Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:40 pm  

The Blairites would rather see the party destroyed than move back to the left of anything, it's farcical. Not to mention how it spits in the face of the wave of supporters who joined to back Corbyn as a real opposition leader instead of the Tory-lite brand of doing things that fooked the general election.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:38 am  

Hand on heart, if the Labour leadership was based on all Labour voters, rather than activists (i.e. millions rather than hundreds of thousands), do you think Corbyn would have got anywhere near the leadership? Because its those voters, plus swing voters who can make Labour electable.

The left as a stand alone offering hasn't won an election for 40 years, and the patterns of voting suggest that is not going to change, especially as Labour has managed to lose Scotland at least for the time being. Getting agitated and yelling that its just because people don't understand or have forgotten socialist ideals is what fringe activists have always done and it just doesn't work.

If like Corbyn you think that small bands of protestors are more important than actually getting elected, then sobeit. But right now Labour is looking more like a fringe protest movement than a credible opposition.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:45 pm  

So, Angela Eagle has officially challenged Corbyn's leadership. She makes Ed Milliband look like Dennis Skinner. This has been one of the worst coup attempts ever. If you plan to remove a leader then you have to have someone else with the party backing who can step straight in. Labour, and their brand of quasi toryism simply isn't what is going to get them elected anymore,and with the Chilcot report due to be published that will no doubt paint some of the Blairites plotting against Corbyn in a negative light, I don't see how they can get what they want without Corbyn resigning. Add in the fact that Corbyn still has the support of party members, as well as the majority of Labour voters (Angela Eagle's constituents even wrote to her telling to vote against the motion of no confidence in Corbyn, which she ignored), and trade unions. Add in the fact that prior to the Eu vote he was edging ahead in some of the polls, increased Labour's share of the vote, as well helped labour take control of 4 major cities, including London. It's the most self-destructive coup in modern times. The labour MPs are criticizing Corbyn for supposedly failing to unite the party, but the fact is all they would have to do unite the party would to accept the mandate the party has been given, and back their democratically elected leader.
The fact is these are unprecedented political times, and populism on both sides of the political spectrum is what's galvanizing voters. Neoliberal centreism that tries to be everything to everyone, but in turn offers nothing to nobody is all but dead, and "radical" policy ideas are needed to help defeat the weakening political establishment.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:38 am  

Spot on

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:48 am  

I would take David Cameron as Labour leader right now if it meant an effective opposition to what's coming. I would take one entire half of the Tory party as opposition to the wing that currently has a mandate if that's what it takes.

The most important thing right now is an opposition. We've got a two year process to turn everything upside down to come, and the only opposition to that that counts will happen in Parliament. "Fsck the PLP" is a concept as destructive to progressive values as voting out in the first place.

I voted for Corbyn as leader. I do not expect him to win an election at any time. My real interest in him was dragging the Overton window to the left a little. I genuinely think he's a decent man and it's not personal ambition. He did get a mandate from the membership, and I do feel he's fighting to protect that mandate in their name.

But I also think that he's fscking poop. He's not a leader. He's a representative. They have never needed leadership more than at this moment in time. Individually everyone's cool but, as is true for all parties, the combined view of the membership is crazy.

Say you fight and fight and fight and then lose. Consider how you will react to that. If it's to thank the party for their trust, and then go spend an afternoon on the allotment whilst barely thinking about it then you're a fscking wastrel nugget completely unsuited to the demands of the role. Particularly in this unique moment in history.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:02 pm  

vbfg wrote:

I would take David Cameron as Labour leader right now if it meant an effective opposition to what's coming. I would take one entire half of the Tory party as opposition to the wing that currently has a mandate if that's what it takes.

The most important thing right now is an opposition. We've got a two year process to turn everything upside down to come, and the only opposition to that that counts will happen in Parliament. "Fsck the PLP" is a concept as destructive to progressive values as voting out in the first place.

I voted for Corbyn as leader. I do not expect him to win an election at any time. My real interest in him was dragging the Overton window to the left a little. I genuinely think he's a decent man and it's not personal ambition. He did get a mandate from the membership, and I do feel he's fighting to protect that mandate in their name.

But I also think that he's fscking poop. He's not a leader. He's a representative. They have never needed leadership more than at this moment in time. Individually everyone's cool but, as is true for all parties, the combined view of the membership is crazy.

Say you fight and fight and fight and then lose. Consider how you will react to that. If it's to thank the party for their trust, and then go spend an afternoon on the allotment whilst barely thinking about it then you're a fscking wastrel nugget completely unsuited to the demands of the role. Particularly in this unique moment in history.

Pretty much summed up what I've done and what I think, right up to and including the use of the term Overton Window.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:29 pm  

vbfg wrote:

I would take David Cameron as Labour leader right now ...

Oddly enough, field work that I party to last year revealed that many people like David Cameron, but just wish (or wished then) that he was leader of the Labour Party.

People do like someone to be what they recognise as A Leader, who appears authoritative in a very conventional manner.

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:12 pm  

Not to go off on too much of a Cameron derail, but I have to say this given what I said above. I think he's a detestable man in just about every respect. What he could have done is follow Sturgeon's suggestion (or perhaps even have thought of it himself), whereby the result would require the consent of each part of the union. This would have been consistent with his Unionist beliefs, and consistent with the political climate. "This requires the consent of the nation and all its constituent parts", or some such, because for the integrity of that nation it clearly did. Anyone who opposed such a stipulation would have been clearly anti-union, and good look selling that to the core of what is officially titled Conservative and Unionist Party. It's almost as if he put as much effort as he could into being as shockingly and pig-fsckingly amateur as he could manage. I would say he was the worst Prime Minister since Chamberlain, except that Chamberlain did not invent Hitler out of thin air. However, he has had two moments that have impressed me. One was petulant, but correct and this week. He alluded a little to Leo Amery quoting Cromwell when he was trying to get Chamberlain to quit. "We need an opposition. For heaven's sake man, go" or something to that effect. Perhaps he held off on the full Cromwell quote because we're in the middle of fscking Ireland. Again. The other moment though, THE positive Cameron moment as far as I'm concerned, genuinely stopped me in my tracks. No other Prime Minister has ever done that, and I mean it quite literally. I remember I was cooking and pottering around in the kitchen, and something got ruined because I had to stop and listen. It was a complete and unequivocal apology for Bloody Sunday. Proud is the wrong word in the circumstances, but I felt something akin to it when I heard that apology. He will always have my personal gratitude for that. And my undying enmity for this. (Also, he both looks and sounds like someone who was my boss for most of the last decade. That was a very odd experience right from the off and then never ceased being odd.)

Not to go off on too much of a Cameron derail, but I have to say this given what I said above. I think he's a detestable man in just about every respect. What he could have done is follow Sturgeon's suggestion (or perhaps even have thought of it himself), whereby the result would require the consent of each part of the union. This would have been consistent with his Unionist beliefs, and consistent with the political climate. "This requires the consent of the nation and all its constituent parts", or some such, because for the integrity of that nation it clearly did. Anyone who opposed such a stipulation would have been clearly anti-union, and good look selling that to the core of what is officially titled Conservative and Unionist Party. It's almost as if he put as much effort as he could into being as shockingly and pig-fsckingly amateur as he could manage. I would say he was the worst Prime Minister since Chamberlain, except that Chamberlain did not invent Hitler out of thin air. However, he has had two moments that have impressed me. One was petulant, but correct and this week. He alluded a little to Leo Amery quoting Cromwell when he was trying to get Chamberlain to quit. "We need an opposition. For heaven's sake man, go" or something to that effect. Perhaps he held off on the full Cromwell quote because we're in the middle of fscking Ireland. Again. The other moment though, THE positive Cameron moment as far as I'm concerned, genuinely stopped me in my tracks. No other Prime Minister has ever done that, and I mean it quite literally. I remember I was cooking and pottering around in the kitchen, and something got ruined because I had to stop and listen. It was a complete and unequivocal apology for Bloody Sunday. Proud is the wrong word in the circumstances, but I felt something akin to it when I heard that apology. He will always have my personal gratitude for that. And my undying enmity for this. (Also, he both looks and sounds like someone who was my boss for most of the last decade. That was a very odd experience right from the off and then never ceased being odd.)

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:16 pm  

And all I can say about Corbyn is "You're not wrong, but..."

Re: Will Labour Ever Learn? : Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:22 pm  

I personally want Corbyn to win the new party election.

The Red Torys can then leave the Labour party and allow it to return to its working class roots. They can then form a new party.

The harsh reality is that many Labour MPS would have naturally joined the Conservative party in the 1960's.

Corbyn for all the media rhetoric of being a left winger is actually pretty centrist when looked at in the historical context.

The referendum has placed a bomb under the political status quo within the UK. Both Labour and Conservative parties are tearing each other apart.

My personal view is that if the Blairites leave labour to form Red Tory, then if someone like Gove gets elected tory leader, some of the more traditional tory elements would lean towards joining the red torys. This then further splits the political vote, and makes a further case for the UK to modernise its political system.