Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Old thread got a bit long.
What do people make of this article, and the Guardian's JC/coup coverage in general...?
On the one hand it feels like the media, broadsheets and all are onboard with the 'He's unelectable' thing and the smear campaign's got pretty nasty from most sides...but then i am starting to wonder about Corbyn a little, and especially McDonnell, who do come across in a sort of bungling manner any time they're in front of a camera.
I'm a bit green about these things, but i have been surprised at the amount of anti-Corbyn stuff i've read in the Guardian and Observer. It seems that the press as a whole have bought into him being a spud and that's that. Sort of expecting him to slaughter Blair and call it a day now, idk.
they've created it. worth recognising that the guardian have been broadly anti-corbyn since the leadership contest last summer, a few columnists excepted. just this week they've had to amend their headline about the 'anti-semitism' controversy that wasn't.
yeah i genuinely think the strategy from the PLP at this point is to try and bully him into having a breakdown or something, it's pretty horrible
dropped out "due to father's illness" http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/labour-deputy-leader-tom-watson-11554791
hmmmn..... and nothing to do with this?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-durham-miners-gala-brexit-news-traitors-mps-no-confidence-vote-a7110916.html
- three days 'til chilcot
- rob marris deleted a ton of files relating to his role as shadow finance secretary just before resigning, possibly a jail-worthy offence. his response: it was paid for by the taxpayer, not the labour party, so it's fine
is truly odious. really hope there's a proper investigation because that's an absurd dereliction of duty.
i imagine it all might go a bit quiet after wednesday...
heard saying "When the Leave result came in, I just laughed, and laughed, and laughed".
of tarring and feathering "Bearded Prince King of Leftist Public Masturbation"
At the same time he is useless unless he's talking to people who already agree with him and I find the cult of personality around him to be increasingly more insane.
Probably should have fucked off pre the remain campaign if his heart wasn't in it.
a leader who basically had all of his policies but was capable of effectively running the party and not being constantly harangued by the press
No, sit down Angela
He also loves creating his own fucking media problems, by him I mean Seamus Milne.
allegations emerge that Corbyn was responsible for coaching Zaza on how to take a penalty
had my first cry about the result this morning after watching a video of a woman in doncaster going about asking her neighbours and people in the town why they voted leave. obviously dont agree with her conclusions but the woman's reasoning was deeply rooted class politics and anti-racism. it makes me even more sad that that really is why we got here.. a grotesque parody of class politics.
this "There is, though, a clear relationship between those areas with low earnings and high proportions of votes for Brexit."
clearly, to win, the leave campaign needed the support of more than just the poorest voters but there is definitely a lot going on here with class and the uk being a very stratified, unequal country.
And I'm the expert on that
Unforgivable. Not leadership material. Bring on Theresa May, who played a masterstroke by sitting out the debate and so not alienating either side. That's the kind of competence this country needs.
end of days
Can't wait for them to go under.
Rarely read the news and don't know how the papers work in terms of their agendas and political stances, etc, but do seem to remember seeing lots of pro-Corbyn stuff around the time of the Labour election campaign and naively thought they'd be supporting him still or at least fair and reasoned if not.
Could anyone give me a quick idiot's guide to how they work and where they stand, only they seem to have been doing their best to smeer Jezza_LAD over recent weeks. I probably naively assumed the Guardian was the last bastion of honest reporting and that all you noddy bellwafts were avid readers.
They've got a new-ish editor and sacked loads of their old staff because they've pissed all their money up the wall, so I guess it's partly an 'under new management' deal and they aren't the cuddly lefties they used to be.
but the Guardian generally went massively on the attack as soon as it became clear Corbyn had a sniff at winning the leadership election.
And even wheeled out this old leftie favourite for a rare column: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/12/even-if-hate-me-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair
This wasn't much better: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn
but of course he's now working as Corbyn's director of communications instead of writing articles
Why do they have it in for Corbo?
(I move weirdly around it apparently). Corbyn moves weirdly around the media and it makes them angry and confused.
and would favour an alternative owner's son with a greater appeal to middle England.
like zoe williams, milne, mason, monbiot, jones etc.
others have been among his biggest critics, toynbee and freedland spring to mind immediately and there have also been others that i can't be bothered to go check myself on.
as umlaut says, they backed cooper. pretty consistently from the start they've peddled a narrative that he's unelectable and that we need to be pragmatic etc. they seemingly want a socially soft left, economically neoliberal(ish) leader for whatever reason. their news reporting on corbyn has regularly had a negative slant and has repeatedly echoed claims from detractors and the right wing press whilst trying to appear neutral. they've also frequently wheeled out guest columnists to write scathing attacks on the guy. they absolutely aren't favourable to him overall, and my impression is that there's some of their writers who've got pretty close ties to the people currently trying to oust him.
Their reporting has been tabloid and misleading. They put out the odd pro-Corbyn comment piece to try and keep the readership onside while piling on the negative coverage elsewhere. If the rest of their journalism was of a high quality maybe it wouldn't matter as much, but as it is, fuck the Guardian.
and their little "give us £200 or we'll go bust can't imagine why??!!??!" banner pops up.
they need to take some pointers from seano
thing comes up I always say (out LOUD) "I don't!"
with heavy involvement from Alistair Campbell, this guy Jimmy Leach who has been an exec editor at The Guardian and a former parilamentary secretary for Margaret Hodge/advisor to Peter Mandelson
Would not surprise me if this firm very much has the ear of the Guardian's editorial.
With a substantial history of anti-semitic remarks. I'd take anything he says with a pinch (well, a lorry-ful) of salt.
The internet, untrustworthy? Well my innocence has been shattered.
is it the Rupert Murdoch tweet or is there more?
and a tally of how many posts done by each user?
My dad came down to visit this weekend. He's a proper Corbyn fanboy. Always been a Labour voter, but went off the party under Blair, largely because of Trident. Now Jeremy has become leader he's joined the party and started going out campaigning and doorknocking round where he lives (a traditional working class Labour stronghold).
He literally could not talk about anything else but Jeremy all weekend. He admits that during his doorknocking encounters only about 1 in 5 Labour voters think that Corbyn is doing a good job. And he admits that Labour probably wouldn't win a general election under Corbyn. But he is desperate for Jeremy to remain leader, and if Jeremy goes, he's done with Labour.
And I'll tell you what else is weird - he made at least three jokes about Jews over the course of the weekend. I've never heard him say anything about Jews in my life. But he was definitely being anti-Semitic. It was completely bizarre.
Anyway, I'm hoping Corbyn goes so my dad goes back to normal.
enjoying paul mason giving up and just laying in to people on twitter atm https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/with_replies
Huge shame. Always been a big fan of Mason too.
trying to broker some deals with the Unions.
If that fails - think Eagle's gonna launch a leadership challenge this week.
Eagle can keep saying "not today" before she/the challengers lose what's left of their credibility.
Hence why it's shit or bust for Corbyn this week, I think the message is.
he's not going to, and has openly welcomed a leadership challenge. those 60,000 members and chilcott must have them pretty spooked.
Think there is a genuine desire there for him to stand aside and to attempt a stand-off to do so. Makes sense.
Also quite a few people now have said that Corbyn has expressed a desire to resign but that McDonnell and Milne esp. have urged him to change his mind.
Whilst those reports at him `lunging` at a reporter at the weekend were farcical, his evident loss of temper (can't blame him tbh) seemed to be the behaviour of a man who'd really had enough.
both offline and online can be classed as `broadly supportive` of Corbyn now? The Morning Star and The Canary but little else.
something like `Labour will benefit more from more mainstream leadership than anti-Western socialism`? Seemed quite critical of Corbyn when I read it but I've used up my article limit so can't go back to it :/
I hope you'll be a bit more forensic in your analysis of Vogue Italia and the XPB!
*pisses on a guy for 6 months*
urgh, this guy can't win an election, he smells of piss
It's really slippery and postmodern(?) and really unspecific. Ban it?
rarely seems to mean more than "I DON'T LIKE THIS PERSON"
you're what the french call "les incompétents"
doesn't look good in expensive suit and/or refuses to have an 'image guru'.
On the one hand it's stupid.
On the other, people really fucking DO seem to make a final choice in the voting booth based on who they feel would be most 'Prime Ministerial' and people are also keen (en masse) in picking middle of the road dullness.
Neither Blair nor Cameron are actually dull. Alistair Darling was dull. Blair and Cameron were/are skilled public speakers who were at the best when addressing a camera or the commons. They were both posh but its easier to be posh and get working class people to vote for you than it is the other way around. Most importantly neither was likely to offend moderate voters by their appearance or character, or if they could possibly help it to risk offending someone by what they say.
You can argue that this doesn't make them very human or very relatable, and I would agree, but if you think about the job of leader not immediately offending people before they've had a chance to get used to you or to hear what you have to say is pretty useful.
Frankly at this point Obama is the stand out political front man of his generation. He would clean up in Britain no matter which major party he was leading.
the sort of stuff that is lapped up by the sort of people who flip flop between Labour and the Tories because on the one hand they want to pay less taxes but on the other hand they feel really guilty about not being socially responsible.
Blair was a great personality for getting elected but by 2nd/3rd term was clearly mostly interested in steering a very middle ground...Cameron actually never has been. He only just got in as PM the first time and the second time was probably mainly a case of how badly Labour held onto their own base of supporters and how poorly they positioned themselves, that he ended up as the most-likeable one. In that sense he actually WAS the middle of the road dullness that won.
in some seats (such as Ukip although now Farage has gone I'm optimistic that's the end of that, in England at least. Also think the downfall of the Lib Dems enabled more Tory seats being won by default. Tory's total votes only increased by 0.1% (?) or something whereas Labour's vote actually increased by more than that, yet they lost 20 seats. Think the Tories basically only won because of our broken system, them being the status quo and promising this referendum.
Generally people aren't (as) angry when Labour are in power. A Conservative governmemt makes people angry but also divides Labour voters into those who want a 'moderate' Labour party to be able to win swing votes in marginal seats (therefore more likely to win back the seats needed to govern), and those who want a more serious left wing alternative. I was in the latter but this recent referendum catastrophe has changed my mind.
Basically what I'm saying is if Labour were in power at the moment, we'd all be happy and united and no one would care. No one would be pressing for a more radical alternative because we wouldn't be as pissed off in the first place.
but mainly what worries me is the thought that the Labour party still don't really understand why he got elected. It's a nebulous enough thing anyway, but I still feel like the issue with the last leadership election was Corbyn vs. three candidates who did their best to destroy their own chances in various ways. For example their constant attempts to say how awful Corbyn was while he just stated a position and didn't enter into personal attacks, leaving them having nothing they actually stood for.
I don't know, I guess I'm just hoping the PLP and the MPs in general will actually attempt to give people a decent candidate.
but I'm much more concerned at Momentum and the expanding memberships lack of political perspective than I am the MPs not working out how they ended up in this mess. They're going to keep low-key squabbling for position because that's what politics is, but the sheer desperation of the last week makes me think that they know which way their bread is buttered.
My main concern is what happens to the party if the largest voting block is a group of teenagers (or people acting like teenagers) who don't remember that the country historically shuns parties pushing radical social agendas. If we want to ban zero-hours contracts, build hundreds of thousands of council homes, increase taxes on the rich, nationalise the banks and the railways, abolish student fees, increase benefits and fund the NHS - which all sounds lovely - we have to get the public to trust us.
Everyone can keep hating Blair, I don't in anyway like the guy, but at some point we have to recognise that he happened for a reason and that he delivered a massive opportunity that was comprehensively squandered. The Tories standard MO is to pretend to be centrists when getting elected then enact radical right wing reform. Blair did the first bit but chickened out of delivering sweeping infrastructure reform because he was afraid of ever being unpopular. That last part was where he fucked up, but he was absolutely fucking right about the importance of getting elected.
Being a strong opposition keeps the Tories in check because they fear the electoral consequences. I sincerely doubt that Hunt's rampage against Junior Doctors would've been allowed to carry on had Labour possessed an electoral threat in the last 9 months, for instance.
...I watched Corbyn's video to the Labour Members yesterday. The key problem with it was the ask to dissenting MP's was to `unite to help us take the fight to The Tories`. But that's the nub of why these MP's have resigned - Corbyn's so useless at taking the fight to the Tories that they can't unite behind his leadership any more. All very well talking about `Blairite conspiracies` or the fact that the media have been giving him a shinning or the fact that he's got x, y, z principles etc. - this is an issue that exists outside of all of those things.
at all stages of parliament.
Lets also say that Corbyn steps down & Eagle or Smith are elected unopposed.
What next? Because this from asita: "we have to get the public to trust us." is the key issue at hand.
How do Labour re-gain the trust that they rightly or wrongly lost (along with other parties) over the last couple of decades? A lot of MPs were saying this time last year that it the election loss was because Miliband and Balls weren't hard enough on the economy, but when you look at the results of the referendum it seems to me that there's a lot of former Labour voters feel completely powerless and disenfranchised now - I doubt their concerns in the last election were primarily over whether Ed Balls was going to cut as fast as Osborne and they're not going to be easy to win back.
Unless Labour go for a 35% strategy again and try and segment off parts of the electorate, I don't see that anyone appears to have anything on the table that's more likely to regain trust than the current leader, who if nothing else is seen by the public as principled, honest and understanding of British people's problems. (none of which is an argument for Corbyn specifically, rather a matter of whether a change of leader is actually going to help or just rearranging deckchairs).
I'm starting to see this as a longer term rebuilding plan. I think it's going to take AT LEAST another Tory parliament for these problems to be dealt with by a competent Labour leader.
The thing for me is this - under Corbyn, Labour faces going below 200 seats at the next election. It genuinely does. The more Labour MPs get wiped out, the harder the challenge becomes. The more the image of them as a party unsuited for government calcifies. A more competent (yes that is a choice to use that word) candidate, a more skilled parliamentarian, and a better leader who doesn't bring with them the baggage of the hard-left would help Labour stem these losses and be, at worst, beaten but competitive. Labour's problem under Corbyn is they risk not being competitive at all. And that matters.
I think the Tories are vulnerable almost across the board at the moment, I just don't think the Corbyn Labour party or the CA: Civil War Labour party can capitalise. Who knows what will be possible in 3 months time though.
What I do think though, is that the party needs to think about, and be realistic about, is how it wants to get to where we all, basically, want to go.
Do we want an experienced leader or one untarnished by acrimony?
Do we accept the referendum result and push The Tories to enact it, or do we do something else?
Do we want PR to release us from this pragmatist/idealist bind and activate Caroline Lucas's progressive majority?
My first request would be to stop talking about policy like everything is an immediate goal and to start embracing the idea of long-term political strategy and responsible government. I think one of the reason's politicians aren't trusted is because they focus on short term promises and don't talk enough about long term goals for the country and broad directions of travel.
Thanks to both of you :)
and to your third question - PR absolutely must be a priority for all parties (other than the tories) at this point. FPTP is completely fucked and labour are fucked under it anyway. coalition politics might actually force our politicians to get on with the job at hand as opposed to all the pr-related posturing and partisan bullshit.
climb-downs from this government on welfare etc had the opposition abstained on votes.
"I'm much more concerned at Momentum and the expanding memberships lack of political perspective" The notion that everyone elected Corbyn because they're some naive idiot is a bit dubious. As I said, the issues were about who the fuck else you could vote for. Other choices in the race would have left Corbyn out of the final fight but there weren't any. Just as all those 'vote Leave to teach the government types' made that EU Ref go sour, so a lot of those Corbyn votes were a votes to try to make the Labour Party examine how it was being perceived by the electorate for coasting on an assumption of being the only realistic opposition and so expecting to just get votes on an 'Anything but the Tories' ticket.
Discussing Blair is sort of moot. Lots of things helped him to get in power, lots of things about when he got in power helped him deliver how he did (economics for example, that led to the housing crisis we're in now).
Corbyn is a protest vote, and in the same way that protest voting in the referendum opened the door to racists and yet more enthusiastic free market capitalists, so the protest election of Corbyn has led to the Labour party being invaded by people who call each other comrade and believe that a really radical manifesto is the way to change the country.
I don't think election of Corbyn has been a salutary lesson for the Labour party, I think it has brought it to the edge of a split.
As to Blair, I think it borders on the irresponsible to not look at the only examples of recent success for the party - including the largest majority the parties ever had - for information on how the party should proceed. Even if it's only as a cautionary tale we should look at how Blair railroaded internal democracy in the party and failed to leave a functioning legacy either at a national or party level. To call what he did to and for the party 'moot' doesn't seem helpful to me.
The first being that after 18 years of Tory rule, particularly with Major's total fuckup of a final term, people really REALLY wanted the Tories out and they were happy with a good-looking alternative.
Let's also consider that Blair got that position by agreeing to all kinds of demands from Murdoch and other capitalists to take the usual media pressure off the Labour party while at the same time making sure they didn't get too progressive.
Blair's first term was lucky enough to occur during a period of massive economic growth which widened the rich/poor gap and they didn't consolidate on to improve society as a whole. That economic boost was probably (painful to admit) a result of Thatcherism. But it meant that they could do progressive things while also not needing to penalise the rich particularly and thus upset the boat too much. Yeah, he won two more elections, each with diminshing voter turnout and numbers (in fact I think the third one was won based on the borders, wasn't it, with an actual voter majority for the Tories?) and mainly because the Tory party went into a spiral of very right-wing leaders who didn't really appeal to all those flip-flopping middle-classes.
that I'm not against protest within the Labour party, I just advocate doing it in much less sexy and overly dramatic ways. I believe the party needs to be more democratic but I look at how hysterical everyone has become and I doubt my judgement.
There's a perception that Momentum won it for Corbyn and continues to be a force for good within the Labour Party. There are studies to suggest its influence is grossly overestimated: http://labourlist.org/2016/07/luke-akehurst-nec-analysis-shows-momentum-thriving-in-unwinnable-seats/
Also, speaking from a personal perspective as a CLP member, we were told Momentum is a really good platform to connect with the electorate – leaflet, knock on doors, organise and that kind of thing. The problem with this is that it is precisely what the Labour Party already does. Momentum feels like an insurrection.
Momentum frequently meets before all member meetings and then proceed to tell us what the official Momentum line is. Yes, Progress, The Fabians, Red Labour, Blue Labour, Labour First, Labour Women's Net etc. already exist but none operate in quite the same way.
100 words or less, please, everyone.
when pretty much everyone not in the shadow cabinet is refusing to work with the leadership.
Can't complain about Corbyn's lack of pragmatism and then complain when he actually makes pragmatic decisions.
Overall he deserves nothing but praise for a) creating a Shadow Mental Health ministerial post and b) forcing the issue of equal Cabinet representation. He did botch the latter a bit but factors beyond his control I think were the issue there.
'One senior MP told The Telegraph: "It's finished. He will win easily in a second contest if he is on the ballot, it's everything we wanted to avoid."
They added: "He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them. He is Teflon in that sense."'
This is the sort of bullshit I was referencing up there. Of course he'll easily win the ballot if the only thing you can think of is more MPs in the mould of Kendall, Cooper and Burnham. It's their complete refusal to look to find an MP to stand who might both appeal for being principled and leftist as well as being better for cross-appeal.
"I’ll tell you one thing that a lot of people, Labour MPs, have been quite taken with is the system of narrowing down their candidates to two, so you end up with two candidates that the parliamentary party accept and they think are the best people to lead the party and become a future prime minister and that goes to the membership. I think that’s very interesting."
the main lesson to be learned is that you need to restrict the choice given to your members
They introduced that system after the party membership gave them Hague and IDS in succession. There's probably a parallel in terms of how membership is more radical than core voter base and a balance needs to be found, but then again, the PLP are all twats so idk.
Or maybe that's what you're saying: Labour have radical members but MPs that want to get the most electable person.
The Tory party have lots of pragmatists but crazy MPs who just want a return to pure fascism?
It was down to two members then the party voted in.
I'd actually thought the voting by non-MPs had come in post-IDS.
He could still resign now, but he'd be in a far stronger negotiating position than he was a couple of weeks ago. That would probably lead to a relatively satisfactory outcome, I think, given everything that's happened and could still happen.
Alternatively, I think the prospect of a part split is fairly likely. It's not just that New Labour want power, it's that they actively do not want Corbyn to have it (hence the timing of the coup). If Leadsom becomes PM, I can definitely see the 'socially liberal' (except to brown people) Tory MPs joining up with New Labour MPs and starting a new party (my guesses for the name were 'The Centrists' and 'The New Democrats', place your bets etc). Obviously that'd lead to a new general election. I reckon they'd probably try to convince someone like Vince Cable to join and become their party leader, to avoid the whole factional thing and to avoid association with whichever party that MP had just quit.
No idea how successful that would be, but if I had to guess I'd say it would probably lead to a coalition between the new party and the Tories, which would effectively amount to New Labour having joined the Tory party.
forgot to say
Given the woeful state of our electoral/party political system, it does seem likely that the only way either of the main parties will split is if they both do it at the same time.
So, the UK Dependence Party?
I support Forum, would vote for him in any election, and I sympathise with him over this coup.
But,is it undemocratic if he is ousted by labour MPs? Remember that a lot more people ejected these MPs than support Corbyn through labour membership. No?
If those MPs had stood as independent candidates, very few (if any) of them would have won their seat at a general election.
This phone is autocorrect hell. I once texted the wife to tell her to get me some gay fever tablets
who had you meant to text?
He blinks a lot.