Labour resignations

[JoeLeg]

Essentially this is a debate about what people want the Labour Party to be. If you want Corbyn and his way of doing things then fine, but his principles are starting to be shown as something that will stand between him and power. And it seems to me that those party members who hang onto him regardless, talking abut how 'the members' support him overwhelmingly, well they seem to think that only the members opinions count?

Now of course that is true, until we get to parliamentary debates, when it's the MP's who matter - has Corbyn got authority over them?

And of course that is true, until we get to an election, when it is everyone who counts - will he enjoy similar levels of support in the wider population?

If you think the answer to both of those is yes, then fantastic. Support him all the way. If he answer to either is no, then Labour have a problem.

[JoeLeg]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I have absolutely no idea what exactly Corbyn

> believes in"

>

> Really?

>

> Economic beliefs = the old clause 4 - public

> ownership, essentially. He has back-pedalled from

> reinstating clause 4 itself and been persuaded to

> tone down his statement about renationalisation,

> but there's no real doubt about what he believes.

>

> Foreign policy - united Ireland good, Israel

> bad/Palestine good, US bad/anyone who opposes US

> good, NATO bad, anyone called 'revolutionary'

> good.

>

> Domestic policy - pro trade unions, welfare state,

> human rights, animal rights, public sector,

> environmentalism, anti monarchy, big business

> (maybe any business), EU, free trade

These are not policies that will get you into 10 Downing Street. These are policies which will divided the nation enough to keep you out of there. Like I said, he doesn't know how to compromise or unite disparate views.

[Lordship 516]

This is the trilemma of democracy - to whom is your first loyalty [party or country] & how to define what that loyalty is. They will all claim first loyalty to the country but then interpret that as per their collective ideal of what that is. There is a hiatus in the labour party since Bliar and this current squabble might just lance the boil. Who the winners & losers will be is yet to be decided. Maybe the disenchanted that resigned to try & embarrass JC should join the Liberal Democrats - plenty of room there for them.

[Loz]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting that there's so much focus on the

> shadow party.

>

> Have we (used loosely) given up on the Tories?

Not much happening there for the moment. Once the runners and riders are announced, you can bet everyone will be throwing their tuppence-hapenny worth in.

[JoeLeg]

And that would be another parallel to the 80's, when opposition parties split and all they did was dilute opposition to the Tories.

I ask you, how do they not learn from their own recent history?!

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe the disenchanted that resigned to try &

> embarrass JC should join the Liberal Democrats -

> plenty of room there for them.

That would be interesting. The Lib Dems could be the official opposition and Labour a minor party on the cross benches, smaller than the SNP.

And the official opposition would then have a policy of remaining in the EU!

[Lordship 516]

History teaches us that this is always the way - new generations always know better than their parents/grandparents and have to learn the hard way...

[DaveR]

"This is the trilemma of democracy - to whom is your first loyalty [party or country] & how to define what that loyalty is. They will all claim first loyalty to the country but then interpret that as per their collective ideal of what that is."

I don't want to be unduly harsh but this makes no sense at all - literally. What are the three choices or propositions implied by the word 'trilemma', and what does it have to do with democracy?

[JoeLeg]

Jeremy Corbyn is not exactly new generation. He should remember what happened last time Labour had a civil war.

[Lordship 516]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Maybe the disenchanted that resigned to try &

> > embarrass JC should join the Liberal Democrats

> -

> > plenty of room there for them.

>

> That would be interesting. The Lib Dems could be

> the official opposition and Labour a minor party

> on the cross benches, smaller than the SNP.

>

> And the official opposition would then have a

> policy of remaining in the EU!

Wouldn't fancy their individual chances of being re-elected !

[DaveR]

"There is a hiatus in the labour party since Bliar and this current squabble might just lance the boil."

On this point however I agree, although I would put it differently. Blair recognised that the Labour Party would not govern for as long as it continued to identify as (i) a socialist party or (ii) the party of organised labour - in essence that it would have to ditch much of its history and founding principles and re-position itself as a European style socisl democratic party. He was right, and won three general elections on the strength of it. The 'current squabble' is very much about whether the Labour Party wants to re-embrace those founding principles (with an added dash of post 1960s social radicalism) or whether it wants to try and perform the potentially impossible task of relaunching an electable Blairite party (whilst still maintaining that Blair himself is Satan, a war criminal, a traitor etc.).

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "This is the trilemma of democracy - to whom is

> your first loyalty & how to define what that

> loyalty is. They will all claim first loyalty to

> the country but then interpret that as per their

> collective ideal of what that is."

>

> I don't want to be unduly harsh but this makes no

> sense at all - literally. What are the three

> choices or propositions implied by the word

> 'trilemma', and what does it have to do with

> democracy?

Why squabble about use of a word ?

country - party - policy... which do you give priority to ?

JC is operating within the party democratic envelope - the PLP want him to consider what they view as the 'bigger' picture representing the whole country.

Let's try to address the issues.

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wouldn't fancy their individual chances of being

> re-elected !

I dunno. If they go in with a Remain policy and assuming the Leave side fragments between Tories, UKIP and Labour, FPTP gives them a pretty good chance, especially with four years as opposition.

Edited to add: If Corbyn retains the leadership, all the rebels will face deselection. There will be vengeance. As they'll not be part of the next election, the rebels would be best to jump ship.

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "There is a hiatus in the labour party since Bliar

> and this current squabble might just lance the

> boil."

>

> On this point however I agree, although I would

> put it differently. Blair recognised that the

> Labour Party would not govern for as long as it

> continued to identify as (i) a socialist party or

> (ii) the party of organised labour - in essence

> that it would have to ditch much of its history

> and founding principles and re-position itself as

> a European style socisl democratic party. He was

> right, and won three general elections on the

> strength of it. The 'current squabble' is very

> much about whether the Labour Party wants to

> re-embrace those founding principles (with an

> added dash of post 1960s social radicalism) or

> whether it wants to try and perform the

> potentially impossible task of relaunching an

> electable Blairite party (whilst still maintaining

> that Blair himself is Satan, a war criminal, a

> traitor etc.).

Bliar debased the original project & twisted New Labour into something grotesque that the centre & left couldn't live with. This polarized the party into the factions that we now see coming to the surface. Blairite is the last thing the Labour Party needs.

I happen to agree that JC ought to go but disagree with the timing & manner that the front bench adopted to make that happen. Now it is likely he will win again and their petulance will cost the country dear. Tories will have a field day under Borisconi/May/Fox/Crabb - all right wingers that will devastate the country. NHS, schools, welfare - watch out !

[JoeLeg]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> JC is operating within the party democratic

> envelope - the PLP want him to consider what they

> view as the 'bigger' picture representing the

> whole country.

>

> Let's try to address the issues.

I might be misunderstanding you, but surely that is the issue at stake here? That there's essentially a battle line being drawn between those who feel the will of party members is sacrosanct, and those who feel that the ability of the party to be elected supersedes it?

And Louisa is right. Whatever this is, it needs to be put to bed fast, one way or the other.

[Lordship 516]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > >

> > JC is operating within the party democratic

> > envelope - the PLP want him to consider what

> they

> > view as the 'bigger' picture representing the

> > whole country.

> >

> > Let's try to address the issues.

>

> I might be misunderstanding you, but surely that

> is the issue at stake here? That there's

> essentially a battle line being drawn between

> those who feel the will of party members is

> sacrosanct, and those who feel that the ability of

> the party to be elected supersedes it?

>

> And Louisa is right. Whatever this is, it needs to

> be put to bed fast, one way or the other.

I agree - this is the central issue and it could have been achieved with less rancour with a little reflection & patience. Instead a bunch of self-interested plotters decided to strike JC down like snakes and this is why we have the awful prospect of Her Majesty's opposition tearing the party asunder.

[JoeLeg]

To be honest I'm not sure Corbym would ever go unless he felt he'd lost the support of the membership. It's a principle (and an admirable if naive one), and he is ultimately a man of principle.

Anyway, back to the 80's we go. I liked some of the music at least...

[Otta]

I want Labour to have a leadership election. If Corbyn comes through that, which I think he will (though not with my vote) I want the PLP to shut the fuck up and back him.

I then expect him to be decimated at a General Election, and at least then we can tell all the Momentum idiots to jog on. Shame the country is going to have to suffer for their little ego trip experiment.

[JoeLeg]

I think that's a fairly accurate prediction all round Otta.

[JohnL]

McDonnell: Corbyn's going nowhere.

Even said he's enjoying it :)

[????]

of course he's enjoying it..."the UK on the verge of collapse the People's Army are defying the fascists of the PLP; corporate media, blah, blah blah" him Milne, McDonnell, etc are thinking and discussing; the revolution they dreamed of back in their public/private schools and in the fervor of 70s student politics is coming...mentally he's boarding that train in Finland to arrive in StPetersburg as the Czar abdicates *BURSTS INTO THE RED FLAG*

[TE44]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-labour-angela-eagle-david-cameron-eu-brexit/

Cameron calls for Corbyns resignation in parliament.

Angela Eagle tipped to stand for leadership, suppose the findings of the Chilcot enquiry next week may make a difference.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ian-sinclair/who-is-angela-eagle

[SoozieW]

The whole thing is a shambles. I don't know who half of the new politicians are. At least with Corbyn its as it says on the tin.

[Lordship 516]

Dilemma for these MPs - they had no real foresight or a thought out strategy beyond getting rid of JC - now they realize that a challenge will likely result in JC being re-elected. These people have only proved their greed & lack of practical planning. Outmaneuvered by JC, so who is qualified to run the party & the country - a bunch of ill organized MPs or the modest, principled man who has more talents than they realized ?

I think a new leader would be good for the Labour party but not yet. What they have done is doomed to failure.

[????]

SoozieW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The whole thing is a shambles. I don't know who

> half of the new politicians are. At least with

> Corbyn its as it says on the tin.

Except for Brexit.........