Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on January 06, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
-
Just wondering what folk think is likely to happen in/with/to the Labour Party following the reshuffle?
-
Just wondering what folk think is likely to happen in/with/to the Labour Party following the reshuffle?
I think it could split.
-
I think it could split.
No more split than it already is between those who belong in the Labour Party and those who don't.
-
No more split than it already is between those who belong in the Labour Party and those who don't.
So, which of Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn 'belong in the Labour Party', Shaker?
-
I think it could split.
The situation, in my view, is untenable. It is impossible for a leader to be successful if he or she does not command the support of the parliamentary party - and Corbyn doesn't. He might, at a pinch, have got away with it had he been exceptionally conciliatory - operating on a broad church model. But he hasn't and there are far too few MPs who actually agree with him on too many topics.
His other massive problem is that he cannot credible call for party unity, given his track record as long as your arm of rebelling against previous leaderships.
-
I doubt if a split will happen; at least, I doubt if the Blairites will leave, as there is the horrible memory of the SDP, who basically let Thatcher in for x number of years, by splitting the non-Tory vote.
I don't think anything is going to happen. Corbyn has the problem of some hostile MPs, but then he has the support of members.
I guess it depends on polls and elections coming up. If Labour score badly, he is in trouble, but he will be hoping for Oldham-type results.
-
So, which of Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn 'belong in the Labour Party', Shaker?
Corbyn. Obviously.
-
Both the right and the left sides of the party are hoping they can win.
The right are hoping Corbyn loses out in May, the left are hoping they will do well in May. The left must be planning to deselect right wing MPs, the right must be planning to deselect Corbyn, all are at the same time claiming they are planning no such thing.
Corbyn is 66 if he falls ill or worse the right might regain control, as they potentially veto who faces the wider party for election.
The longer it goes on the more likely a split becomes.
-
I doubt if a split will happen; at least, I doubt if the Blairites will leave, as there is the horrible memory of the SDP, who basically let Thatcher in for x number of years, by splitting the non-Tory vote.
I don't think anything is going to happen. Corbyn has the problem of some hostile MPs, but then he has the support of members.
I guess it depends on polls and elections coming up. If Labour score badly, he is in trouble, but he will be hoping for Oldham-type results.
Alternatively someone might look back at the 80s and think of it hadn't have been for the Falklands the SDP could have won the 83 election. It would, however, be harder to link up with the Lib Dems now as opposed to the Libs then.
-
Corbyn is two years younger than Hillary Clinton. 66 is the new 44.
-
I must say, that I enjoy hearing Corbyn speak, and thinking about his ideas, a lot. Most politicians bore the pants off me. If Benn took over, I would be gone.
-
I must say, that I enjoy hearing Corbyn speak, and thinking about his ideas, a lot. Most politicians bore the pants off me. If Benn took over, I would be gone.
Yes its good see someone genuine and not your typical spin robot. However its also like looking at a car crash, you knows it coming, its going to be ugly, but you can't quite look away.
-
Yes its good see someone genuine and not your typical spin robot. However its also like looking at a car crash, you knows it coming, its going to be ugly, but you can't quite look away.
Well, I don't think the Tories are going to split, but yes, some kind of Tory car crash probably, especially if the economy crashes again. (Hee hee).
-
Yes it really is the end of Corbyn...I know the BBC announce it every week how can Corbyn come back after Stephen Cantrememberhisname,johnathan Thingy, have resigned over the sacking of Michael Who? And Pat can't quite place the name.
-
I think it could split.
It won't split. Whichever faction were to split off would wither and die because it would lack the financial resources of the official Labour Party.
-
Corbyn is two years younger than Hillary Clinton. 66 is the new 44.
But Hilary is running for President this year. Corbyn will not be running for PM until 2020 when he will be 70.
-
Well, I don't think the Tories are going to split, but yes, some kind of Tory car crash probably, especially if the economy crashes again. (Hee hee).
Could we see both of the 2 main UK parties involved in their own political car crashes? What could the UK political landscape look like if that happened?
-
Well, I don't think the Tories are going to split, but yes, some kind of Tory car crash probably, especially if the economy crashes again. (Hee hee).
I must confess I'd enjoy that as well, one bonus of being a lib dem is that the worst thing has happened. Not too sure its likely though, most likely thing would be EU vote rather than economy.
Can't say I'd be rejoicing at the economy crashing though I know people who've lost jobs in hard times.
-
It won't split. Whichever faction were to split off would wither and die because it would lack the financial resources of the official Labour Party.
Whichever faction wins is effectively going to kill the other.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
But Hilary is running for President this year. Corbyn will not be running for PM until 2020 when he will be 70.
Perfect age for a Prime Minister, all the corners knocked off, a more rounded person, could be another thread, plenty of old foggies on this forum, does wisdom come with age, whatever wisdom is.
Gonnagle.
-
I accept Corbyns age is irrelevant my bad.
Still doesn't get away from the fact that the left have to get the right out of the PLP, the longer they don't the riskeir it gets.
-
I knew this was going to happen before Corbyne was even chosen as leader. The Economist Magazine, in more than one issue, warned the socialists not to pick this guy.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-6
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21660599-labours-prospective-next-leader-may-be-partys-hard-left-he-no-radical-jeremy
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661662-victory-hard-left-candidate-would-be-bad-labourbut-also-tories
-
I accept Corbyns age is irrelevant my bad.
Still doesn't get away from the fact that the left have to get the right out of the PLP, the longer they don't the riskeir it gets.
I think it's very difficult, as the Blairites have a sense of entitlement, as far as I can see, so they will continue to attack Corbyn as somehow illegitimate. On the other hand, Corbyn can't just expel all Blairites, that is just too bloody, and also you have to offer them a kind of modus vivendi. Plus, of course, practically the whole media are anti-Corbyn, so it's quite hard to find out what is really going on.
-
I accept Corbyns age is irrelevant my bad.
Still doesn't get away from the fact that the left have to get the right out of the PLP, the longer they don't the riskeir it gets.
But if they do they are doomed.
A political party with the potential to win sufficient votes for power will necessarily be a reasonably broad church because so are the electorate.
So if the left of the Labour party got rid of the right it would cement itself as unelectable - as effectively a narrow protest group condemned to opposition.
It is interesting to note that Blair never moved to deselect Corbyn, or Skinner or Benn (senior) or others on the left of the PLP. He recognised that for the Labour party to win it needed to be sufficiently attractive to voters from the left and the right of the Labour political spectrum.
But I'm unclear how Corbyn would be able to achieve this anyway - while he can 'sack' his front bench team he can't really sack his MPs - sure he could suspend them from the party - but on what grounds - rebelling? Remember he rebelled countless times. He can try to get the MPs deselected, but that requires local parties to play ball - and guess what they are often rather fond of their sitting MPs. Or to massively change the rules to remove power from local parties - and good luck with getting that through the party processes and also achieving it without haemorrhaging of membership.
He can, of course use the time-honoured approach of persuading some sitting MPs to retire (probably with the promise of a seat in the HoL) to get rid of his 'awkward squad' - but while that works when your PLP awkward squad are a few dozen MPs and your supporters are in the 100s (as was the case for Blair), it won't work when your supporters are a few dozen MPs and your awkward squad (i.e. those who didn't support Corbyn in the PLP) are in the hundreds.
-
I think it's very difficult, as the Blairites have a sense of entitlement, as far as I can see, so they will continue to attack Corbyn as somehow illegitimate. On the other hand, Corbyn can't just expel all Blairites, that is just too bloody, and also you have to offer them a kind of modus vivendi. Plus, of course, practically the whole media are anti-Corbyn, so it's quite hard to find out what is really going on.
Not sure the Blairites do have a sense of entitlement - but it isn't just the Blarites is it - Corbyn represents a tiny proportion of the PLP - those who oppose him include the most right of the party Blairites, but also the more centrist (of the party) Brownites, and even many who consider themselves toward the left of the party.
-
I think it's very difficult, as the Blairites have a sense of entitlement, as far as I can see, so they will continue to attack Corbyn as somehow illegitimate. On the other hand, Corbyn can't just expel all Blairites, that is just too bloody, and also you have to offer them a kind of modus vivendi. Plus, of course, practically the whole media are anti-Corbyn, so it's quite hard to find out what is really going on.
I don't think the right have a sense of entitlement they just feel that they can win an election and the left can't. Some of the media are anti-Corbyn but some just genuinely disagree with him. I'm not a leftie but I've a lot of respect for James O'Brien and he seems to really want to believe but also to despair at the way Corbyn has handled things.
-
But if they do they are doomed.
I think that, clearly you think that but I don't think the left do. They may have a point as well, if they can get the young vote out they'll vote
A political party with the potential to win sufficient votes for power will necessarily be a reasonably broad church because so are the electorate.
So if the left of the Labour party got rid of the right it would cement itself as unelectable - as effectively a narrow protest group condemned to opposition.
It is interesting to note that Blair never moved to deselect Corbyn, or Skinner or Benn (senior) or others on the left of the PLP. He recognised that for the Labour party to win it needed to be sufficiently attractive to voters from the left and the right of the Labour political spectrum.
Sure but Blair was an operator
But I'm unclear how Corbyn would be able to achieve this anyway - while he can 'sack' his front bench team he can't really sack his MPs - sure he could suspend them from the party - but on what grounds - rebelling? Remember he rebelled countless times. He can try to get the MPs deselected, but that requires local parties to play ball - and guess what they are often rather fond of their sitting MPs. Or to massively change the rules to remove power from local parties - and good luck with getting that through the party processes and also achieving it without haemorrhaging of membership.
Boundary changes are a coming, the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.
-
Boundary changes are a coming, the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.
Not sure if you are a Labour member and understand the way in which selection occurs. Well I am (at least for now) and from my experience standing MPs are re-selected as of right unless there is a trigger ballot decision to the contrary. Only if that happens will there be a contest between the sitting MP and other potential candidates.
And the membership that selected the MP in the past will, almost certainly, be the same people who will reselect him or her in the future. Why, just because there is a different leader would they suddenly chose to kick out an MP they previously supported. And that is not-withstanding the new members.
Why because most of those new members are likely to be 'armchair activists' - happy to vote in a leadership election, but very unlikely to actually take part in anything else.
And I speak from experience - my local branch (like many others) has seen a (on paper) massive increase in membership. I think something like 30% or more increase. Yet talking to friends who have been the mainstay of the local party for years (councillors, election agent etc etc) how many of those new members have put themselves forward to deliver leaflets, to stand as candidates, to go out on the doorstep and canvass - effectively zero. How many even had the get up and go to attend the regular local branch meetings - exactly zero.
So the people who will be responsible for the success or otherwise of a sitting MP in a trigger ballot will be the same people (almost entirely) who were previously.
Try it this way - in the mid 1990s there was a similar massive surge in members - largely Blairite centrists, who would never have joined in the 1970s and 80s. Did these new members kick out non Blairites, such as Corbyn himself under the same rules - no they didn't. He continued to be supported by his consistency, just as (I have little doubt) Hilary Benn will, and Liz Kendal, and Chuka Umuna - even though each of those MPs strongly disagree with Corbyn.
But there is a difference - those new centrist members of the mid 1990s actually got off their backsides, got out on the streets, knocked on doors and won general elections. No hope of the new Corbyn members doing that - far too busy playing armchair politics and having nice political debates across their dinner party tables. If they can't be bothered to turn up to a branch meeting, what hope is there of them pounding the streets and being abused on the doorstep while canvassing (as isn't uncommon). But then if you are comfortable to be perpetually in opposition so long as you retain your precious 'political purity' then you aren't actually interested in winning general elections.
-
Have to admit I find this all a bit odd.
https://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/the-bbc-admits-it-co-ordinated-in-advance-the-on-air-resignation-of-stephen-doughty/
-
the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.
Don't forget that a majority of members (just) voted for candidates other than Corbyn. And that included all those new armchair members who only joined to vote in the leadership election and will be deeply 'slopey shouldered' with respect to any greater involvement.
-
I accept Corbyns age is irrelevant my bad.
No it is not. If he wins the next election, he will still be in office when he is 75. Probably he will be OK, but there is quite a significant risk he'll peg it before his time as PM is up or maybe suffer from something like Alzheimer's.
If he does stay healthy, I'm not sure he is competent to run a government at any age. He can't even do a shadow cabinet reshuffle without royally screwing it up.
Having ideals is not enough to run a country, you also have to be able to execute.
-
No it is not. If he wins the next election, he will still be in office when he is 75. Probably he will be OK, but there is quite a significant risk he'll peg it before his time as PM is up or maybe suffer from something like Alzheimer's.
If he does stay healthy, I'm not sure he is competent to run a government at any age. He can't even do a shadow cabinet reshuffle without royally screwing it up.
Having ideals is not enough to run a country, you also have to be able to execute.
Perhaps it should be irrelevant, but it won't be. This will be a further negative factor in the perception of the electorate if he remains leader at the 2020 election.
But your later comments are on the mark - his biggest problem isn't his age - nope ahead of that are his chronic lack of experience in leadership (which is showing) and his policy positions which aren't close enough to the electorate mainstream to suggest he can come close to winning enough votes to win an election.
It is interesting that a man of 66 is so inexperienced in political leadership - but that's what happens if you spend your politician life on the back-benches as a perennial rebel, railing against not just the other parties but your own party. Despite being 66 we was, without doubt, the most inexperienced of all the leadership candidates in the skills needed for an effect leaders of a political party, lets alone a PM.
-
Not sure if you are a Labour member and understand the way in which selection occurs. Well I am (at least for now) and from my experience standing MPs are re-selected as of right unless there is a trigger ballot decision to the contrary. Only if that happens will there be a contest between the sitting MP and other potential candidates.
No not a Labour member, I'm a former Labour voter so will concede to your better knowledge.
And the membership that selected the MP in the past will, almost certainly, be the same people who will reselect him or her in the future. Why, just because there is a different leader would they suddenly chose to kick out an MP they previously supported. And that is not-withstanding the new members.
Why because most of those new members are likely to be 'armchair activists' - happy to vote in a leadership election, but very unlikely to actually take part in anything else.
And I speak from experience - my local branch (like many others) has seen a (on paper) massive increase in membership. I think something like 30% or more increase. Yet talking to friends who have been the mainstay of the local party for years (councillors, election agent etc etc) how many of those new members have put themselves forward to deliver leaflets, to stand as candidates, to go out on the doorstep and canvass - effectively zero. How many even had the get up and go to attend the regular local branch meetings - exactly zero.
So will the mainstay of the party (who I presume sit somewhere to the right of Corbyn) be happy to volunteer to a party that no longer represents their views?
Try it this way - in the mid 1990s there was a similar massive surge in members - largely Blairite centrists, who would never have joined in the 1970s and 80s. Did these new members kick out non Blairites, such as Corbyn himself under the same rules - no they didn't. He continued to be supported by his consistency, just as (I have little doubt) Hilary Benn will, and Liz Kendal, and Chuka Umuna - even though each of those MPs strongly disagree with Corbyn.
Corbyn and MacDonald were irrelevant prior to Corbyn's victory, Galloway and Livingston had no where to go. If the Tories go to the centre Benn, Kendal and Chuka have options.
-
So will the mainstay of the party (who I presume sit somewhere to the right of Corbyn) be happy to volunteer to a party that no longer represents their views?
There is a distinct possibility. From my experience the people pounding the streets prior to the 2015 general election were largely the same people pounding the streets in support of Brown in 2010 and Blair in 97, 01 and 05. They aren't Corbynites. There are of course other members - some new since the summer and others from the left of the party who refused to be active in the latter Blair years and Brown/Miliband because they left they were too right wing. Many of those will have voted for Corbyn
Of course they could take up the mantle, but there is little evidence that they are - for long-standing members who aren't active any more I think it is difficult to persuade someone who 'did their time' years ago, to return to leafleting and canvassing. I've had that conversation many times and with little success. And then there are the new members - my perception is that they are largely 'armchair' - happy to vote in a leadership election, to talk the talk about a new politics, to share stuff on Facebook, but when it comes down to real, old fashioned politics (which is what wins elections) are they really going to regularly do a leaflet round of 300 houses, or go out on a Sunday morning in January on a listening canvass. Hmm, I'm not convinced.