Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Labour Leadership Bid And Future Of The Party


Recommended Posts

So Angela Eagle is set to announce her candidacy for leader on Monday after another attempt by labour MP's to destroy the party from within. Tom Watson and Len MacCluskey had gone some way towards brokering peace earlier in the week, but that now seems a non starter and its all to play for.

Since those disloyal MP's decided they know better than the electorate, the party has seen a surge of over 100,000 new members and its strongly expected that Corbyn will win any challenge hands down, but time will tell.

I think its clear that if that happens we'll possibly see the party splitting into a moderately center left party and Corbys left party.

Thats not going to be good for labour, not good for democracy and not good for taking on the Tories.

Labour MP's will never learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Like oldjamfan says this is history repeating itself.

At the time of Militant (today read Momentum and Socialist Organiser) I was working in Liverpool to make alliances for when the loonantics moved on and were defeated. I worked with Heseltine and other Tory leaders (whilst as a trade union official) to ensure we had a structure in place to bring investment and work in partnership....our legacy remains to this day.

Corbyn and his clan are more interested in gesture and opposition. The Labour Party is dead under Corbyn, it is not a party of the working class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote to my Labour MP after the referendum to raise some points. I now know he voted leave and supports Brexit.

I will be writing to him again to say I won't be able to vote for him at the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like oldjamfan says this is history repeating itself.

At the time of Militant (today read Momentum and Socialist Organiser) I was working in Liverpool to make alliances for when the loonantics moved on and were defeated. I worked with Heseltine and other Tory leaders (whilst as a trade union official) to ensure we had a structure in place to bring investment and work in partnership....our legacy remains to this day.

Corbyn and his clan are more interested in gesture and opposition. The Labour Party is dead under Corbyn, it is not a party of the working class.

Very interesting stuff. I'd be inclined to agree with that last sentence. I'm working class but haven't seen Labour as being representative of me for a while now. The public sector, ethnic minorities and anything overtly female-centric certainly. But the rest of the working class seem to be actually despised by certain Labour MPs and indeed supporters. The criticism of that bloke for having an England flag outside his house and the savage criticism of Leave voters being racist xenophobes by many Remainers. Ironically Corbyn may not think this way but his party have given that impression for a while now, hence so many of their traditional supporters switching to UKIP and the Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a split in the party theres a big opportunity for the Lib Dems to capitalise and soak up the centre left vote. They could also make way into the Tory left wing if the Conservatives lurch right under May or Leadsom.

They will have a lot of convincing to do after the coalition however.

Also - if labour do split it raises the question of how will anyone but the Tories win an election as no party will be large enough to challenge them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn and his clan are more interested in gesture and opposition. The Labour Party is dead under Corbyn, it is not a party of the working class.

No chance of Angela Eagle turning labour into a party for the working classes Mike, in fact I cannot see another member of the labour party achieving that.

Its full of career politicians that have completely lost sight of what the party stands for.

I'm sure that Tristram Hunts a Tory in disguise, an infiltrator, and we see lots of examples of 'Tory esq' tendencies and Armani suits across the labour party, its sickening, and I think the BREXIT vote sends that message to all parties that they've completely lost touch with the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Labour membership needs to recognise that with an unelectable leader, they are letting millions of traditional labour voters down. Its now 2 weeks since the Brexit vote, at which many traditional northern Labour areas voted out - is Corbyn trying to get involved in the discussions about the future of Britain? Or is he sat waiting to criticise whatever the Tories do?

There are rumours in the press about Paddy Ashdown setting up meetings to discuss a new centre-ground party, attracting Blarites and more left wing Tories as well as many Lib-Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote to my Labour MP after the referendum to raise some points. I now know he voted leave and supports Brexit.

I will be writing to him again to say I won't be able to vote for him at the next election.

I'm sure he will have sleepless nights when he receives your letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Labour membership needs to recognise that with an unelectable leader, they are letting millions of traditional labour voters down. Its now 2 weeks since the Brexit vote, at which many traditional northern Labour areas voted out - is Corbyn trying to get involved in the discussions about the future of Britain? Or is he sat waiting to criticise whatever the Tories do?

Can you tell me who in the labour party is an electable? because I'm struggling Baz.

Whilst the Labour Party destroys itself and people like Angela Eagles talk more about the Tories imploding than policy, really Angela? :blink: Corbyn is talking about cuts to services, austerity and brexit like he was elected to do.

Its business as usual for Corbyn, despite his cabinet sitting in the pubs and coffee shops on our time talking about democracy and whether or not Corbyns name should be on the leadership challenge ballot paper! democracy eh? its a disgrace.

This saga has put the Labour Party back 15/20yrs and non of its Corbyns fault other than he's seen as not prime minister material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me who in the labour party is an electable? because I'm struggling Baz.

Whilst the Labour Party destroys itself and people like Angela Eagles talk more about the Tories imploding than policy, really Angela? :blink: Corbyn is talking about cuts to services, austerity and brexit like he was elected to do.

Its business as usual for Corbyn, despite his cabinet sitting in the pubs and coffee shops on our time talking about democracy and whether or not Corbyns name should be on the leadership challenge ballot paper! democracy eh? its a disgrace.

This saga has put the Labour Party back 15/20yrs and non of its Corbyns fault other than he's seen as not prime minister material.

Gave you a list last week Gav.

Eagle isnt the person, but those wanting Corbyn out will only put up 1 candidate to begin with so the vote isn't split. Corbyn will win, but maybe by a reduced amount that will force him out of the race, and allow others to join the race. Im not against Corbyn talking about austerity etc,, but no one is interested at this moment in time - with Brexit we are facing the biggest project of the last 40 years as a country- he needs to be out there in the media trying to force a representative left wing side to the negotiations.

It's nothing personal about the guy, but he hasn't got the right personality to draw people from the centre ground to Labour, and that's exactly what he needs to do to win an election. He really needs to improve his media image to stand a chance, I just don't think he has it in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whingey voiced Angela Eagles isn't Prime Minister material either. In fact I don't see who can lead Labour back into power at all. Does anybody have a suggestion who is likely to contest the Labour leadership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gave you a list last week Gav.

Yes I thought you'd want another go because Burnham was the best on your list and he's no chance :P

But in all seriousness Baz its not about who would win a general election for me at this point, its about democracy as I've said many times, he was elected by the members, its not democratic for 170 MP's to bully him out of office at the expense of 60% of the labour party membership.

Its the same with Brexit, democracy only when its suits.

Thats the real issue here for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I thought you'd want another go because Burnham was the best on your list and he's no chance :P

But in all seriousness Baz its not about who would win a general election for me at this point, its about democracy as I've said many times, he was elected by the members, its not democratic for 170 MP's to bully him out of office at the expense of 60% of the labour party membership.

Its the same with Brexit, democracy only when its suits.

Thats the real issue here for me.

I understand your point, don't get me wrong, but IMO its the process that is wrong. The Tories have the better method of picking the top 2 candidates at Parliamentary level, then letting the membership decide. I personally think that it maybe should be 3 candidates, but otherwise you have the situation where extreme wings of the party can push a candidate that the MPs cannot work with, or fundamentally disagree on a lot of matters on.

If you agree that MPs should follow the instructions of the elected leader no matter, then Corbyns record of voting against his own party whilst he was a back-bencher is legendary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories don't want to give the plebs the vote, so have tied the process down as much as possible without excluding the membership completely.

Corbyn won the leadership races against 3 others last time out, but the rebels don't want to split the vote this time around so its just Eagle, and possibly not Corbyn which is a disgrace.

But yes I take your point Baz, but we need some way to distinguish between the Tories and Labour even if its only the leadership vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories don't want to give the plebs the vote, so have tied the process down as much as possible without excluding the membership completely.

Corbyn won the leadership races against 3 others last time out, but the rebels don't want to split the vote this time around so its just Eagle, and possibly not Corbyn which is a disgrace.

But yes I take your point Baz, but we need some way to distinguish between the Tories and Labour even if its only the leadership vote!

If its Leadsom vs Corbyn I don't think you have ever seen the 2 main parties so far apart on policy.

Id agree those seeking to exclude Corbyn from the vote on the basis that he doesn't have the PLP support are wrong, but I also think Corbyn should just take the hit and go. Hes never going to pull the PLP around, so why continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me to key concept here is idealism v pragmatism. Gav's approach is the one of an idealist, support the guy who best represents him, regardless of his chances of becoming PM. Baz's approach is the pragmatist, compromise his views (if indeed they are really more Corbyn-aligned) in order to get a Labour leader in power and get more, if not all, of his views made into policy.

If the first approach is truly what the solid Corbyn supporters want then I think a party split is the way to go. If the vast majority of Labour MPs are against Corbyn then he's clearly not representative of Labour. He's representative of a large number of Labour supporters who are actually further left than modern Labour but still vote Labour because it's the only credible option. Creating a new party would give Corbyn supporters exactly what they want in terms of giving Corbyn MPs and a front bench team who support him like the members do. Of course the problem for Baz's side is that severely weakens the remainibg Labour party, as you say Baz maybe that would be an opportunity to merge with the Lib Dems and eat into the left-wing of the Conservatives?

The only reason the Tories don't have this problem I'd imagine is because we're all pragmatists by nature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me to key concept here is idealism v pragmatism. Gav's approach is the one of an idealist, support the guy who best represents him, regardless of his chances of becoming PM. Baz's approach is the pragmatist, compromise his views (if indeed they are really more Corbyn-aligned) in order to get a Labour leader in power and get more, if not all, of his views made into policy.

If the first approach is truly what the solid Corbyn supporters want then I think a party split is the way to go. If the vast majority of Labour MPs are against Corbyn then he's clearly not representative of Labour. He's representative of a large number of Labour supporters who are actually further left than modern Labour but still vote Labour because it's the only credible option. Creating a new party would give Corbyn supporters exactly what they want in terms of giving Corbyn MPs and a front bench team who support him like the members do. Of course the problem for Baz's side is that severely weakens the remainibg Labour party, as you say Baz maybe that would be an opportunity to merge with the Lib Dems and eat into the left-wing of the Conservatives?

The only reason the Tories don't have this problem I'd imagine is because we're all pragmatists by nature!

You couldn't be more wrong.

My Mrs laughs her head off reading some of this, she believes I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan, you couldn't get further from Corbyn if you tried.

Let me be clear, I support the Labour leader because he was voted in by the membership, if they vote Eagle in next week I'll support her against any hostile takeovers because its about democracy and the voting public, not about a bunch of Armani suited overpaid career politicians that couldn't give a toss about the public that voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many non-Labour members really heard of her until she became a minister? Looking at her voting record on welfare cuts or tuition fees, she's pretty much like a Conservative so what is the point in her? Why not just be a left wing Tory?

MPs can disagree with Corbyn's very traditional left wing views, I am not that far left, but if the majority of those who hate him so much just blandly agree with the Conservatives and not offer an alternative, then apart from the wages and expenses what is the point of them being there? What alternative vision are they providing? Ms. Eagle seems to be another opportunist Blairite on the make when you really inspect her political career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldn't be more wrong.

My Mrs laughs her head off reading some of this, she believes I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan, you couldn't get further from Corbyn if you tried.

Let me be clear, I support the Labour leader because he was voted in by the membership, if they vote Eagle in next week I'll support her against any hostile takeovers because its about democracy and the voting public, not about a bunch of Armani suited overpaid career politicians that couldn't give a toss about the public that voted.

Who were all voted in themselves by Labour voters in their constituencies. They've just as much democratic right to be in their positions as Corbyn has in his. So it's hardly a case of the people vs a bunch of power-crazed dictators. It's the people against a bunch of MPs that the people voted in.

I agree with you on the surface, Corbyn is the members choice and like Brexit you can't go re-writing the rules to get a more desirable result. On the other hand if 200 or however many people have been voted in by Labour voters and the vast majority find themselves unable to work with Corbyn then what does that say?

Tells me that the members voted for the most far-left MP out of all the ones they'd voted for already, which could be described as either a pretty daft decision or an indication they don't actually stand where the average Labour MP does on the political spectrum and so should maybe create a new party?

Personally I think the Tory system for appointing new leaders is better. You get the opportunity to move from the political position of the previous encumbent but not lurch towards an outlier the rest will find it very difficult to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many non-Labour members really heard of her until she became a minister? Looking at her voting record on welfare cuts or tuition fees, she's pretty much like a Conservative so what is the point in her? Why not just be a left wing Tory?

MPs can disagree with Corbyn's very traditional left wing views, I am not that far left, but if the majority of those who hate him so much just blandly agree with the Conservatives and not offer an alternative, then apart from the wages and expenses what is the point of them being there? What alternative vision are they providing? Ms. Eagle seems to be another opportunist Blairite on the make when you really inspect her political career.

That looks like a copy and paste job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who were all voted in themselves by Labour voters in their constituencies. They've just as much democratic right to be in their positions as Corbyn has in his. So it's hardly a case of the people vs a bunch of power-crazed dictators. It's the people against a bunch of MPs that the people voted in.

I agree with you on the surface, Corbyn is the members choice and like Brexit you can't go re-writing the rules to get a more desirable result. On the other hand if 200 or however many people have been voted in by Labour voters and the vast majority find themselves unable to work with Corbyn then what does that say?

Tells me that the members voted for the most far-left MP out of all the ones they'd voted for already, which could be described as either a pretty daft decision or an indication they don't actually stand where the average Labour MP does on the political spectrum and so should maybe create a new party?

Personally I think the Tory system for appointing new leaders is better. You get the opportunity to move from the political position of the previous encumbent but not lurch towards an outlier the rest will find it very difficult to work with.

I just wanted to make it clear, that Corbyn has my support because he was elected leader by the membership, not because I share his politics necessarily.

MP's are here to serve the public and follow the elected leader, the leader isn't trying to deny the MP's the right to serve, but the MP's are trying to deny the elected leader the chance to lead.

Whether MP's like it or not is irrelevant, the members have voted, but they can force a leadership challenge, but even thats not good enough for the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.