson is (somehow) more popular than May and he won't make the mistake of alienating his core vote by threatening the pension triple lock. Corbyn will do well to get as close now as he did in 2017, and even that wouldn't be good enough.

 

[Tubey]

And because Smith was a laughably weak candidate. Be honest, can anyone think of a single thing he's done or said since that abortive attempt to win the leadership of the Labour Party?

Nope he was always terrible. It was a desperate attempt by the PLP. "Anyone but Corbyn" was the attitude. They assumed Corbyn would do the honourable thing and resign when he lost the confidence of the party, but he didn't.

But by that point it was too late. There isn't a prayer that anyone but a hard left candidate will lead Labour in the foreseeable future. Not because it's the best course of action - but because of ideology. It's more important to have "their man" in charge of Labour than actually win an election, that much is obvious.

 

[dannyboy]

No, she couldn't win one - nobody could, it'd take years to reverse the damage in perception.

I think if Labour had been rebranded after 2017 with someone like Starmer, they'd be a shoe-in for an election in normal circumstances (this is a decade of some of the worst Tory governments and PMs in their entire history, alongside austerity), but yes, Brexit is the big difference maker.

That said, it's not an excuse for Corbyn at the one coming up. There's no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't be ahead of the Tories. If he loses, it's because he has no mainstream appeal.

There's a very obvious Momentum bubble where they think "oh, if people don't like Corbyn, why haven't they signed up to be members too and have a voice?" - but they miss the obvious; the 'normal' voter doesn't join political parties. They just vote at elections. And unless I'm very wrong, I think Corbynism has a very, very niche appeal - indeed, you could argue that Brexit has helped Corbyn, because there's 48% of people who may be tempted to hold their nose and vote for him for the greater good.

I recognise Corbyn´s shortcomings as I´m sure many other supporters do too. In an ideal world I´d go for Corbynism without Corbyn because I genuinely believe people like the policies (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...remy-corbyn-s-labour-party-are-onto-something) but dislike the man presenting them.

 

[peteblue]

I recognise Corbyn´s shortcomings as I´m sure many other supporters do too. In an ideal world I´d go for Corbynism without Corbyn because I genuinely believe people like the policies (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...remy-corbyn-s-labour-party-are-onto-something) but dislike the man presenting them.

He is a disaster, a walking talking disaster. Meanwhile one of his Brains of Britain, Abbot, is cluelessly back on the airwaves before McDonnel has her hooked......

 

[tsubaki]

Spot on, which meant it worked as intended - Labour as a whole leaned left, the leadership did too.

The problem now is that Labour as a whole didn't go far left, but the membership did because of the one member, one vote system which overrode the influence of the PLP, who reflected the electorate - after all, they were elected by them.

And no, I'm not saying Corbyn is equivalent to Robinson - I'm giving the analogy of how daft it would be if the Tories enabled the same thing.

My knowledge of Labour is fine thanks. Corbyn isn't representative of Labour since the 80s at best. A Corbyn/Foot type has not won an election for a very long time. It's outdated. It's too much of a swing one way at once, and doesn't reflect wider society. Most people are moderate in the sense they care about their jobs, their taxes, their homes, their kids. They don't want extreme swings in policy, because they know that if they screw up then the electorate will pay for it - and that's why Labour under Corbyn are so easy to attack - they represent risk, pure and simple risk.

There's a very good argument for a centre-left alternative now, left of New Labour for sure. But this is too extreme; my view is the electorate will reject it. Johnson is (somehow) more popular than May and he won't make the mistake of alienating his core vote by threatening the pension triple lock. Corbyn will do well to get as close now as he did in 2017, and even that wouldn't be good enough.

Sorry, but this just a very wrong post.

For a start, you've been arguing that the MPs have the biggest say when it comes to picking the leader, so why you now claim that "Labour as a whole" were right to pick the other Miliband in 2010 whilst also claiming that "Labour as a whole" were wrong in 2015 seems a bit strange.

Secondly, you were clearly directly comparing him to Robinson. Why even mention Robinson as a comparison otherwise?

Thirdly, I am really at a loss to understand how you can claim Corbyn is not representative of Labour when he (a) won every category of Labour voter in 2015 and 2016, and (b) got more votes than any Labour leader at an election since 1997 Blair at the last election.

As for people don't want extreme swings in policy - that is absolutely right. What you don't acknowledge though is that it is the likes of you (and the Tories) who have spent most of the time since 2015 saying that Corbyn is so extreme that he will put people at risk - to the extent that we now live in a country where those people are actually at risk. Centrists could have looked at what the Tories are doing, looked at what Labour are doing and thought "well, we don't agree with him but he isn't trying to take us out of the EU or actively ruin people's lives, but he was elected and so we should do what the Left did for years and work hard to regain our influence", but instead they just did a dirty protest.

 

[dannyboy]

He is a disaster, a walking talking disaster. Meanwhile one of his Brains of Britain, Abbot, is cluelessly back on the airwaves before McDonnel has her hooked......

I don´t think he´s a disaster. Corbyn´s tainted brand is largely down to media perception. If you´re a casual observer of politics, there is no other conclusion you would reach. You can´t underestimate the impact the press have on people´s thoughts, it´s why we´ve got a majority thinking Boris Johnson is doing a good job.

 

[dannyboy]

Nope he was always terrible. It was a desperate attempt by the PLP. "Anyone but Corbyn" was the attitude. They assumed Corbyn would do the honourable thing and resign when he lost the confidence of the party, but he didn't.

But by that point it was too late. There isn't a prayer that anyone but a hard left candidate will lead Labour in the foreseeable future. Not because it's the best course of action - but because of ideology. It's more important to have "their man" in charge of Labour than actually win an election, that much is obvious.

The coup against Corbyn gave a brilliant insight into how bereft of ideas that segment of the party is. They were utterly clueless and still are now.

You miss the point on the ideology. As members, we genuinely think veering to the left is the way to win an election. You can´t underestimate the scars of the 2010 and 2015 election where we followed the Tories down their route of cuts to public services and ended up polling 30% on both occasions.

 

[dead_soft]

He is a disaster, a walking talking disaster. Meanwhile one of his Brains of Britain, Abbot, is cluelessly back on the airwaves before McDonnel has her hooked......

Love calling the lick spittle by his first name but refuse to be able to spell Diane Abbott's surname correctly. We all know why.

 

[nsno-chris]

I recognise Corbyn´s shortcomings as I´m sure many other supporters do too. In an ideal world I´d go for Corbynism without Corbyn because I genuinely believe people like the policies (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...remy-corbyn-s-labour-party-are-onto-something) but dislike the man presenting them.

that article based off a poll of 1000 people. Absolutely ridiculous

 

[dannyboy]

that article based off a poll of 1000 people. Absolutely ridiculous

So then every poll that has the Tories crushing it at 40% is ridiculous as well then? Glad I can relax now.

For what it's worth, all polling on Labour's individual policies show this trend. Here's one from back in 2017 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...licies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html?amp

Don't know why people would be surprised that populist policies are popular with the people.

 

[Tubey]

Sorry, but this just a very wrong post.

For a start, you've been arguing that the MPs have the biggest say when it comes to picking the leader, so why you now claim that "Labour as a whole" were right to pick the other Miliband in 2010 whilst also claiming that "Labour as a whole" were wrong in 2015 seems a bit strange.

Secondly, you were clearly directly comparing him to Robinson. Why even mention Robinson as a comparison otherwise?

Thirdly, I am really at a loss to understand how you can claim Corbyn is not representative of Labour when he (a) won every category of Labour voter in 2015 and 2016, and (b) got more votes than any Labour leader at an election since 1997 Blair at the last election.

As for people don't want extreme swings in policy - that is absolutely right. What you don't acknowledge though is that it is the likes of you (and the Tories) who have spent most of the time since 2015 saying that Corbyn is so extreme that he will put people at risk - to the extent that we now live in a country where those people are actually at risk. Centrists could have looked at what the Tories are doing, looked at what Labour are doing and thought "well, we don't agree with him but he isn't trying to take us out of the EU or actively ruin people's lives, but he was elected and so we should do what the Left did for years and work hard to regain our influence", but instead they just did a dirty protest.

Because Labour "as a whole" has changed since 2010 and 2015 due to the rule change. That's the whole point I'm making - that the process is no longer balanced, that power lies in one grouping that has infiltrated the voting process.

No, I wasn't directly comparing him to Robinson - I was giving an analogy.

The 2017 election saw Theresa May every bit as bad as Corbyn was great at electioneering. He won't have that advantage again.

 

[Tubey]

So then every poll that has the Tories crushing it at 40% is ridiculous as well then? Glad I can relax now.

For what it's worth, all polling on Labour's individual policies show this trend. Here's one from back in 2017 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html?amp

Don't know why people would be surprised that populist policies are popular with the people.

The policies are popular individually.

But when all taken collectively people see it as 'pie in the sky' - they all have costs and risks. And that's the perception - that Labour don't know how to cost properly, they don't rein themselves in when they go hard left; they just spend and hope for the best.

Corbyn himself once said he'd spend £500bn and just tax the rich and let the better economy pay for everything, so it's hard to claim that perception isn't wrong...