Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Blue 1]

Well just a cursory look at polling since Corbyn announced his resignation and effectively left, we have been nosediving ever since. I remember people saying he HAD to leave as we would automatically turn it around once he announced. Thus far we haven't.

Maybe the shadow cabinet is stronger. I find the hate sent towards Diane Abbott difficult really, had any Labour cabinet member before or since been subjected to that, they would not have had the strength of character to keep moving forward. Either way though, being a bit better than what Corbyn had, is nit the same as looking like a government in waiting, is it?

I've said it before - its way to early to poll on Starmer let alone fact we sit in the midst of a crisis. Wait and see. But Corbyn was personally a huge vote loser as far as I'm concerned. Abbot was woeful and came across terribly. Her personal stuff is just that but Corbyn should never have out her in the firing line.

Abbot seems to be a nice person with good intentions but she was way out of her depth. The fact that Corbyn couldn't see it is indicative that he was too.

I don't know about Abbott being a nice person. She comes over on tv as being patronising and arrogant. Also, someone who believes that Chairman Mao "did more good than harm" clearly has problems with morality.

I believe Abbott's heart was probably in the right place but in recent years she was definitely in that group of condescending gets that cost labour many thousands of votes. To say otherwise imho is to be wilfully blind to the reality.

It's not like Corbyn was exactly spoilt for choice, when half the "senior" MP's with cabinet experience refused to serve in the shadow cabinet and others actively plotted his downfall. Abbott was there because he knew he could trust her, primarily.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

It's not like Corbyn was exactly spoilt for choice, when half the "senior" MP's with cabinet experience refused to serve in the shadow cabinet and others actively plotted his downfall. Abbott was there because he knew he could trust her, primarily.

And thats not a good enough reason for such high office. The moment Corbyn realised he didn't have the support of his colleagues he should have stood down. You can't run a party with such a limited base.

 

[Blue 1]

And thats not a good enough reason for such high office. The moment Corbyn realised he didn't have the support of his colleagues he should have stood down. You can't run a party with such a limited base.

You mean the moment he was elected?

Abbott had also served in Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

You mean the moment he was elected?

Abbott had also served in Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet.

The election process is the original sin - that is the elephant turd responsible for such dysfunction. Anything that can put the party membership and the parliamentary party so diametrically at odds has to be wrong. People will have (strongly) different opinions on which of those two groups should in the driving seat, but setting a course for head-on collision is madness.

There's always been aggro between the Labour PLP and the rank and file membership AFAIK, so not an easy problem to solve. Doesn't need solving to a certain extent as you have to see the sparks fly in a healthy political party. Painfully abrasive rubbing of shoulders. But voting for a backbench protest merchant as leader is a giant FY to the PLP, prob felt good for 5 minutes but the joke lasted five years too long.

 

[tsubaki]

The election process is the original sin - that is the elephant turd responsible for such dysfunction. Anything that can put the party membership and the parliamentary party so diametrically at odds has to be wrong. People will have (strongly) different opinions on which of those two groups should in the driving seat, but setting a course for head-on collision is madness.

There's always been aggro between the Labour PLP and the rank and file membership AFAIK, so not an easy problem to solve. Doesn't need solving to a certain extent as you have to see the sparks fly in a healthy political party. Painfully abrasive rubbing of shoulders. But voting for a backbench protest merchant as leader is a giant FY to the PLP, prob felt good for 5 minutes but the joke lasted five years too long.

The problem is that (on Corbyn at least) the membership was right - the PLP didn’t contain a better leader than him, and there were a significant minority of MPs who saw themselves as an MP first and Labour second.

 

[catcherintherye]

And thats not a good enough reason for such high office. The moment Corbyn realised he didn't have the support of his colleagues he should have stood down. You can't run a party with such a limited base.

He was elected twice by the membership. The MPs should have served in his cabinet.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

The problem is that (on Corbyn at least) the membership was right - the PLP didn’t contain a better leader than him, and there were a significant minority of MPs who saw themselves as an MP first and Labour second.

Actually that Leadership contest distributed itself quite neatly (forget about Liz Kendall for a sec). The best leader, by an absolute country mile, was Yvette Cooper. But her political position was not acceptable to the membership. The best political position for the membership, again by miles and miles, was Jeremy Corbyn. But he was unacceptable to the PLP. Electing the compromise candidate (Burnham) is not what you really want or set out to achieve, but would have been better for the party and the whole movement than either JC or YC.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

The problem is that (on Corbyn at least) the membership was right - the PLP didn’t contain a better leader than him, and there were a significant minority of MPs who saw themselves as an MP first and Labour second.

Corbyn is a divisive figure and not a unifying force so was not a good choice for leader, in my opinion.

 

[Blues Harp]

Where's Max Headroom?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

You mean the moment he was elected?

Abbott had also served in Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet.

Unless I'm mistaken Milliband had her in a junior minister role. Which was fine.

The election process is the original sin - that is the elephant turd responsible for such dysfunction. Anything that can put the party membership and the parliamentary party so diametrically at odds has to be wrong. People will have (strongly) different opinions on which of those two groups should in the driving seat, but setting a course for head-on collision is madness.

There's always been aggro between the Labour PLP and the rank and file membership AFAIK, so not an easy problem to solve. Doesn't need solving to a certain extent as you have to see the sparks fly in a healthy political party. Painfully abrasive rubbing of shoulders. But voting for a backbench protest merchant as leader is a giant FY to the PLP, prob felt good for 5 minutes but the joke lasted five years too long.

A third constituent was/is the party voters. The membership became a cult for Corbyn on the back of Momentum and itself differed hugely to the average Labour voter.

As a longstanding member that attends party meetings I seen that infiltration first hand. New members wide eyed with a passion to bring down capitalism and return the country to state ownership. Views often held by people that neither had a job at the time nor ever had one.

Labour has to appeal to Home owners, business owners and people aspiring to better themselves. It got to a state in my area where these new members were happy to stick two fingers up to sections of the constituency where there were new housing estates as "you've only got wannabe Tories in them".

The problem is that (on Corbyn at least) the membership was right - the PLP didn’t contain a better leader than him, and there were a significant minority of MPs who saw themselves as an MP first and Labour second.

The PLP had plenty of better leaders. It has one now for a start.

He was elected twice by the membership. The MPs should have served in his cabinet.

What and just ignore there principles? Didn't Corbyn stay on the back benches for so long for just such principled reasons?

 

[catcherintherye]

Unless I'm mistaken Milliband had her in a junior minister role. Which was fine.



A third constituent was/is the party voters. The membership became a cult for Corbyn on the back of Momentum and itself differed hugely to the average Labour voter.

As a longstanding member that attends party meetings I seen that infiltration first hand. New members wide eyed with a passion to bring down capitalism and return the country to state ownership. Views often held by people that neither had a job at the time nor ever had one.

Labour has to appeal to Home owners, business owners and people aspiring to better themselves. It got to a state in my area where these new members were happy to stick two fingers up to sections of the constituency where there were new housing estates as "you've only got wannabe Tories in them".





The PLP had plenty of better leaders. It has one now for a start.




What and just ignore there principles? Didn't Corbyn stay on the back benches for so long for just such principled reasons?

I dont think he was ever asked to sit in cabinet. The party members made it clear the policies they wanted, and we should all be accountable to our membership.

 

[tsubaki]

Corbyn is a divisive figure and not a unifying force so was not a good choice for leader, in my opinion.

Trans: “I didn’t like him so bitched and moaned, but now someone else is in charge everyone else must get behind him”

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Trans: “I didn’t like him so bitched and moaned, but now someone else is in charge everyone else must get behind him”

Well that is certainly a telling analysis.

 

[tsubaki]

Actually that Leadership contest distributed itself quite neatly (forget about Liz Kendall for a sec). The best leader, by an absolute country mile, was Yvette Cooper. But her political position was not acceptable to the membership. The best political position for the membership, again by miles and miles, was Jeremy Corbyn. But he was unacceptable to the PLP. Electing the compromise candidate (Burnham) is not what you really want or set out to achieve, but would have been better for the party and the whole movement than either JC or YC.

Yvette Cooper? She was rubbish, as shown by her performance before becoming a leadership candidate, during it and since. Did she ever take in those refugees?

Burnham was better (in that at least he gave the impression that he recognised something was wrong) but wasn’t decisive enough and made the mistake of using the PLP to lead his campaign rather than people who knew what they were doing.

 

[tsubaki]

Well that is certainly a telling analysis.

It is, and I especially like to hear you and the others bang on about unity now. It’s hilarious, please keep going.