Oh no - another festival right after the election!

[Havors]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

he's already shown that he is by refusing to step down after he'd lost the support of 83% of MPs.

Imagine how you'd like at the tory leader if the tory leader was doing that! Even IDS wasn't that much of c**t - cos he still had support from tory members, but stepped down.

Corbyn has been bettered by IDS - that's how dreadful he is.

haha I see your point... unfortunately maybe... its not the MP's party its the members... whatever the fuck that means...

few thousand activists join up and dictate what the party does for millions of voters who arent members.... 

[DeanoL]

 

17 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Sorry but this just simply isn't true. Look at the headlines post Copeland on Novara Media, the Canary etc. Look at the most liked comments on the Momentum pages. Look at what prominent left wing figures like Paul Mason and Ken Loach were saying. Copeland wasn't apparently down to Corbyn's failings, it was Tony Blair and New Labour's fault! That was the narrative from the Corbyn side and by no means from the crusties either.

And your last sentence sums it all up. Many would rather have the Labour left wing leading the party in opposition rather than having the centre/right wing of the party having a chance of winning the election. New Labour did a hell of a lot wrong but those thirteen years were much better than if the Tories were in charge.

While that's true, equally many would rather have Labour in opposition than have a left winger lead a Labour party in power. You can tell who they are, they're the ones still not backing Corbyn going into this election, despite there being literally no time to oust and replace him now.

I totally sympathise with those wanting Corbyn out up to 17 April 2017. But they failed, and now time is up. The shoe is on the other foot right now.

Edited April 19, 2017 by DeanoL

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he's already shown that he is by refusing to step down after he'd lost the support of 83% of MPs.

Imagine how you'd like at the tory leader if the tory leader was doing that! Even IDS wasn't that much of c**t - cos he still had support from tory members, but stepped down.

Corbyn has been bettered by IDS - that's how dreadful he is.

He's not answerable to MPs though. He's answerable to the party as a whole. Who have now elected him twice. Was that a mistake? Maybe.

But where you look at this in terms of doing the right thing, it could certainly seem that the right thing is to respect the will of the party until they ask you do otherwise. To step down is to essentially betray and let down those people. Even if it might be politically prudent.

Not saying that's a good thing, but I think for Corbyn it's more a sense of duty rather than vanity. I mean look at him. He clearly doesn't want to be leader.

[liamium]

9 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Sorry but this just simply isn't true. Look at the headlines post Copeland on Novara Media, the Canary etc. Look at the most liked comments on the Momentum pages. Look at what prominent left wing figures like Paul Mason and Ken Loach were saying. Copeland wasn't apparently down to Corbyn's failings, it was Tony Blair and New Labour's fault! That was the narrative from the Corbyn side and by no means from the crusties either.

And your last sentence sums it all up. Many would rather have the Labour left wing leading the party in opposition rather than having the centre/right wing of the party having a chance of winning the election. New Labour did a hell of a lot wrong but those thirteen years were much better than if the Tories were in charge.

I'm really just relaying what I hear at CLP meetings from LP members. Many members who voted for him twice would rather he step down, because the majority of them aren't aligned with the editorial stance of The Canary or Momentum. And yes, I suppose there is an element with some of them of 'if we can't have it, no one can' but I don't think that's the prevailing mood. We lost two elections from the centre of the party and I think most fervent Corb supporters are just a bit too precious about handing it all back to the centre. It's all such a mess. I don't agree with them, I've lost faith in Corbyn to lead the party to victory, I also have no faith in the centre being able win again without resorting to austerity lite or watered down anti-immigration rhetoric. It's a mess and I don't know what's to be done.

[arcade fireman]

Just now, DeanoL said:

 

While that's true, equally many would rather have Labour in opposition than have a left wing lead Labour party in power. You can tell who they are, they're the ones still not backing Corbyn going into this election, despite there being literally no time to oust and replace him now.

I totally sympathise with those wanting Corbyn out up to 17 April 2017. But they failed, and now time is up. The shoe is on the other foot right now.

But that's nonsense. No way is that equal. Many would back a left wing led Labour party if it had a cat in hell's chance of actually getting into power. At no point whatsoever has Corbyn ever looked like leading Labour into power. This is the biggest problem most of those people have had. The ones whose opposition to Corbyn was purely ideological would likely not have made that much noise as they wouldn't care that much, would be swing voters anyway and would quietly become Tory/Lib Dem voters. It's those of us who are life long Labour voters who actually are actually wedded to some form of left wing principles who are making the most noise.

No one is suggesting Corbyn be removed before the election now - indeed most who wanted Corbyn gone up to 17th April now accept we're going to be fighting a General Election with him at the helm and of course a leadership challenge before then would be bananas. That doesn't however mean we are going to suddenly pretend he's a great or even adequate leader and nor should it mean we shouldn't talk about who the next leader should be.

 

[grumpyhack]

On 18/04/2017 at 1:41 PM, parsonjack said:

At least it will give Billy Bragg something to rant about in Left Field on Friday night....

I'll be seeing him at Wychwood the week before the election and I expect he'll have a lot to say.

[arcade fireman]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the polls for brexit were within the margin of error. For Trump too. For the 2015 election, too.

In all cases the polls changed in the last few days, but the reference to 'wrong' is made about how they were weeks before.

Not strictly true either - there was a systematic bias as if it was purely a margin of error thing you'd expect a roughly equal number of polls to be either side of it. Usual natural MoE for a poll of around 1,500 is 2.5% (1/(square root of sample size) so 3-4% out as many polls in the week leading up were outside of that too. Sampling error was the biggest issue.

[arcade fireman]

17 minutes ago, liamium said:

I'm really just relaying what I hear at CLP meetings from LP members. Many members who voted for him twice would rather he step down, because the majority of them aren't aligned with the editorial stance of The Canary or Momentum. And yes, I suppose there is an element with some of them of 'if we can't have it, no one can' but I don't think that's the prevailing mood. We lost two elections from the centre of the party and I think most fervent Corb supporters are just a bit too precious about handing it all back to the centre. It's all such a mess. I don't agree with them, I've lost faith in Corbyn to lead the party to victory, I also have no faith in the centre being able win again without resorting to austerity lite or watered down anti-immigration rhetoric. It's a mess and I don't know what's to be done.

I think the "we lost two elections" is not really fair. 2010 the Labour vote held up remarkably well. They'd been in power for 13 years, had been (unfairly) blamed for the recession, had a PM as charismatic as Corbyn, had launched an illegal war and were generally disliked. The fact they won enough seats to force a hung Parliament was actually quite an achievement, indeed had they salvaged 10 or so seats from the Tories they may have had a legitimate coalition option with the Lib Dems. And let's not forget Ed Miliband was seen as the left wing option when he was elected ahead of David. He was known as "Red Ed", was backed by the unions (the members actually went for David) etc etc...of course not to the same degree as Corbyn but still.

And for all talk of "austerity lite", the gap between the Tories and Labour last year was the widest since 1992 according to the IFS. Ed would have been the most left wing PM since the 1970s. I think a lot of Labour don't realise the power of incremental change. Elect someone from the centre wing of the party and then hope to gradually move the country left. the 1997-2001 Labour government was actually pretty damn good, though I'm sure one could find fault. I don't think there was really very much anti immigration rhetoric in 2015 from Labour - there is a big difference between campaigning and governing. People put too much emphasis on rhetoric during campaigning - particularly when fairly non committal and buzzword heavy as Labour's 2015 platform was on immigration.

Just because it got hijacked and moved right from 2001 onwards, it doesn't mean history has to repeat itself. It's the only way of getting a social democratic future. The longer the Tories stay in power, the more the Overton window shifts and even 1997 era Labour policies would be seen as unacceptably socialist just as they are in the US.

Edited April 19, 2017 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

51 minutes ago, Havors said:

haha I see your point... unfortunately maybe... its not the MP's party its the members... whatever the fuck that means...

what it means in the real world is that all parts have to be acceptable to all other parts, while at the same time everyone has to compromising to all that to happen.

What it means in Corbyn-land is no compromise, and division.

This wasn't a few plotters, remember. It was 83% of his own MPs. A plot couldn't possibly create that sort of solidarity (particularly for a party not in power which has little to offer as bribes), it takes the reality of the exceptionally shit to manage that.

 

51 minutes ago, Havors said:

few thousand activists join up and dictate what the party does for millions of voters who arent members.... 

Yep. There's what the members might like and then there's what the public might vote for. 

 

[eFestivals]

57 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

While that's true, equally many would rather have Labour in opposition than have a left winger lead a Labour party in power. You can tell who they are, they're the ones still not backing Corbyn going into this election, despite there being literally no time to oust and replace him now.

I totally sympathise with those wanting Corbyn out up to 17 April 2017. But they failed, and now time is up. The shoe is on the other foot right now.

it's not necessarily how you say it.

If they're like me they're probably thinking the best thing for the Labour party is for Jezza to fail by as big a margin as possible this time, to maximise his chances of quitting and so maximise the chances for Labour for 2022. Absolutely no one thinks Jezza has a chance now.

And I think that Jezza winning would be a bad thing for labour and socialist ideals in the long run, and create more tory years and not less of them, because I reckon he'd be a disaster trying to implement policy. He can't even run his office now effectively.

[eFestivals]

59 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

He's not answerable to MPs though. He's answerable to the party as a whole. Who have now elected him twice. Was that a mistake? Maybe.

The MPs are his day-to-day working colleagues, the people he has to lead effectively if he were PM.

When 83% of them back a vote of no confidence - something they won't have done lightly, and which couldn't be achieved by plotting alone - it's because he real is shit as leader.

So no matter what the members think, he wasn't smart enough to realise it was game over at that point. That's the point he ceased to be an honourable man.

 

59 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But where you look at this in terms of doing the right thing, it could certainly seem that the right thing is to respect the will of the party until they ask you do otherwise. To step down is to essentially betray and let down those people. Even if it might be politically prudent.

That's the view you take if your vanity wins over the real world.

Jezza is a VERY vain man.

 

59 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not saying that's a good thing, but I think for Corbyn it's more a sense of duty rather than vanity. I mean look at him. He clearly doesn't want to be leader.

If it's duty it's not duty to the party, but instead a duty he feels to his own take on socialism to deliver the party to it.

[phil the shrew]

Working in local government - where we also have elections in May - I've heard a lot of talk that the national Labour Party under Corbyn has become distanced from local parties and running Local Councils which was for many years the recruiting ground for Councillors and Labour MPs

Predictions are Labour could lose a lot of Council seats in May, hardly motivating for those Councillors losing seats to then go and campaign for Corbyn

The disconnect between the leader and certain active sections of the Labour Party hasn't been that wide for years. 

[eFestivals]

54 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

People put too much emphasis on rhetoric during campaigning - particularly when fairly non committal and buzzword heavy as Labour's 2015 platform was on immigration.

spot on.

Likewise with what Reeves said. It wasn't Labour party members she was playing to, it was the undecideds she hoped to get to vote Labour .... and anyway, pretty much all she said was 'Labour are the party of working people, not the party of people on benefits' - and while crude, it's also true. They exist to represent the working person, and people are often quick to forget that or pretend it's something else.

[zahidf]

On the issue of election pacts

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

On the issue of election pacts

Hmmmm ... if it happened, looking at those numbers I'm not sure it'd work for labour anyway.

Labour's vote is likely to be down cos of Corbyn (and down by more than any other party is likely to be down, as a UK-average at least), and if there's a whiff of a pact in favour of labour, that will change how people vote from 'the right' too.

I reckon there's plenty of tory seats up for grabs down that, but probably not that one (I know the area), and probably not to benefit labour either - tho i really wouldn't be surprised to see the Libdems recover some of those they lost in 2015.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

it's not necessarily how you say it.

If they're like me they're probably thinking the best thing for the Labour party is for Jezza to fail by as big a margin as possible this time, to maximise his chances of quitting and so maximise the chances for Labour for 2022. Absolutely no one thinks Jezza has a chance now.

That's legitimate. But it's the same argument the Corbynites were using back in 2016 when Corbyn was under-performing - that's it not about short term wins, but about having a long term credible left wing opposition that'll pull the debate to the left, and put the breaks on this shift to the right we've had over the past decade* even we didn't win the 2020 election. And you'd just LOL at that and mock people for preferring to be in opposition rather than actually win elections. And now you're doing that exact same thing.

*(And no, he hasn't done this, and it's disappointing. But the argument back then, before he'd had the chance to fail at proving himself, was that he wouldn't be doing that. Indeed, it was that people were scared he would and such a stance would make the party unelectable.)

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That's legitimate. But it's the same argument the Corbynites were using back in 2016 when Corbyn was under-performing - that's it not about short term wins, but about having a long term credible left wing opposition that'll pull the debate to the left, and put the breaks on this shift to the right we've had over the past decade* even we didn't win the 2020 election. And you'd just LOL at that and mock people for preferring to be in opposition rather than actually win elections. And now you're doing that exact same thing.

The difference is: their plan was always a crock of shit, because there's not the slightest suggestion it would have ever have worked. 

Whereas we know - from every time Labour was elected - that it's the more central Labour platforms that get the required votes.

 

[zahidf]

I feel Corbyn should defect to the Greens. It would suit everyone.

Green would get an extra MP and new members. Corbyn wont have to worry about trying to be PM.And the Labour party can rebuild.

 

Win win win.

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The difference is: their plan was always a crock of shit, because there's not the slightest suggestion it would have ever have worked. 

Whereas we know - from every time Labour was elected - that it's the more central Labour platforms that get the required votes.

 

The problem was though, that somewhere along the line talent and ability became irrelevant, and all that mattered was whether candidates espoused the party line. What we ended up with was a complete dearth of talent and creativity, and a distinct lack of likeable MPs

I'm very left wing, but I know how important the centre and right of the party are too- but they've been completely devoid of ability or policy for years now. Labour needs an influx of talent above anything, and it really needs to open itself up a bit more to fresh blood. 

[Mr.Tease]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The difference is: their plan was always a crock of shit, because there's not the slightest suggestion it would have ever have worked. 

Whereas we know - from every time Labour was elected - that it's the more central Labour platforms that get the required votes.

 

Look at the talent Blair had when he became leader and started as PM, then look at the current crop of centrist MPs - it's night and day. The current centrist MPs got there by nepotism and it shows. They made the mistake in thinking just being  entrust was all that mattered, when in reality you still need ability

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

The problem was though, that somewhere along the line talent and ability became irrelevant, and all that mattered was whether candidates espoused the party line. What we ended up with was a complete dearth of talent and creativity, and a distinct lack of likeable MPs

I think that's a natural cycle to some extent, rather than something that's happened because of what the leadership was doing. It's happened to the libdems, and tories too - and it took them 13 years to find another leader who could win.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Look at the talent Blair had when he became leader and started as PM, then look at the current crop of centrist MPs - it's night and day. The current centrist MPs got there by nepotism and it shows. They made the mistake in thinking just being  entrust was all that mattered, when in reality you still need ability

I think there's a number of able people there, but they're 'out of fashion' and keeping their heads down.

Even a few around Corbyn have shown they've got balls, but they get lost under his general mediocrity.

[RichardWaller]

http://newsthump.com/2017/04/19/everyone-on-facebook-absolutely-certain-of-election-result/

fits well

[Sasperella]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmmm ... if it happened, looking at those numbers I'm not sure it'd work for labour anyway.

Labour's vote is likely to be down cos of Corbyn (and down by more than any other party is likely to be down, as a UK-average at least), and if there's a whiff of a pact in favour of labour, that will change how people vote from 'the right' too.

I reckon there's plenty of tory seats up for grabs down that, but probably not that one (I know the area), and probably not to benefit labour either - tho i really wouldn't be surprised to see the Libdems recover some of those they lost in 2015.

Sorry if this has already been discussed, and I'm well aware that I'm probably living in fairyland....but...labour had a tough time before and after Brexit reconciling its position on immigration with its concerns of its key demographic. They have still been unable to do so. But, I wonder how many labour voters who voted against Brexit (such as myself) are pissed off enough to vote Lib deb. I know I'm not (although I am dearly hoping they do really well and if I lived in Sheffield Hallam rather than Sheffield Central I'd grit my teeth and vote Clegg). Possibly not as many traditional torie voters, for whom leaving Europe is more an issues economically....what do we reckon the swing could be here?

I'm not trying to argue that Labour aren't going to lose voters obviously. But maybe votes will be lost there more because of Corbyn than because of Brexit. 

And who would be a good replacement? Clive Lewis would probably get my vote. I hope he's not a casualty  

 

[Ommadawn]

I'm not sure Corbyn is the problem here. I can remember the 1983 General Election when Michael Foot stood with similar policies to Corbyn's. Foot was a respected politician by MP's of all parties (even those who didn't share his views) and was a great orator in the Commons, but Labour still got trounced. I just don't think there's an appetite in the electorate for left wing politics at the moment and I can't see Labour winning with their current policies whoever is leader. Maybe if Brexit is the failure you all appear to expect (and maybe hope for) the pendulum will turn but I can't see that happening very soon I'm afraid.  

Edited April 19, 2017 by Ommadawn