Politics, politics..

[scaryjim]

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'. ...

Two points there:

1) I never said he was effective opposition But he does at least clearly stand for something that is opposed to the current government. I'm not convinced that the majority of centrist Labour MPs are opposed to the government, in general terms; new Labour has always seemed to fall pretty close to the Conservative tree. Angela Eagle's personal voting record from the back and front benches seems largely to be "tow the party line" - it'll be interesting to see what direction she'd take the party in when she was calling her own tune. Although her repeated votes against an independent enquiry into the decision to take military action in Iraq casts something of a shadow over her in my book.

2) even if you assume all the £3 "supporters" that joined the Labour party last year joined JUST to vote for Corbyn, and you discarded their votes, he'd still have been a long way ahead of the other candidates in the first round of voting. Of course, under AV that may well have meant he didn't win the leadership election after redistribution, but I think it's a cheap and naive shot to suggest that he only won the leadership election because of some kind of organised back-door flood of leftists, let alone insulting to the many people who joined because they wanted to support a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

I know a lot of people - mostly young, mostly politically inactive - who signed up as supporters or full members when they saw someone they identified with, someone with a message and ethos that spoke to them, standing for leader of a major political party. They aren't necessarily natural Labour party supporters, but they grew up with the fact that the government was either Conservative or Labour, and here was a potential Labour leader that they could get behind. So they joined the party to say "this is the kind of party we want Labour to be". Labour need those votes. More than anything they need votes from the people who don't usually turn out at general elections - there were 16 million uncast votes in 2015; the difference between Labour and Conservative was less than 2 million.

It may already be too late for the Labour party to hold on to those new supporters - the effective knifing of Corbyn over the last couple of weeks has already left many of them disillusioned with the party. There's been no recognition from the PLP that Corbyn's message has brought vast numbers of new supporters to the party; no implication that they have anything to say to this new, relatively untapped, support. As far as the PLP are concerned, Labour isn't that kind of party. Sad for them if that's the case; IMNSHO any political party needs all the support it can get, and perhaps Labour are forgetting their roots....

[DanceswithUnix]

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.

Then the Lib Dems say that a vote for them will be a mandate to stay in Europe, allowing people to change their minds. With 48% of the vote, that could get them a landslide majority. Back to uncertainty for the future

[Corky34]

If everyone who voted to remain voted for the Lib Dems, not saying they would, they'd get around 3m more votes than the Conservatives did in the last GE.

[peterb]

Two points there:

1) I never said he was effective opposition But he does at least clearly stand for something that is opposed to the current government. I'm not convinced that the majority of centrist Labour MPs are opposed to the government, in general terms; new Labour has always seemed to fall pretty close to the Conservative tree. Angela Eagle's personal voting record from the back and front benches seems largely to be "tow the party line" - it'll be interesting to see what direction she'd take the party in when she was calling her own tune. Although her repeated votes against an independent enquiry into the decision to take military action in Iraq casts something of a shadow over her in my book.

2) even if you assume all the £3 "supporters" that joined the Labour party last year joined JUST to vote for Corbyn, and you discarded their votes, he'd still have been a long way ahead of the other candidates in the first round of voting. Of course, under AV that may well have meant he didn't win the leadership election after redistribution, but I think it's a cheap and naive shot to suggest that he only won the leadership election because of some kind of organised back-door flood of leftists, let alone insulting to the many people who joined because they wanted to support a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

I know a lot of people - mostly young, mostly politically inactive - who signed up as supporters or full members when they saw someone they identified with, someone with a message and ethos that spoke to them, standing for leader of a major political party. They aren't necessarily natural Labour party supporters, but they grew up with the fact that the government was either Conservative or Labour, and here was a potential Labour leader that they could get behind. So they joined the party to say "this is the kind of party we want Labour to be". Labour need those votes. More than anything they need votes from the people who don't usually turn out at general elections - there were 16 million uncast votes in 2015; the difference between Labour and Conservative was less than 2 million.

It may already be too late for the Labour party to hold on to those new supporters - the effective knifing of Corbyn over the last couple of weeks has already left many of them disillusioned with the party. There's been no recognition from the PLP that Corbyn's message has brought vast numbers of new supporters to the party; no implication that they have anything to say to this new, relatively untapped, support. As far as the PLP are concerned, Labour isn't that kind of party. Sad for them if that's the case; IMNSHO any political party needs all the support it can get, and perhaps Labour are forgetting their roots....

I'd certainly agree that he does some straight talking, which is refreshing - and the same is true of Nigel Farage, which, regardless of his politics, was also part of his appeal.

As for growing up with a party that was either Conservative or Labour - that applies to all of us - apart from the coalition, they have been the only two parties to hold power since before WW2.

I didn't say he was elected because of a surge of any particular political wing - there was a theory that suggested that some on the right signed up to make sure he was, as some of the other candidates were seen as a more credible threat to the Conservatives. How true that is is nigh on impossible to say.

I guess the next bit of news will be the National Executives ruling on ehether he is subject to the same rules as any other contender for election as leader, (and then any possible legal challenge) or whether he can stand without the support of 50 members of the. PLP.

(As an aside, I wonder what would happen if the PLP ever dropped below 50, in thorny they couldn't nominate anyone..)

[DanceswithUnix]

If everyone who voted to remain voted for the Lib Dems, not saying they would, they'd get around 3m more votes than the Conservatives did in the last GE.

Exactly, and the Lib Dems are *so* pro Europe that I would expect them to stand on that basis. They also have pretty much nothing to lose right now.

I doubt they would get a huge percentage of the remain vote, but it could swing things enough in their favour to upset other parties results.

[SeriousSam]

The problem the Labour party faces is the fact that it is two distinct political movements stuck together with gaffer tape. What complicates this is both sides fighting over money and branding. On the one hand financial support to run election campaigns and so forth, and on the other a well established name. Otherwise the answer would be simple, split into the two distinct groups (with a degree of caricature);

1. Atavistic 19th Century down tools automatic gainsay style of opposition based on a hierarchy of oppression
2. Champagne socialists who have no clue about reality and think everything can be solved with good intentions

As it stands neither would be an effective opposition, but once apart they would better reflect the population that shares their "vision". Then perhaps in time they could sort themselves out and become effective. However, the longer they continue on with this identity crisis the harder it will get.


p.s. I should probably point out that somewhat ironically my view on the purpose of the opposition is not to oppose the government, but "challenge to do better".

[SeriousSam]

If everyone who voted to remain voted for the Lib Dems, not saying they would, they'd get around 3m more votes than the Conservatives did in the last GE.

Vote for a party that purports to promote devolution of powers to local areas and at the same time champions a centralised European system O.o

[peterb]

Vote for a party that purports to promote devolution of powers to local areas and at the same time champions a centralised European system O.o

Quite, one might have expected them to be against the closer political union, but in favour of a free trade area....

[Zak33]

Leadsom had to roll over.. anyone who cant take a few DAYS of mild grief ... won't survive running a country for YEARS going through what we have ahead

and anyone saying what she said to the papers and naively thinking she wouldn't be even mildly missquoted is no leader of the (not so) UK

Cant stand Theresa May, but she's a tough cookie

our country is rolling around on an oily floor in spilled marbles at the moment

[DanceswithUnix]

Quite, one might have expected them to be against the closer political union, but in favour of a free trade area....

Their policies always seemed to be largely common sense and then enough complete mental to rule them out as a serious party, so that contradiction is quite usual really for them.

With common sense apparently going out the window recently, I honestly don't know what would happen in a general election.

[scaryjim]

... (As an aside, I wonder what would happen if the PLP ever dropped below 50, in thorny they couldn't nominate anyone..)

I believe it's a percentage (20%?) that happens to currently work out to around 50, rather than a hard figure. So if there were only 50 members of the PLP you'd need the support of, say, 10 of them.

Vote for a party that purports to promote devolution of powers to local areas and at the same time champions a centralised European system O.o

Actually, the two aren't as incompatible as they first appear - after all, the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland operate under a very similar set of restraints to those that the EU places on the UK. Devolution isn't about creating completely independent regions; it's about putting decisions at the smallest geographical level that need they impact. There's an implicit requirement within that for higher levels of government where the decisions affect larger geographical areas. I'm strongly pro-devolution and pro-EU; I've thought about this quite a lot

[SeriousSam]

Actually, the two aren't as incompatible as they first appear - after all, the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland operate under a very similar set of restraints to those that the EU places on the UK. Devolution isn't about creating completely independent regions; it's about putting decisions at the smallest geographical level that need they impact. There's an implicit requirement within that for higher levels of government where the decisions affect larger geographical areas. I'm strongly pro-devolution and pro-EU; I've thought about this quite a lot

The irony being that whilst the UK is slowly divesting power to regions the EU is hoovering it up at a rate of knots. So the question probably comes down to whether they will know when to stop. Plus to an extent it's a case of comparing apples and oranges, as devolved regions are not always the same as nation states. Though there a quite a few in Europe that want to make the transition.

So whilst I see your point I just happen to disagree about this situation.

Oh and for the record I am pro-devolution.

[peterb]

The problem with devolution is that any layer of beurocracy comes at a financial cost. Government at a micro or macro level spend, they don't create wealth, (although they can create the conditions where wealth creation can take place) and the smaller the geographic region, the smaller the population is to support it - and while it might be argued that smaller units should cost less to run, somehow it doesn't seem to work like that - until you get down to micro governments like Parish Councils, which usually only have one paid official, but then it is a part of a larger local government organisation.

Of course you could conceive of a system (proposed in "Yes Minister" IIRC) where all government decisions are devolved down to local government who holds a mini referendum ... Hmmm.

[Corky34]

The irony being that whilst the UK is slowly divesting power to regions the EU is hoovering it up at a rate of knots.

Going on the Conservative 2015 manifesto 100 powers were returned to the UK during last parliament, so to say the EU is hoovering it up at a rate of knots is maybe a little outdated.

[peterb]

There was an interesting item on Radio 4 this morning, which certainly chimed with me. While concerned with BREXIT, it also touched on referenda in general.

Theirs was the third in a series of 5, I haven't listened to the other two (the remainder are being broadcast this week)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ldrbk

[opel80uk]

Who are his supporters?

The majority of paid up members of the Labour party, if the last leadership election was anything to go by.

What are the policies you think he wants to bring in?

I'm not here to punt Jeremy Corbyn's policies. But they are readily available on the the WWW if you wish to find them. And yes, despite what the MSM might say, he does actually have some.

How can he bring them in if you and many think he is not electable. Those in power make the rules after all.

He can't bring them in, I never said he could. But what he has done is force the argument regarding who the Labour party are, and what they stand for, as they are clearly in a state of transition. Their move to the right to gain office meant that large sections of the electorate felt unrepresented, and what you see now is them reclaiming the party. There is zero point, from a Members point of view, of Labour aping the Tories just because it gets them into power; that effectively is admitting defeat that the people do not want their actual, socialist policies. And, even if the people don't want those policies, which I suspect may well be the case, they have a duty and responsibility to represent their members. Otherwise it is simply power for powers sake, and look where that has got them.

As important as the PLP are, they cannot continually ignore the members will. I would prefer, as traditionally a Labour voter, for Corbyn to stand aside and lend his support to Owen Smith, as I think he is broadly in line with Corbyn policy wise but is crucially is more electable. But assuming Corbyn doesn't and should he win the leadership again, the rebels in the party should either back him, or leave the party. And if they don't, the Unions should force the issue of deselection.

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.

That's a fair point, although if Brexit goes ahead and the UKIP vote is absorbed back into the traditional political parties (big if), I think we will see a bigger share of the vote for the Tories.