Politics, politics..

[kalniel]

While I agree in principle, does anyone seriously believe that at this point, after everything that's happened, Gove can beat May?

Because, here's the thing. If there's a contest, the direct inference of that is another 9 weeks of uncertainty with nobody really running the UK. And that uncertainty is bad for UK PLC. On the other hand, we have a new PM by Wednesday evening, most of a Cabinet by Thursday, and 9 weeks of uncertainty avoided.

We'll never know. Gove didn't get his chance to convince the membership. He's fine with that, perhaps thinking that it's in the country's best interests (I'd be in complete agreement!).

Some may find it ironic that we've ditched EU governance in part over lack of perceived democratic leader choice but now have a PM decided by a few MPs

[Corky34]

There must be a lot of people sitting on benches in Westminster who aren't even vaguely representing the views of the people who sent them there...

The thing is neither the PLP or signed up labour party members are the only ones who elect MPs, ultimately it's the electorate who get's to decide, a mandate from a quarter of a million votes from party members/supporters is nice and everything but if that doesn't translate into votes come election time it means squat.

May's survival of a difficult role for years shows she obviously has some ability.

The funniest part is we now have a PM that failed to get immigration of non-EU nationals under control despite that being a corner stone of their manifesto, a government in power that said the UK would look increasingly like France (under a labour-led government) and now France has overtaken us as the worlds 5th largest economy, an ex-PM that offered stability and strong Government with him, or chaos with Ed Miliband and we have neither of those things, and a vote to leave the EU because MPs were telling us it was about sovereignty but now it looks like they're going to overrule the sovereignty of parliament.

[scaryjim]

Good counter-points, everyone.

I suppose from my point of view what we see with centrist New Labour is a lot of people feeling disenfranchised. Corbyn has motivated a significant number of people who were otherwise detached from politics. Those are people who - for the first time - heard the leader of a mainstream political party saying the things they wanted to hear. If they lose that, where do they go? Greens? Perhaps, but I doubt many people see the Greens as a party of Government. Lib Dems? They've already committed political suicide and I can't see many of the leftist youth forgiving them for their coalition compromises in a hurry.

As I said, Labour under a centrist leader will struggle to genuinely oppose the government. Labour fractured under a continued Corbyn leadership are basically useless, but Corbyn himself at least stands properly opposed to the Conservatives on most issues. Labour candidates are selected by their local parties, so actually the MPs being out of touch with their party grassroots IS important - they could easily be deselected at the next election if the whole mess rumbles on, and what they're currently doing is turning round to their own party members and saying "I know we said you could choose the leader, but you got it wrong, so let's try again, shall we?". Yay, democracy And of course, you've always got the risk of a full on party split if Corbyn wins a leadership election - would those 170+ MPs who have no confidence in him resign the Labour whip and form their own parliamentary party?

One thing Leadsom's withdrawal has done is compounded Labour's woes. The Conservatives are definitely better at keeping their discontent quiet, and showing a unified face, whether they believe in their current leader or not. They'll put the knives away in public, look like a strong party, and the lack of uncertainty is already starting to see the pound recover slightly against the dollar, which they'll no doubt claim is due to their good management of the situation (ignoring the fact that aside from the last week it's still at a 30 year low). Strong Conservatives, and Labour in disarray. It's just like the first 15 years of my life...!

[wazzickle]

As I said, Labour under a centrist leader will struggle to genuinely oppose the government. Labour fractured under a continued Corbyn leadership are basically useless, but Corbyn himself at least stands properly opposed to the Conservatives on most issues. Labour candidates are selected by their local parties, so actually the MPs being out of touch with their party grassroots IS important - they could easily be deselected at the next election if the whole mess rumbles on, and what they're currently doing is turning round to their own party members and saying "I know we said you could choose the leader, but you got it wrong, so let's try again, shall we?". Yay, democracy And of course, you've always got the risk of a full on party split if Corbyn wins a leadership election - would those 170+ MPs who have no confidence in him resign the Labour whip and form their own parliamentary party?

Labour will struggle either way, unless Corbyn resigns and they magically come up with a leader that both the PLP could be happy with and the disenfranchised, rabidly angry youth feel represent them.

[pp05]

Good counter-points, everyone.

I suppose from my point of view what we see with centrist New Labour is a lot of people feeling disenfranchised. Corbyn has motivated a significant number of people who were otherwise detached from politics. Those are people who - for the first time - heard the leader of a mainstream political party saying the things they wanted to hear. If they lose that, where do they go? Greens? Perhaps, but I doubt many people see the Greens as a party of Government. Lib Dems? They've already committed political suicide and I can't see many of the leftist youth forgiving them for their coalition compromises in a hurry.

As I said, Labour under a centrist leader will struggle to genuinely oppose the government. Labour fractured under a continued Corbyn leadership are basically useless, but Corbyn himself at least stands properly opposed to the Conservatives on most issues. Labour candidates are selected by their local parties, so actually the MPs being out of touch with their party grassroots IS important - they could easily be deselected at the next election if the whole mess rumbles on, and what they're currently doing is turning round to their own party members and saying "I know we said you could choose the leader, but you got it wrong, so let's try again, shall we?". Yay, democracy And of course, you've always got the risk of a full on party split if Corbyn wins a leadership election - would those 170+ MPs who have no confidence in him resign the Labour whip and form their own parliamentary party?

I think the situation under the Labour party is untenable. You cannot have a sitting duck as your leader and I'm someone who liked what Corbyn has to say. 500,000 members vs 20 million electorate. What will it take for them to get in line?

[cheesemp]

It's a fait accompli - Theresa May will be our next PM, and given the disarray labour finds itself in, she's likely to call a general election pretty pronto. Might even literally be the first thing she does in office.

She has publicly stated she won't do this. It was one of her party election promises (along with brexit means brexit). While many would argue it more uncertainty is not what anyone wants as its killing the pound.

(Edit: I say all this as an angry remainer but we just don't need more damage to the economy)

[pp05]

I don't think any election should be called until next year earliest.

We need time for things to settle down post referendum.

[scaryjim]

I think the situation under the Labour party is untenable. You cannot have a sitting duck as your leader and I'm someone who liked what Corbyn has to say. 500,000 members vs 20 million electorate. What will it take for them to get in line?

I don't know, but the parallels with the SDP split are quite disconcerting. The only difference is that the centrist element is now the majority of the parliamentary party, rather than just a dissenting few. The Labour party appears to be having a huge identity crisis, and I don't think there is a polite/civil/constructive solution. It's going to be painful and messy however it resolves.

She has publicly stated she won't do this. ...

More to the point it would actually be very difficult to do this, thanks to the fixed term parliament act. The Prime Minister can no longer just call a general election. There are ways around it, but none of them is easy or quick.

[pp05]

I don't know, but the parallels with the SDP split are quite disconcerting. The only difference is that the centrist element is now the majority of the parliamentary party, rather than just a dissenting few. The Labour party appears to be having a huge identity crisis, and I don't think there is a polite/civil/constructive solution. It's going to be painful and messy however it resolves.

This is because Tony Blair changed a few things in terms of candidate selection when he came to power. Those who shared his vision were put forward for elections. So yes you have a bigger mix of centrist candidates now because they deem that is where you have biggest voter base. I think it comes down to losing the 1992 election to John Major that made them pull in this direction.

[peterb]

Good counter-points, everyone.

I suppose from my point of view what we see with centrist New Labour is a lot of people feeling disenfranchised. Corbyn has motivated a significant number of people who were otherwise detached from politics. Those are people who - for the first time - heard the leader of a mainstream political party saying the things they wanted to hear. If they lose that, where do they go? Greens? Perhaps, but I doubt many people see the Greens as a party of Government. Lib Dems? They've already committed political suicide and I can't see many of the leftist youth forgiving them for their coalition compromises in a hurry.

As I said, Labour under a centrist leader will struggle to genuinely oppose the government. Labour fractured under a continued Corbyn leadership are basically useless, but Corbyn himself at least stands properly opposed to the Conservatives on most issues. Labour candidates are selected by their local parties, so actually the MPs being out of touch with their party grassroots IS important - they could easily be deselected at the next election if the whole mess rumbles on, and what they're currently doing is turning round to their own party members and saying "I know we said you could choose the leader, but you got it wrong, so let's try again, shall we?". Yay, democracy And of course, you've always got the risk of a full on party split if Corbyn wins a leadership election - would those 170+ MPs who have no confidence in him resign the Labour whip and form their own parliamentary party?

One thing Leadsom's withdrawal has done is compounded Labour's woes. The Conservatives are definitely better at keeping their discontent quiet, and showing a unified face, whether they believe in their current leader or not. They'll put the knives away in public, look like a strong party, and the lack of uncertainty is already starting to see the pound recover slightly against the dollar, which they'll no doubt claim is due to their good management of the situation (ignoring the fact that aside from the last week it's still at a 30 year low). Strong Conservatives, and Labour in disarray. It's just like the first 15 years of my life...!

But I'm not convinced that Jeremy Corbyn was is very effective in opposition. He was the outside choice at the leader election, and won after a last minute surge in Labour Party membership - a membership that then lapsed, but has re-appeared now he is under some threat. Are they genuine Labour part supporters? I don't know but it does seem 'odd'.

And slightly disturbing to hear the reports that a brick was thrown through the window at Angela Eagle's constituency office. Might be coincidence... or a crude attempt at intimidation.

I am relieved that the leadership election in the Conservative party has been resolved without a long summer of campaigning, which would have been damaging for the economy.

The Conservative party has a manifesto commitment to complete and a mandate to oversee BREXIT, which she has said she will do.

If she wants to hold a snap election, now would be the time (politically) to do it with the Labour leadership in disarray, but I doubt it would be good for the country. The outcome could be quite unpredictable.

The fixed term Parliament does provide for measures for dissolving Parliament early - she could put forward a motion of no confidence herself, which only requires a simple majority, or a motion calling for Parliament to be dissolved can be propose, but that needs more than a simple majority to be carried.

But early days, it will be interesting to see who is in her cabinet.

As for Labour, they need to get their act together soon, not least because the Party Conference will be upon us in the Autumn, with all that that may bring.

(Although it is worth mentioning that Jeremy Corbyn has been strongly Eurosceptic, and his recent 'conversion' doesn't seem very convincing)

[opel80uk]

People claiming Corbyn is unelectable are really missing the point; Labour had become unelectable regardless of who the leader is because in no small part, the electorate prefer actual Tories rather than a Tory-lite party, and FPTP that lends itself to the UK's more solid, small c conservative vote, and hampers the more fractured left wing vote.

Corbyn will not be able to win an election, but him as leader has been important for the realignment of Labour, or rather of a type of Labour that, whether you agree or disagree with, you know what they stand for. There clearly needs to be a split between the majority of the PLP who, at face value at least, are still loyal to the Blarite wing of the party, and the rest, that much is obvious but, although in the short term it means a period out of power, in the longer term, there are opportunities. Firstly, they need to either bring in deselection for sitting MP's to bring in MP's more in tune with party members, or actively force the split and break away from the PLP, taking the Unions (and more importantly their money) with them. One thing for sure, the current situation is untenable, whereby the PLP is at such odds with the membership.

Secondly they need to start campaigning for a type of PR, and start dispelling the notion that the introduction of such a system would mean the meltdown of the UK as we know it. They have lost Scotland for the foreseeable future, and without PR, they cannot realistically expect a commons majority, barring the spectacular. That in itself should dictate Party policy on this issue. There is no reason whatsoever why a stable Labour/SNP coalition could not function.

I said after the election that Labour are out of office for the foreseeable future, so they may as well use the time to actually become Labour again. The job of a particular party is to represent it's members, and to try and convince the wider electorate that their views best serve the country. It's not the job of a party to morph into whatever they think will win them power, then it's just power for power's sake.

[Corky34]

....(along with brexit means brexit)....

If only we knew what that meant, brexit means many different things to many different people.

We need time for things to settle down post referendum.

Settled left the room when we voted to leave, from hear on out the UK is playing a massive game of Jenga.

People claiming Corbyn is unelectable are really missing the point; Labour had become unelectable regardless of who the leader is because in no small part, the electorate prefer actual Tories rather than a Tory-lite party, and FPTP that lends itself to the UK's more solid, small c conservative vote, and hampers the more fractured left wing vote.

I'm not sure the claim that the electorate prefer actual Tories rather than a Tory-lite party hold much water TBH, even after the financial crash and Brown being coronated PM they only managed to get into power via a coalition with the Lib Dems, then a slim majority (arguably) on the back of a promised IN-OUT referendum, and the way things are looking ATM a third term looks likely mainly because Labour are behaving like and episode of the Muppet show.

[kalniel]

Well I hear Mr Cameron might be looking for a job if the blairites want to form a new party I don't know if the Lib Dems still exist so plenty of room in the centre.

[Flibb]

Yes the Liberal Democrats do still exist, he was on the TV yesterday, looked a bit lonely.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[cheesemp]

More to the point it would actually be very difficult to do this, thanks to the fixed term parliament act. The Prime Minister can no longer just call a general election. There are ways around it, but none of them is easy or quick.

Fair point.

If only we knew what that meant, brexit means many different things to many different people.

True. We could just end up in the single market with free movement of people with the only change being uk parliament is sovereign and we have no control over EU laws that we'd have to abide by... (I doubt that'll happen). More likely I expect we'll get some minor concession on free movement (like a cap or no benefits until you've paid in) and we might have some limit put on banking?

[pp05]

People claiming Corbyn is unelectable are really missing the point; Labour had become unelectable regardless of who the leader is because in no small part, the electorate prefer actual Tories rather than a Tory-lite party, and FPTP that lends itself to the UK's more solid, small c conservative vote, and hampers the more fractured left wing vote.

Corbyn will not be able to win an election, but him as leader has been important for the realignment of Labour, or rather of a type of Labour that, whether you agree or disagree with, you know what they stand for. There clearly needs to be a split between the majority of the PLP who, at face value at least, are still loyal to the Blarite wing of the party, and the rest, that much is obvious but, although in the short term it means a period out of power, in the longer term, there are opportunities. Firstly, they need to either bring in deselection for sitting MP's to bring in MP's more in tune with party members, or actively force the split and break away from the PLP, taking the Unions (and more importantly their money) with them. One thing for sure, the current situation is untenable, whereby the PLP is at such odds with the membership.

Secondly they need to start campaigning for a type of PR, and start dispelling the notion that the introduction of such a system would mean the meltdown of the UK as we know it. They have lost Scotland for the foreseeable future, and without PR, they cannot realistically expect a commons majority, barring the spectacular. That in itself should dictate Party policy on this issue. There is no reason whatsoever why a stable Labour/SNP coalition could not function.

I said after the election that Labour are out of office for the foreseeable future, so they may as well use the time to actually become Labour again. The job of a particular party is to represent it's members, and to try and convince the wider electorate that their views best serve the country. It's not the job of a party to morph into whatever they think will win them power, then it's just power for power's sake.

Who are his supporters? What are the policies you think he wants to bring in? How can he bring them in if you and many think he is not electable. Those in power make the rules after all.