This from Stephen Bush in the New Stateman is a long, insightful, and throroughly depressing read:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/labour-party-split-inevitable-corbyn-MPs
I don't want to see a split. I'm of the 'ride it out' school of thought.
I think there's no doubt any group splitting off would find it extremely difficult in terms of numbers, finance, organisation and agreeing policies, but the longest journey starts off with a single step and all that.That's a very interesting read. And a good oversight of why any split would likely be doomed. You've got groupings of people who vaguely share the same political views but who don't really have any overarching ideology except a general commitment to social democracy that they can coalesce around. The extent to which the party has changed within three years though is remarkable.
While I'm by no means a fan of the moderates/centrists, I do think there's potentially a worry for the party that a lot of sudden changes in key positions could lead to a lot of incompetent people holding power within the party behind the scenes without being particularly qualified to do so. Similar could happen with MP's if deselections start happening.
Corbyn and his little minions are really weird. Toe-curling cringeworthy weird.
I thought I had seen it all with the Obama love-in. At least Obama was genuinely cool so it was somewhat understandable.
I think we all know your thoughts on Corbyn by now Oscie! Whilst I agree with many of your opinions of Corbyn the man, I don't agree he's essential to the far left, if he were run over by a bus tomorrow his supporters would switch seamlessly to the next loon, I mean next candidate with a strong history of far left beliefs.I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm not convinced a significant portion of the hardcore Corbyn supporters won't leave after his tenure ends. I don't see that much commitment to the party or cause as so much commitment to the idea of him leading it. Tortured analogy perhaps but if you get into football just because you like a player and don't have a particular affinity to any club then once that player leaves your interest in that club is likely to dwindle.
Especially seeing as so many of them seemingly didn't have much time for the Labour party pre-Corbyn I'd bet there'd be a lot that won't have much of an affinity for it after. Things like control of the NEC would be potentially problematic but the moderates have always tolerated the left more than visa versa under Labour's broad church. It's only really been the last couple of years where it's been insisted that anyone not in complete agreement with the leadership shouldn't have a place in the party.
Were there similar doubts when Macron made the move in France?
I think we all know your thoughts on Corbyn by now Oscie! Whilst I agree with a lot of your opinions of Corbyn the man, I don't agree he's essential to the far left, if he were run over by a bus tomorrow his supporters would switch seamlessly to the next loon, I mean next candidate with a strong history of far left beliefs.
How do you mean?
The article says that Macron split from the tradional left party in France and won a majority. I was wondering if there were fears about that split would split the left vote in France or does the electoral system over there make it easier for something like that to happen?
The article says that Macron split from the tradional left party in France and won a majority. I was wondering if there were fears about that split would split the left vote in France or does the electoral system over there make it easier for something like that to happen?
The article says that Macron split from the tradional left party in France and won a majority. I was wondering if there were fears about that split would split the left vote in France or does the electoral system over there make it easier for something like that to happen?
I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm not convinced a significant portion of the hardcore Corbyn supporters won't leave after his tenure ends. I don't see that much commitment to the party or cause as so much commitment to the idea of him leading it. Tortured analogy perhaps but if you get into football just because you like a player and don't have a particular affinity to any club then once that player leaves your interest in that club is likely to dwindle.
Especially seeing as so many of them seemingly didn't have much time for the Labour party pre-Corbyn I'd bet there'd be a lot that won't have much of an affinity for it after. Things like control of the NEC would be potentially problematic but the moderates have always tolerated the left more than visa versa under Labour's broad church. It's only really been the last couple of years where it's been insisted that anyone not in complete agreement with the leadership shouldn't have a place in the party.
Bloody hell, that's very much what I tried to say, in every respect, I'm just not as good at it. Except I think that long term what might help the centrists is a victory for Corbyn rather than a defeat, but they would have to make it clear why they were different of course.I think most of them will remain within the party after Corbyn leaves provided another solid leftist takes over. They're less interested in the man and more the general wing of politics he represents. Much as it probably won't happen because he's a bit too controversial, I imagine someone like McDonnell would be able to retain a lot of the new members due to his left-wing credentials, and indeed he'd perhaps even galvanise them by being a fresh face who's arguably a better speaker than Corbyn is. The only thing that'd perhaps help the centrists would be a crushing defeat for Corbyn, but with the current weakness of the Tory party, demographic changes as increasing numbers of young people vote Labour, and the fact that he tends to do well during campaigns, I'm not particularly sure I see him being defeated resoundingly at all, even if he's able to get power. And (again) the assumption here is that there's a viable centrist candidate to take his place - right now there isn't, and indeed the centrist wing of the party right now can't claim to be more electable than the left.
Micron is just another off the French conveyor belt of shit leaders.Hollande's approval rating was in single digits when he made his move.
Macron's own is now -25 (net), btw.
Oh okay. No idea to be honest but I'd imagine it'd be very difficult here where so many people vote out of obligation to one party or another. If we boiled down to those who actually voted based on whose policies they wished to be implemented as opposed to 'I always vote/my parents always voted', then the electorate would probably be reduced by about 70%. I voted for Blair in 2005, Brown 2010, Miliband 2015 and whoever that homophobic cnut who lead the Lib Dems was in 2017, the latter purely as a protest vote against the two main parties over their equally obnoxious positions on Brexit. If I wasn't a Labour supporter and member in the previous elections I probably would have still voted the way I had 2005-2015, but who knows. You can't recognise your own biases, I guess.
But for any new party it's going to be close to impossible to get to any kind of position where they'd be ready to challenge for power outside of four or five general election cycles, maybe more. An insurgency, single-issue protest party could be successful but there success will be defined as a few MPs and in the long-run there'd be no point in that.
Hollande's approval rating was in single digits when he made his move.
Macron's own is now -25 (net), btw.
The difference is Hollande wasn't really a 'leftist' in the same sense as Corbyn - he probably came a lot closer to being a moderate, and the socialist party was further outflanked on the left by Melenchon. Plus the French voting system allows a number of parties to compete in the first stage before the final round, meaning politicians can split away with the knowledge that they'll probably then conform to the choice which best suits them in the final round. We don't have that here - a split wouldn't allow a centrist Labour outfit to compete in any second round exclusively against the Tories, but would only end up splitting the Labour vote, thus empowering the Tories.
Straight talking honest politics...
You know like saying yes or no to a simple question instead of avoiding it six times
Micron is just another off the French conveyor belt of shit leaders.
They tried again, bless them.
I think we all know your thoughts on Corbyn by now Oscie! Whilst I agree with many of your opinions of Corbyn the man, I don't agree he's essential to the far left, if he were run over by a bus tomorrow his supporters would switch seamlessly to the next loon, I mean next candidate with a strong history of far left beliefs.
I think most of them will remain within the party after Corbyn leaves provided another solid leftist takes over. They're less interested in the man and more the general wing of politics he represents. Much as it probably won't happen because he's a bit too controversial, I imagine someone like McDonnell would be able to retain a lot of the new members due to his left-wing credentials, and indeed he'd perhaps even galvanise them by being a fresh face who's arguably a better speaker than Corbyn is. The only thing that'd perhaps help the centrists would be a crushing defeat for Corbyn, but with the current weakness of the Tory party, demographic changes as increasing numbers of young people vote Labour, and the fact that he tends to do well during campaigns, I'm not particularly sure I see him being defeated resoundingly at all, even if he's able to get power. And (again) the assumption here is that there's a viable centrist candidate to take his place - right now there isn't, and indeed the centrist wing of the party right now can't claim to be more electable than the left.
A windfall tax could be levied on tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Facebook to pay for public interest journalism, Jeremy Corbyn is to say.
The Labour leader will call for radical reform of the media landscape in a speech at the Edinburgh TV Festival.
He will say digital "monopolies" which "extract huge wealth" could pay for non-profit, investigative reporting.
Other ideas include a digital licence fee, elections to the BBC board and an end to ministers vetoing FOI requests.
Low levels of trust in the media cannot be ignored, Mr Corbyn will say on Thursday in the Alternative MacTaggart lecture - a speech which will be watched closely as a guide to how a future Labour government might approach media policy.
The Labour leader, who has been subject to fierce attacks by sections of the British press and has criticised leading tech firms over tax avoidance and data misuse, will claim that journalists are being "held back" by media tycoons and, in the case of the BBC, by excessive state influence.
Without greater investment in investigative, public interest journalism, there is a risk that a "few tech giants and unaccountable billionaires will control huge swathes of our public space and debate", he will say.
Existing not-for-profit news organisations, like the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, should be given charitable status, he will say, while new "news co-operatives" could be created with a remit to report on local government, private contractors operating public services and regulated bodies.
These, he will argue, could be paid for either through a content sharing and advertising revenue agreement with Google, similar to that agreed in France or Belgium in 2013.
If it is not possible to "tap up the digital monopolies that profit from every search, share and like we make", he will say a Labour government would be prepared to explore a one-off tax on the profits of the market-leading search engine and other platforms.
"The best journalism takes on the powerful, in the corporate world as well as government and helps create an informed public," he will say.
"This work costs money. We value it but somehow that does not translate into proper funding and legal support."
Mr Corbyn has long supported a review of media ownership rules amid longstanding concerns within the party about the power of companies such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and 21st Century Fox.
Labour's 2017 manifesto promised to give regulator Ofcom more powers to protect media plurality and to reconsider rules on who is fit and proper to run TV and radio stations.
Excerpts of the speech released by the Labour's leader's team do not refer specifically to ownership rules or to the current takeover battle for Sky or the future of Sky News - set to change ownership as part of the deal.
Ideas for the BBC
There are, however, a series of proposals for the governance of the BBC, designed to enable it to compete more effectively in the digital age, but also to "democratise" it and make it more accountable.
Responsibility for deciding the licence fee could be taken away from ministers and handed to an independent body.
He will also make the case for a digital top-up to the licence fee, to be paid for by a levy on internet service providers, while BBC staff and licence-fee payers could get to elect members of editorial and regional boards - which he says would reduce political influence and empower licence-fee payers.
The Conservatives said Labour's proposals were economically illiterate and would hurt consumers.
"Tech companies would just put up their prices and pass this Internet Tax straight onto families and businesses across the country - adding more pressure to weekly bills," said its deputy chair James Cleverly.
He knows he'll never be part of the negotiations and will just blame the Tories when it all goes wrong. Which is fair enough if he had a sensible plan of his own which he doesn't and though he may fool a chunk of the British public he can't fool the rest any more than the Tories can.
I can see quite a lot of this but I'm still puzzled, are you saying we should vote for him or not, because as an advert it doesn't come across too well?why does Corbyn need a sensible plan? (he probably does have a plan about how britain would run out of the EU, as hes a long term believer that we shouldn't be part of the European union, it's just not in the public domain).
Like you said he's not going to be part of the negotiations, he can just go along with the line that he supports brexit, but only under the right circumstances. He doesn't need to go offering his view on what we should be doing in negotiations. Whatever happens with brexit there is going to be a large proportion of people not happy. If there's a soft brexit he can campaign on the tories messed up and didn't go far enough, and if its a no deal brexit campaign on we should've had a softer brexit.
If he starts relieving his hand now he doesn't gain anything, he can still talk about how the tories are floundering in negotiations and say he would've done it all differently if he was PM when brexit inevitably goes wrong.
That's the thing with being in opposition you don't have to reveal your plan just slate the opposition decisions as their heading for a no win scenario. Then when it all goes wrong say you would've done the complete opposite to win the next election. which is exactly what Cameron et al did with the world financial banking crisis - not offer any opinion on how to solve the problem, just slate gordon browns labour government, presented the world economic crash as labours fault and say we would've done it better if we were in governement, then win the next election.
I can see quite a lot of this but I'm still puzzled, are you saying we should vote for him or not, because as an advert it doesn't come across too well?
Thanks, your original post was mostly about Brexit, and it's that I was asking about. A good answer though, and I appreciate someone who tries to weigh the balance of policies, I much prefer that to all this 'my party is always right' bollocks.Don't think how he's playing this situation should really effect whether you vote for him or not, he's clearly just playing the game which all leaders of their parties do to some degree to try and get themselves in power. Ultimately the sad thing is what politicians do and say in opposition have little baring on what they do in power, its all about gathering support and holding the government to scrutiny.
What you should be voting on in my opinion is what are the core beliefs of the parties are on the major issues facing this country/ issues important to you and how you think they will play certain situations to remain in power (and it's not necessarily what politicians say openly).
Myself the things that are important to me are brexit (a remainer), funding the NHS properly and providing education and opportunities to young people. Now i don't believe if Corbyn was PM we would remain, he would fund the NHS to the levels that he implies or that access to education and other opportunties for young people would be a million miles better than it currently is. I also believe he would have a different view to me on other issues. Overall however I think on the issues that matter most to me he would be much better than the alternative of a tory government and he genuinely seems to believe that this country could be doing a much better job at looking out for joe average than we currently are.
why does Corbyn need a sensible plan? (he probably does have a plan about how britain would run out of the EU, as hes a long term believer that we shouldn't be part of the European union, it's just not in the public domain).
Like you said he's not going to be part of the negotiations, he can just go along with the line that he supports brexit, but only under the right circumstances. He doesn't need to go offering his view on what we should be doing in negotiations. Whatever happens with brexit there is going to be a large proportion of people not happy. If there's a soft brexit he can campaign on the tories messed up and didn't go far enough, and if its a no deal brexit campaign on we should've had a softer brexit.
If he starts relieving his hand now he doesn't gain anything, he can still talk about how the tories are floundering in negotiations and say he would've done it all differently if he was PM when brexit inevitably goes wrong.
That's the thing with being in opposition you don't have to reveal your plan just slate the opposition decisions as their heading for a no win scenario. Then when it all goes wrong say you would've done the complete opposite to win the next election. which is exactly what Cameron et al did with the world financial banking crisis - not offer any opinion on how to solve the problem, just slate gordon browns labour government, presented the world economic crash as labours fault and say we would've done it better if we were in governement, then win the next election.
The succession is the big issue.
Corbyn is 69. McDonnell is 66.
If Corbyn were elected at the next scheduled election he would be the oldest first time PM ever elected.
So the left needs a successor and that is where the splits will be. Thornberry is well placed as a woman is favoured but her position on Israel means she is despised by the PSC Labour members.
Rayner and Long-Bailey are trumpeted by some on the Left but are inexperienced and unknown quantities.
Corbynism without Corbyn is the big unsolved issue. I don't think there is a future for Corbynism beyond Corbyn right now, unless and until a successor is found. That is why everyone on the Left of the Party seems so defensive of Corbyn. They know that if he goes there is no clear Leftist candidate to replace him, and they do not want splits on the Left or a civil war over replacing him.
I think that's why the biggest push has been on structural changes so the leftist voice within the party isn't pushed out. There's been mixed success there and obviously the leader determines a lot of the direction anyway but i think it'll end up being a broader base than before even if a more centrist candidate is chosen next.
I just hope the campaign when it does occur which probably isn't that far into the future isn't just another poisonous battle between left and right of the party as it'll serve no one well.
Jeremy Corbyn said UK 'Zionists' have 'no sense of English irony'
Jeremy Corbyn accused British 'Zionists' of having 'no sense of English irony' despite having 'lived in Britain all of their lives', in comments that have been slammed by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic, MailOnline can reveal.
The remarks were made in 2013, when Corbyn was giving a speech alongside prominent British extremists, at a London conference promoted by the propaganda website of terror group Hamas.
The Labour leader said: '[British Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'
He added: 'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
The controversial 2013 conference advertised on the propaganda website of the Hamas military wing
Recalling a disagreement between some 'Zionists' and the Palestinian ambassador, Manuel Hassassian, following a speech by Hassassian in Parliament, Corbyn said:
'[Hassassian's speech] was dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion, and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he'd said.'
This shows the reality of what Jeremy Corbyn thinks of Jews, somehow a breed apart from "normal" English people
Stephen Pollard, Jewish Chronicle editor
Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said: 'This shows the reality of what Jeremy Corbyn thinks of Jews, somehow a breed apart from "normal" English people.'
Pollard added that he believed the Labour leader 'used the word "Zionist" obviously to mean "Jews".'
Jonathan Sacerdoti, who was a founding trustee of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, and who is now an anti-racism campaigner, said: 'The idea that British Jews somehow haven't absorbed British values is outrageous.
'To doubt our Britishness because we disagree with your controversial views on Palestine, when you are the one fraternising with extremists, is deeply anti-Semitic. British Jews are right to be scared.'
Why is Labour's new code of conduct on anti-Semitism so controversial?
The Labour anti-Semitism row erupted again after the party leadership refused to fully adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition.
The party's code explicitly endorses the IHRA definition, but it omits four examples from the IHRA list:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country;
- Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour;
- Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations; and
- Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
Labour insisted that while the examples are not reproduced word-for-word, they are covered in the new code.
But critics say the decision allows anti-Semitism to continue to fester.
The Labour leader made the comments at a conference at Friends House in Euston. The event was advertised online by Hamas' Al-Qassam Brigades, which is designated a terrorist group by Britain, the EU, the United States and other countries.
In one of the speeches, made by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alan Hart, 'Zionism' was described as a 'cancer at the heart of international affairs'. It was also called a 'monster' and compared to Nazi Germany.
The programme of speakers included a range of anti-Semites, homophobes and conspiracy theorists.
Several were connected to Hamas. One called for attacks on the Royal Navy in the past, and led a boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.
In addition, a number have been formerly associated with the Labour leader, or supported by him.
One listed speaker was Ibrahim Hewitt, who wrote a pamphlet in 1994 branding homosexuality a 'great sin' comparable to paedophilia and incest, which should be 'severely punished'. The pamphlet was most recently reprinted in 2004.
Speaking at a pro-Palestinian event in East London in February 2013, Corbyn called him a 'very good friend'.
Another speaker, Reverend Stephen Sizer, was later banned from social media after suggesting that Israel was behind the 9/11 attack on the twin towers.
Corbyn wrote a letter defending him, saying he was 'under attack' by a pro-Israeli smear campaign.
CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM STATEMENT
Gideon Falter, chair of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, said:
'Jeremy Corbyn’s xenophobic portrayal of "Zionists" as foreign to Britain and recognisable by their ignorance and humourlessness is utterly shameful, even by his low standards.
'It is precisely this euphemistic use of the word ‘Zionist’ to refer to Jews and direct smears at us which used to be the preserve of anti-Semites amongst the aristocracy.
'This shows yet again that Jeremy Corbyn just does not get Jews and the concerns of the Jewish community.
'It is plain that he is an anti-Semite, under whose leadership the once anti-racist Labour Party has become institutionally antisemitic.
'The great leaders of the Labour movement of old would be appalled to see how he has traversed their legacy.'
Alison Weir, an American anti-Israel campaigner who has been disowned by a number of Left-wing peace groups because of her alleged links to white supremacists, also gave a speech at the event.
Other speakers included Daud Abdullah, who signed a letter saying that the Royal Navy should be attacked if it tried to help prevent weapons from being smuggled to terror groups in Gaza. In 2007, he led a boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.
Corbyn has been pictured with Abdullah at other events, including a seminar held at Parliament six months before he was elected leader of the Labour party, which MailOnline exposed earlier this week.
Also present at the conference was Sameh Habeeb, the founder and editor of the Palestine Telegraph, who was suspended by Labour and dropped as an election candidate in April after he was accused of sharing anti-Semitic material.
Leaflets were on display at the 2013 event which appeared to advertise an organisation run by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen, another former associate of the Labour leader.
MailOnline has previously revealed how Eisen claimed that Corbyn supported him for 15 years and donated to his campaign, something the Labour leader has denied.
The explosive revelations will increase the pressure on Corbyn to resign as he struggles to contain the anti-Semitism crisis engulfing his party.
practically no changes since the 2017 GE2) How is this playing amongst the electorate?
Which is pretty extraordinary given what's happened with this government since then, isn't it?
I mean, in 2015 before Corbyn, I thought Brexit and the UK's inherent conservatism would keep Labour out of power till 2025. Their 2017 result and polling since has outperformed by expectations of Labour.
Cast your mind back to 2010. Tell a Labour supporter then that losing the next two general elections after that would represent outperforming expectations. They'd hang themselves and with some justification. The Tory result of 2010 was not a result that should have needed what is now a minimum of 3 general election cycles to overturn.
And 2017 was only really decent result for Labour against the backdrop of the expectation of it being a fecking disaster. It wasn't a fecking disaster - but they still lost. There's no way expectation should have been that low going into that election in the first place. The fact it was doesn't represent a triumph for the leadership either.
