Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Cheesy]

Yeah, just like Simon Danczuk did.

I suspect Labour would take the seat, but Field would be going into any by-election with roughly 30% more of the vote share than Danczuk had, and has served a lot longer. Plus Danczuk (I imagine) was disadvantaged by the fact his eventual challenge as an independent came during the election itself, when the focus was largely on the parties as a whole. Field would struggle to win but would probably stand a better chance of doing so, if only slightly.

 

[Nuts]

And the leadership has walked into his trap.

He'll probably trigger a by-election which he will win.

He resigned over anti-Semitism, knowing that the rules of the Party would force him to resign his membership. He chose not to, trying to make the Party look like it cared more about kicking out an MP for 40 years than with dealing with anti- Semitism. Sadly, the leadership walked into the trap.

His constituency was on the Wirral and he took a job at the Sun. He’s not got a hope in hell of winning as an independent.

 

[Nuts]

It always was a mainstream grouping of Labour MPs and Peers designed to strengthen UK-Israeli relations, separate from the JLM, set up after Suez and supporting a two-state solution, the official policy of the Labour Party. Tony Benn was a member, so it did not neatly fit on the left-right division.

Support for Israel does not overshadow anything else. It has been since Corbyn's election to the leadership that real tensions have been brewing between the Corbyn-supporters positions on the Palestinian conflict and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Party.

I follow politics very closely and couldn’t name you a single policy proposed by Jess Philips or John Mann in the last year aside from the AS issue. If there are any, they’ve been abysmal at letting the electorate know.

 

[Frosty]

Yeah, just like Simon Danczuk did.

Danczuk didn't trigger a by election. He ran as an independent at a GE. And he was a weak candidate and an MP for a fraction of the time of Field.

 

[Frosty]

His constituency was on the Wirral and he took a job at the Sun. He’s not got a hope in hell of winning as an independent.

He does. If we are talking a by-election he does. Labour could pick a useless candidate (such as Dan Carden) and Field has name recognition and local constituency popularity amongst Tories and independents too. It isn't cut and dried.

 

[Frosty]

I follow politics very closely and couldn’t name you a single policy proposed by Jess Philips or John Mann in the last year aside from the AS issue. If there are any, they’ve been abysmal at letting the electorate know.

Well that is fair enough. Although Phillips has campaigned on women's issues and domestic violence in her time in the Commons.

And to be fair to Mann he has been involved in the fight against AS since 2005 and has been consistently outspoken about it since that time. He has got more press now Corbyn is leader but that isn't his fault. He has led campaigns to shed light on child sexual abuse cover ups and has been a prominent Leaver on EU issues.

 

[berbatrick]

When the Mail et al make plagiarism stories, i expect credit!

 

[Sweet Square]

3rd time a charm ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...no-confidence-vote-in-jeremy-corbyn-k8trmld3z

Labour MPs are planning a new vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Oscie]

There's definitely a Corbyn apathy now. Aside from his hardcore support who think shit polling, awful party management and an antisemisim row is evidence of him doing a sterling job, but for everyone else there's a sense that he/Labour have become so peripheral to anything that matters that they've just stopped caring. The June Sarpong of political parties - turns up on the telly occasionally discussing issues but nobody's entirely sure what the point of them is.

Imagine if we had an opposition that had its shit together and a leader who's every flaw, mishap and PR disaster wasn't constantly excused as being the fault of everyone else but him.

 

[Dobba]

3rd time a charm ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...no-confidence-vote-in-jeremy-corbyn-k8trmld3z

Come on, Jess Phillips!

 

[sun_tzu]

He does. If we are talking a by-election he does. Labour could pick a useless candidate (such as Dan Carden) and Field has name recognition and local constituency popularity amongst Tories and independents too. It isn't cut and dried.

He's under no obligation to call a by election
I suspect he will remain an MP ... Most probably he will stand as an independent in the next ge (in the meantime I suspect he will champion a number of local issues and most probably also call out Corbyn in the commons over Europe and anti semitism repeatedly)
He got about75% if the vote in the last one... Not sure how that will split down if he is up against an official labour candidate

 

[Cheesy]

He's under no obligation to call a by election
I suspect he will remain an MP ... Most probably he will stand as an independent in the next ge (in the meantime I suspect he will champion a number of local issues and most probably also call out Corbyn in the commons over Europe and anti semitism repeatedly)
He got about75% if the vote in the last one... Not sure how that will split down if he is up against an official labour candidate

He's pro-Brexit.

 

[sun_tzu]

He's pro-Brexit.

Indeed... But he has a stance rather than a fence up his arse

 

[Cheesy]

Indeed... But he has a stance rather than a fence up his arse

But he isn't going to be calling out Corbyn on Europe, however you want to spin it.

 

[sun_tzu]

But he isn't going to be calling out Corbyn on Europe, however you want to spin it.

He Voted against the labour party on the issues several times...for sure he will speak out against their policy again

Though admittedly he will be calling out corbyn for his inept handling of the anti Semitic issues much more

 

[Oscie]

Pesky grown-ups, ruin all the fun. Nobody chanted your name in a field, Gordo!

 

[Dobba]

But he isn't going to be calling out Corbyn on Europe, however you want to spin it.

That's the genius of this whole endeavour. Coming out against anything Corbyn does, is the Men In Black memory eraser of British politics.

Yvette Cooper is no longer the architect of 'tougher' Work Capability Assessments, David Miliband is no longer complicit in torture, John Woodcock's allegations miraculously disappeared and now Frank Field is a woke moderate, champion of the disabled and an enormous loss to the Labour party.

 

[Sweet Square]

That's the genius of this whole endeavour. Coming out against anything Corbyn does, is the Men In Black memory eraser of British politics.

Yvette Cooper is no longer the architect of 'tougher' Work Capability Assessments, David Miliband is no longer complicit in torture, John Woodcock's allegations miraculously disappeared and now Frank Field is a woke moderate, champion of the disabled and an enormous loss to the Labour party.

Brilliant post.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

That's the genius of this whole endeavour. Coming out against anything Corbyn does, is the Men In Black memory eraser of British politics.

Yvette Cooper is no longer the architect of 'tougher' Work Capability Assessments, David Miliband is no longer complicit in torture, John Woodcock's allegations miraculously disappeared and now Frank Field is a woke moderate, champion of the disabled and an enormous loss to the Labour party.

Nail on the head, it's like they realised coming at Corbyn from the centrist position of "we're just being sensible, the left can't win elections" has failed so now they're re-branding themselves as bonafide right-on lefties and coming at Corbyn on issues they know his base care about, but which they individually didn't give a shit about in government or opposition until now. It's transparent and only convincing if you a) hate Corbyn and b) don't know anything about the last 20 years of British politics. Thus why somehow Oscie reckons Blair's government was progressive on immigration, whilst Corbyn is basically channelling UKIP.

 

[Silva]

whilst Corbyn is basically channelling UKIP.

literally Enoch Powell if recent headlines are to be believed

 

[Dobba]

literally Enoch Powell if recent headlines are to be believed

Worse than Enoch Powell, who was on the right side of history, according to Dan Hodges today.

 

[Frosty]

Worse than Enoch Powell, who was on the right side of history, according to Dan Hodges today.

Not what Hodges said. But that article was full of hyperbole. I'm not sure that the judiciary and security services will fall under the grip of the hard Left if Corbyn is elected, which is what Hodges predicted.

 

[Frosty]

I am hesitant to delve back into this thread. Especially as the Left are so adept at eating their young (the Spanish Civil War is the best example but by no means the only one).

But to be honest I am worried about the future of Labour.

In my CLP I have seen the positive and negative impacts of Corbyn winning the leadership. After Miliband, it was clear that the membership felt that the Party was not left enough. And Corbyn's leadership has coincided with a shift to the left in UK politics (And a shift against austerity which is welcome).

What disturbs me about Labour is first, the reification of Corbyn. He is seen as a messiah figure which is both wrong and self defeating ( Corbynism as a movement cannot think beyond Corbyn).

Second, in my CLP, as well as many others, Corbyn's leadership has enabled mass entryism from the hard left. Middle aged, middle class members who were in TUSC or Militant or the AWL have dominated branch meetings and have pushed far left shibboleths (deselection, party "democracy" and in my CLP endless motions denouncing Blairites).

Third, this entryism and defending of Corbyn has meant that very real problems with the left (such as anti-Semitism) have been turned into left vs right issues. You either defend Corbyn and deny there is a problem or somehow support the undermining of the leader. These issues haven't been helped by anti-corbyn MPs jumping on them and using them to criticise the leader. Gordon Brown showed the way to deal with these issues whilst not trying to bring down the leader.

Fourth I worry about the changes that will be made to the Party to ensure the left retain power for the foreseeable. Many moderate members have left my CLP in the past few months over the tactics of the left locally. The party needs to remain a broad church. That was how we have won majorities in the past and in my opinion will do so in the future. There simply aren't enough votes on the Left to win an election.

That being said, I want a Labour Government. I have huge concerns about the ability of Corbyn's ability to effect his plan for Government, especially given his principles stances in the past (I actually wonder whether this would be a hindrance in Government- can he make the necessary compromises? Will he not deal with issues such as defence and national security?)

I also think that the anti-corbyn movement (if it can be called that) is made up of many disparate elements and is not coherent. If Corbyn is removed, it could lead to a mass exodus of members. The vast vast vast majority of these members are not entryists and have been inspired to engage in politics by Corbyn and the Party in its current state.

Given my experiences at General Elections, the mass membership made such a huge difference in 2017. If we lose this as a Party we are in trouble. There were not the numbers in 2015 and that cost us in many constituencies. There is no alternative to Corbyn's leadership or to his policies. Another leadership election or forcing him out would be damaging to the Party. As damaging as a split in my view. And it would have the impact of turning very many people off of politics.

I always considered myself on the Left of the Party but since 2015 I find myself on the centre right. I'm not going to leave. I'll keep making my arguments and of making the point that we need to be a broad church. I'm just very sceptical about whether we will win the next Election.

 

[Cheesy]

I am hesitant to delve back into this thread. Especially as the Left are so adept at eating their young (the Spanish Civil War is the best example but by no means the only one).

But to be honest I am worried about the future of Labour.

In my CLP I have seen the positive and negative impacts of Corbyn winning the leadership. After Miliband, it was clear that the membership felt that the Party was not left enough. And Corbyn's leadership has coincided with a shift to the left in UK politics (And a shift against austerity which is welcome).

What disturbs me about Labour is first, the reification of Corbyn. He is seen as a messiah figure which is both wrong and self defeating ( Corbynism as a movement cannot think beyond Corbyn).

Second, in my CLP, as well as many others, Corbyn's leadership has enabled mass entryism from the hard left. Middle aged, middle class members who were in TUSC or Militant or the AWL have dominated branch meetings and have pushed far left shibboleths (deselection, party "democracy" and in my CLP endless motions denouncing Blairites).

Third, this entryism and defending of Corbyn has meant that very real problems with the left (such as anti-Semitism) have been turned into left vs right issues. You either defend Corbyn and deny there is a problem or somehow support the undermining of the leader. These issues haven't been helped by anti-corbyn MPs jumping on them and using them to criticise the leader. Gordon Brown showed the way to deal with these issues whilst not trying to bring down the leader.

Fourth I worry about the changes that will be made to the Party to ensure the left retain power for the foreseeable. Many moderate members have left my CLP in the past few months over the tactics of the left locally. The party needs to remain a broad church. That was how we have won majorities in the past and in my opinion will do so in the future. There simply aren't enough votes on the Left to win an election.

That being said, I want a Labour Government. I have huge concerns about the ability of Corbyn's ability to effect his plan for Government, especially given his principles stances in the past (I actually wonder whether this would be a hindrance in Government- can he make the necessary compromises? Will he not deal with issues such as defence and national security?)

I also think that the anti-corbyn movement (if it can be called that) is made up of many disparate elements and is not coherent. If Corbyn is removed, it could lead to a mass exodus of members. The vast vast vast majority of these members are not entryists and have been inspired to engage in politics by Corbyn and the Party in its current state.

Given my experiences at General Elections, the mass membership made such a huge difference in 2017. If we lose this as a Party we are in trouble. There were not the numbers in 2015 and that cost us in many constituencies. There is no alternative to Corbyn's leadership or to his policies. Another leadership election or forcing him out would be damaging to the Party. As damaging as a split in my view. And it would have the impact of turning very many people off of politics.

I always considered myself on the Left of the Party but since 2015 I find myself on the centre right. I'm not going to leave. I'll keep making my arguments and of making the point that we need to be a broad church. I'm just very sceptical about whether we will win the next Election.

I think part of the issue here for a lot of people is quite where that broad church should lie. To some Corbyn and his allies are far-left infiltrators who are largely anomalies within the party, but through who appealing to the membership have managed to steer the party in a new, dangerous direction. To others he's a fairly standard social democrat who is steering the party back to where it should be, occupying an economic position that most of its members who'd have been moderates would have occupied before the Thatcher era.

In that respect I think we're dealing with two hugely different ideologies that distrust each other greatly. Naturally some moderates will be concerned with influxes of new members who threaten to change the party into something they don't recognise; by the same token, I suspect many of those on the left will say that suspicion is merely the unwillingness of the centre/moderate party figures to lose their once dominant influence to the left. I suspect that this largely comes from the left because for decades, a 'broad church' has essentially meant the centre ruling the party with occasional, vague gestures to the left that became almost patronising when Corbyn was allowed onto the ballot just so he could sort of be there as an option, and when - after his election - the automatic assumption was that he'd be dethroned at the first convenient opportunity. In this sense, I don't think the left trust the centre-ground to give them anything resembling even respectable representation in a 'broad church' party controlled by the centre. And so both sides are largely doomed to continually try to undermine the influence of the other whenever they find themselves in power.

Overall, I do see your point: I think deselections are a dangerous route to go down to an extent for reasons you've yourself stated in the thread, and because the focus should be on attacking the Tories instead of allowing internal issues to eat the party up, but at the same time I'm not sure someone like Frank Field really has any business being an MP within a party that's trying to describe itself as even resembling left-wing. And so there's a natural suspicion that claims of sense and a need for compromise and cooperation from the moderates are really just a means for them to disguise their own desire for power.

 

[sun_tzu]

And so the purge begins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Can see it bckfiring big time as there will No doubt be plenty of the deselected who stand as independents... Oh well another 5 years of Tory rule but no doubt it's all Blair's fault

 

[Drifter]

Israel's Arab MPs back Corbyn in antisemitism row

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/02/israels-arab-mps-corbyn-antisemitism-row


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424

Good news.Clear out that dead wood.

 

[Dobba]

I adore the 'broad church' argument. Especially when it comes from the same people who tried to keep Corbyn off the last leadership ballot and took members to court.

And so the purge begins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Can see it bckfiring big time as there will No doubt be plenty of the deselected who stand as independents... Oh well another 5 years of Tory rule but no doubt it's all Blair's fault

So, if these 'independents' win, they're going to be voting with the Tories? Are they finally admitting it?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I'm not sure why mandatory reselection is any less fair than the system which has shaped the current PLP, i.e - the leader basically hand-picking loyal, well-connected people and parachuting them into (often safe) seats in towns they'd never visited before the election. I suspect the majority of people who voted for my Labour MP couldn't tell you her name and I doubt many people who vote for her do so because of her personally. She's in parliament primarily because she represents Labour, in this case because she was parachuted in as a Blair loyalist in 2005, and because she represents Labour I went out and delivered thousands of leaflets to get her re-elected last year despite the fact that I disagree with her politics. Ultimately Labour MPs gain enormously from having 'Labour' next to their name on the ballot paper. As an MP you represent and are accountable to the people who elected you. When you wear that red rosette and gain the support of the party you become accountable to the party as well, especially those in your local party that do the leg-work to get you elected.

The broad church stuff has always been a one-way street. When centrist MPs want left-wing members of CLPs to put hours in to get them elected it's the broad church in action, when left-wing CLP members want a say as to which person they put in hours to get elected it's a 'purge'.

 

[711]

I'm not sure why mandatory reselection is any less fair than the system which has shaped the current PLP, i.e - the leader basically hand-picking loyal, well-connected people and parachuting them into (often safe) seats in towns they'd never visited before the election. I suspect the majority of people who voted for my Labour MP couldn't tell you her name and I doubt many people who vote for her do so because of her personally. She's in parliament primarily because she represents Labour, in this case because she was parachuted in as a Blair loyalist in 2005, and because she represents Labour I went out and delivered thousands of leaflets to get her re-elected last year despite the fact that I disagree with her politics. Ultimately Labour MPs gain enormously from having 'Labour' next to their name on the ballot paper. As an MP you represent and are accountable to the people who elected you. When you wear that red rosette and gain the support of the party you become accountable to the party as well, especially those in your local party that do the leg-work to get you elected.

The broad church stuff has always been a one-way street. When centrist MPs want left-wing members of CLPs to put hours in to get them elected it's the broad church in action, when left-wing CLP members want a say as to which person they put in hours to get elected it's a 'purge'.

I can see that must have been very frustrating for the left over the years. The other side of the coin is that although the left clearly despise the rest of the party, and you only have to read this thread to know that, they still want centrist votes when it comes to election time.

For me the broad church has to end, let the people choose at the ballot box whether they want a centrist MP, a left MP, or something else of course. Who knows, if it ends in coalition the far left might actually get some things done at least, that they would never achieve as permanent opposition.

 

[sun_tzu]

I adore the 'broad church' argument. Especially when it comes from the same people who tried to keep Corbyn off the last leadership ballot and took members to court.


So, if these 'independents' win, they're going to be voting with the Tories? Are they finally admitting it?

erm probably voting in line with their conscience / whatever their manifesto says... I would suspect most would vote broadly in line with labour (as most will have represented the party for years) though dismissing some of corbyn / mcdonalds more batshit crazy and unworkable ideas...

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I can see that must have been very frustrating for the left over the years. The other side of the coin is that although the left clearly despise the rest of the party, and you only have to read this thread to know that, they still want centrist votes when it comes to election time.

For me the broad church has to end, let the people choose at the ballot box whether they want a centrist MP, a left MP, or something else of course. Who knows, if it ends in coalition the far left might actually get some things done at least, that they would never achieve as permanent opposition.

There are certainly people who have rejoined having left in the Blair years who openly want 'revenge', but the majority of people who've joined since 2015 did so on good faith, having never been a member of a political party, because they were genuinely enthused by the idea of a left-wing Labour Party. The right of the party have no-one to blame but themselves for being unpopular with that second group, who they treated like scum from day one, attempted to block from voting in the leadership elections and called Trots/cultists/entryists. I honestly believe that if the right of the party had been magnanimous in defeat and agreed to work for Corbyn instead of throwing their dummies out, most Labour members would have let bygones be bygones and we wouldn't be talking about mandatory re-selection. The current deselection squabble has only come about because there are MPs who openly talk about how they don't want Corbyn to be PM, shit-talk the party's electoral opportunities at every turn, launch a new assault on the leader whenever Labour are looking handy in the polls and sneak around trying to form new parties instead of trying to oppose the Tories and win elections. Not unsurprising that a lot of those people wouldn't be missed by the majority of Labour members.

The party splitting would be a disaster for everyone but the Tories in our electoral system. If I was a centrist I'd work my arse off to get Labour into power and then push for a switch to some version of proportional representation. At that point they can fanny about trying to build new parties, because at least then a coalition government would be possible and it wont just be handing over power to the Tories forever. Funnily enough, Blair actually included a promise for a referendum on PR in his '97 manifesto but dropped it because at the time FPTP was giving Labour huge majorities.

 

[Frosty]

I think part of the issue here for a lot of people is quite where that broad church should lie. To some Corbyn and his allies are far-left infiltrators who are largely anomalies within the party, but through who appealing to the membership have managed to steer the party in a new, dangerous direction. To others he's a fairly standard social democrat who is steering the party back to where it should be, occupying an economic position that most of its members who'd have been moderates would have occupied before the Thatcher era.

In that respect I think we're dealing with two hugely different ideologies that distrust each other greatly. Naturally some moderates will be concerned with influxes of new members who threaten to change the party into something they don't recognise; by the same token, I suspect many of those on the left will say that suspicion is merely the unwillingness of the centre/moderate party figures to lose their once dominant influence to the left. I suspect that this largely comes from the left because for decades, a 'broad church' has essentially meant the centre ruling the party with occasional, vague gestures to the left that became almost patronising when Corbyn was allowed onto the ballot just so he could sort of be there as an option, and when - after his election - the automatic assumption was that he'd be dethroned at the first convenient opportunity. In this sense, I don't think the left trust the centre-ground to give them anything resembling even respectable representation in a 'broad church' party controlled by the centre. And so both sides are largely doomed to continually try to undermine the influence of the other whenever they find themselves in power.

Overall, I do see your point: I think deselections are a dangerous route to go down to an extent for reasons you've yourself stated in the thread, and because the focus should be on attacking the Tories instead of allowing internal issues to eat the party up, but at the same time I'm not sure someone like Frank Field really has any business being an MP within a party that's trying to describe itself as even resembling left-wing. And so there's a natural suspicion that claims of sense and a need for compromise and cooperation from the moderates are really just a means for them to disguise their own desire for power.

I think these are fair points. I was tearing my hair out during the New Labour years at the machinations and politicking which was carried out by the Blairites and Brownites against one another. They made Conference and local politics all but pointless.

And there has been throughout Labour's history tensions throughout the different interest groups - the unions, Tribune, Militant, the centrists. And I do accept that the 'broad church' argument has been abused in the past, just like the 'party democracy' argument is being twisted now by many on the left.

 

[Frosty]

There are certainly people who have rejoined having left in the Blair years who openly want 'revenge', but the majority of people who've joined since 2015 did so on good faith, having never been a member of a political party, because they were genuinely enthused by the idea of a left-wing Labour Party. The right of the party have no-one to blame but themselves for being unpopular with that second group, who they treated like scum from day one, attempted to block from voting in the leadership elections and called Trots/cultists/entryists. I honestly believe that if the right of the party had been magnanimous in defeat and agreed to work for Corbyn instead of throwing their dummies out, most Labour members would have let bygones be bygones and we wouldn't be talking about mandatory re-selection. The current deselection squabble has only come about because there are MPs who openly talk about how they don't want Corbyn to be PM, shit-talk the party's electoral opportunities at every turn, launch a new assault on the leader whenever Labour are looking handy in the polls and sneak around trying to form new parties instead of trying to oppose the Tories and win elections. Not unsurprising that a lot of those people wouldn't be missed by the majority of Labour members.

The party splitting would be a disaster for everyone but the Tories in our electoral system. If I was a centrist I'd work my arse off to get Labour into power and then push for a switch to some version of proportional representation. At that point they can fanny about trying to build new parties, because at least then a coalition government would be possible and it wont just be handing over power to the Tories forever. Funnily enough, Blair actually included a promise for a referendum on PR in his '97 manifesto but dropped it because at the time FPTP was giving Labour huge majorities.

Again I can only speak for the CLPs I have engaged with but sadly it seems like those who attend meetings and pass motions the most are the 'rejoiners' who want to push ideas about reselection and, yes, revenge. Mandatory reselection has been a hobby horse for decades and was always going to be on the table when and if the Left took power. They also couch it in the language of democracy and choice to appeal to as many Party members as possible. Now there is nothing wrong with that at all. That's politics.

The tension comes when MPs and their supporters feel threatened and then 'hit back', but this ends up looking like a broad attack on the left and enthusiastic members rather than a targeted attack on the very few entryists and hard left members that are causing friction. I have seen many MPs fall into this trap.

I have also seen other MPs genuinely reach out to the membership and build bridges. Quite a few have done this in London. This magnanimity (and shutting up about Corbyn) has helped their CLPs become effective campaigning tools and has also marginalised the few trouble-makers, if we put it that way.

 

[Frosty]

I'm not sure why mandatory reselection is any less fair than the system which has shaped the current PLP, i.e - the leader basically hand-picking loyal, well-connected people and parachuting them into (often safe) seats in towns they'd never visited before the election. I suspect the majority of people who voted for my Labour MP couldn't tell you her name and I doubt many people who vote for her do so because of her personally. She's in parliament primarily because she represents Labour, in this case because she was parachuted in as a Blair loyalist in 2005, and because she represents Labour I went out and delivered thousands of leaflets to get her re-elected last year despite the fact that I disagree with her politics. Ultimately Labour MPs gain enormously from having 'Labour' next to their name on the ballot paper. As an MP you represent and are accountable to the people who elected you. When you wear that red rosette and gain the support of the party you become accountable to the party as well, especially those in your local party that do the leg-work to get you elected.

The broad church stuff has always been a one-way street. When centrist MPs want left-wing members of CLPs to put hours in to get them elected it's the broad church in action, when left-wing CLP members want a say as to which person they put in hours to get elected it's a 'purge'.

I would go further - we pick our council candidates in a similar, backroom way. In my ward we have seven candidates for two positions, but because it was a fight between Momentum and the centre of the Party for the seats people kept tactically dropping out and we were left with two candidates for two positions. A pointless waste of time.

Anyway I would have less of an issue with mandatory reselection if electronic voting was permitted and advertised to all members. Currently it would involve different factions packing a venue with supporters for as couple of hours and trying to out-vote each other. Party members are not reflective of the electorate, and thre 5-10% of members who turn up to meetings are even less representative. They would be the hardcore of the hardcore and would guarantee a candidate on the far left. Plus such meetings usually mean that commuters or anyone with a caring responsibility cannot attend.

 

[Frosty]

The JC9 have won their seats on the NEC overwhelmingly. Ann Black is out, despite achieving the highest vote last time, and the members have voted Pete Willsman in.

 

[nickm]

The JC9 have won their seats on the NEC overwhelmingly. Ann Black is out, despite achieving the highest vote last time, and the members have voted Pete Willsman in.

Of course they have. They do like a good antisemitic headline, does Labour.

 

[nickm]

I also think that the anti-corbyn movement (if it can be called that) is made up of many disparate elements and is not coherent. If Corbyn is removed, it could lead to a mass exodus of members. The vast vast vast majority of these members are not entryists and have been inspired to engage in politics by Corbyn and the Party in its current state.

Given my experiences at General Elections, the mass membership made such a huge difference in 2017. If we lose this as a Party we are in trouble. There were not the numbers in 2015 and that cost us in many constituencies. There is no alternative to Corbyn's leadership or to his policies. Another leadership election or forcing him out would be damaging to the Party. As damaging as a split in my view. And it would have the impact of turning very many people off of politics.

What's the point of a huge membership if you can't win an election with it? It's a serious question. Everyone assumes this vast membership is automatically a Good Thing, but if it prevents you from formulating policies or leaders that can win you power, what's the point? You aren't Oxfam.

 

[Sultan]

Corbyn has been a lifelong supporter of the Palestinian struggle for justice. A witch hunt on Corbyn has been ongoing for years due to his opinions on the state of Israel. He wanted an arms embargo on Israel, boycott, divestment and sanctions. He also pledged in his election manifesto to immediately recognize the state of Palestine.

Obviously, this goes against the wishes of Israeli group within the party, hence the charges of anti-Semitism and exaggerated accusations pushed by a hostile anti-labour media, the establishment, and Israeli lobby groups. Labour's Friends of Israel group coordinates its activities with the Israel embassy, which has provided funding to win lawmakers over to Israel's cause.

To label him an anti-Semite is frankly convenient and absurd. He has always been a supporter of any oppressed people or state regardless of race, religion or caste. It's his most endearing virtue.

 

[Sultan]

If a split becomes a reality you might as well write off having elections with no chance of beating the Tories. Democracy in the UK would be just in name for the foreseeable future.

 

[Frosty]

What's the point of a huge membership if you can't win an election with it? It's a serious question. Everyone assumes this vast membership is automatically a Good Thing, but if it prevents you from formulating policies or leaders that can win you power, what's the point? You aren't Oxfam.

The large membership has been and can be very important. If it wasn't for the large membership turnout in terms of canvassing and leafleting we would not have won Canterbury, Portsmouth South, Kensington and Ipswich, amongst others.

But I agree that it cannot be the be all and end all of the matter. The Party has to be electable and communicate electable policies in order for that membership to make the difference. The policies are not that much removed from Miliband in many respects. Whether the electorate will vote for Corbyn as PM is unclear, as is the question of the next leader and the future of Corbynism.