Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: MachoMadness on June 28, 2016, 09:19:20 pm
-
After another day in the story that just grows and grows, it seems the situation is this:
Members, funders and unions vs the vast majority of MPs
Corbyn faces a no confidence vote but as his support among members is even higher now than it was when he was elected he will rinse any challenger. Even if he does get ousted, who will replace him? Eagle? Watson? Are any of them even remotely electable despite being more central? What happens then when the PLP is happy but you've pissed off everyone who's giving you money?
I can't help but feel there's a self-fulfilling prophecy about all this. Whatever you think of Corbyn, surely this botched coup has done more damage to Labour than he ever could.
-
I don't know the ins and outs of this, but even if JC has the support of the party masses, surely his position is untenable if the majority of labour MPs don't?
One thing is for sure, floating voters and those who traditionally support the other parties won't vote Labour under this turmoil..
-
The odds on the Labour Party splitting in two must be shortening by the hour MM. And no. This coup attempt may fail and may well do great harm, but can you really imagine that harm being as great as that inflicted by a man who is driving his party towards a grievous split, and, who even if a split is avoided, can only ever appeal to 100% of 20% of the electorate? if he stays, one way or the other, he will kill the Labour Party.
I saw a reasoned estimate today that if Corbyn leads the Labour Party into an election in 6-9 months time, he will come back as leader of 75 MP's. THAT is doing damage to the Labour Party. The man is totally bereft of judgement.
BobG
-
See Bob, the way I look at it, it's the PLP who are to blame for that. They decided he's not the man before he was elected and so when all their rebellions and public machinations damage Labour in the eyes of voters they'll go "See! Look! We got battered in the election, we told you Corbyn was bad for us!"
Corbyn was elected with an overwhelming mandate. Sixty-odd percent in a four horse race. Maybe the reason Labour will come back with 75 MPs is that people don't see any point in voting for a party that doesn't respect its mandate?
Sadly a split is very much on the cards, but Corbyn only shoulders a minority of the blame.
-
Yes Bob, and bereft of any concern for the millions of people who desperately need an electable labour party to give them any hope for their futures.
-
I see this as the sea opening up for the Lib/Dems when 12 months ago they were staring at the prospect of being in the political wilderness for the next 20 years. Seems to me they only need to present a united front and the right manifesto to be in with a real chance of ousting one of the big 2.
-
I hope you are right Pies - even though I despise the Liberals for their craven power grab not so long ago. I hope you're right because the alternative is that UKIP hoover up the disaffected Labour votes. They are clearly well on the way to achieving that to a very significant degree already. If they carry on doing so they could end up being the official opposition....
Bob
-
I dunno Pies, people haven't forgotten Clegg and the broken promises that quickly.
There is a movement acroos the world for people to reject traditional politics and traditional elites, Trump, Podemos, I wonder if the Greens might step into the void? Or a completly new left of centre party on the Scottish model?
-
With 54 loyal MPs, are the SNP now considered to be the official opposition? :coat:
-
Clearly I'm no leftie, but any government needs a credible opposition. We don't have that right now and it's not a positive. Whilst I disagree with many policies, I do think some of the points in opposition have been justified.
Labour are falling apart right now and it could kill the party completely. There is the historic northern base etc, which is at odds with this newer momentum lot, most of which are more militant, London based largely and less tolerant of opposing views. But that suits Corbyn, it's what he is. He should go, but what happens if he bloody wins again? The party will fall apart. Great many could say but, the alternative could be much worse.
It seems our own Rosie winterton remains by his side also as a side point. Interesting.
-
The job of the leader of any political party is to keep people with a wide spectrum of similar views together and in the same direction. Corbyn can wave his membership majority about as much as he likes but if he can't unite his own MPs behind him (at least enough to keep any divisions behind closed doors) his position is completely untenable.
-
He should go, but what happens if he bloody wins again?
SDP Mk2.
But there'll be a damn sight more than just a Gang Of Four.
-
Corbyn has a clear mandate. Work out what this means for the labour movement in your own minds and come to terms with it because it won't change.
-
I also think some of you are mercilessly out of touch with popular opinion if you think the priority is for a leader whose primary objective should be to unite their party.
-
Corbyn has never been accepted by the vast majority of the PLP so I'm not even entirely why there is such a media scrum around this, even more so since the Torygraph reported what was going to happen 10 days before it did...perhaps there is a reason, something that might be happening very soon that the PLP are desperate to deflect attention from, something which will be an embarrassment to many of those who are stirring up this shit?
I know one thing for sure, if they are successful in ousting Corbyn and bringing in another Blairite stiff, I'll tear my membership card up, and I'll never vote Labour again. Seriously. What would be the point?
What is happening it an affront on democracy, regardless what you think of Corbyn. He is elected by the members, supporters and affiliates and he has a mandate that was even bigger that the war mongerers. And if the MP's cant toe the line, they should be de-selected, starting with that shithouse Flint.
-
Well put Jon. I share the same sentiments also.
-
The whole system is on the edge of major change, the way things are done, are outdated. When the people stop believing in the system they vote for, and you get an unlikely result like the referendum threw up, it can only point to change.
The labour party must do this, to be in any sort of position, to be strong enough to challenge, when the almost inevitable general election happens.
None of the candidates mentioned in the papers will make any difference, it needs a new face, someone new to the political scene, who hasn't been tarred or corrupted too much, by how things are done.
You need likeability, the ability to get on with many different people. An analytical brain. Somebody who commands a room when they are in it. Somebody who can lead a wide range of people while also representing our country against what could be very unconventional divisive leaders who could be elected in other countries.
I don't see these qualities in either parties candidates, nor any of the other parties. Out of those who aren't currently involved, David Miliband would be a good choice, he has a lot of the qualities needed.
-
Copps
What you are saying echoes right down the decades from 1982. It was me talking then. The exact words and sentiments. Unity is less important than taking the party in the direction that we decide it must go. Those traitors on the Right of the party are destroying us.
You will never, ever in this country, come within a country mile of winning a General Election whilst you convince yourself of that approach. I guess every generation has to learn it for themselves.
I'll hammer the point remorselessly. Labour has not, will not and cannot win when it convinces itself that the country thinks like its party members think. So long as Labour activists convince themselves that the important issue is staying true to the beliefs of the majority of a self-reinforcing 0.3% of the population, Labour is ruined.
Jon. If this was a revolt by a handful of Blairite awkward squad members, I'd agree with you. But it is wilful ignorance to convince yourself that this is all it is. 80% of the PLP has voted against Corbyn.
The members who love him are the ones who get no closer to him than cheering him on at rallies as he paints broad ideal. The PLP are the people who have to work with him in those boring, mundane practical things. Like presenting a Party and policies to the public beyond.
You cannot ignore what 80% of the PLP say, unless you have convinced yourself that this is a politically motivated coup. But then, look at the people who have come out against Corbyn. They are from all wings of the Party.
Because this is NOT about policy! It is about Corbyn's competence as a leader.
-
I get the impression, they think he is a decent guy, just not a leader, and they can't get elected, while he reigns. It doesn't seem to be personal, it's for the good of themselves of being on a winning team and the good of the party as a whole.
-
Fact is though Billy, he has never been given a chance as a leader by either the PLP or the media. What the PLP are afraid of is if he tears out the undemocratic structures built by Blair which are a threat to the careerist tossers we have either in the PLP or who are waiting in the wings as spads. People need to look beyond Corbyn and look at his vision for a better society. Some of his policy ideas are hugely popular, even with Tory voters, like renationalisation of the railways (something possible now we're out of the EU -even though I voted remain!) We need a to offer the electorate a radical alternate to austerity, something Miliband failed to grasp which is one of the reasons core Labour voters are looking to UKIP as a misguided solution to their problems and blaming immigrants for all their problems.
-
Never had a chance? What was he doing during the local elections and the referendum then? Anything?
-
I wonder how things would have turned out for Corbyn if he'd followed the logic of his political career and come out for Leave?
I'll probably muse further on the subject later!
-
Jon
As I keep saying, this is not about policy. It's about Corbyn's fitness to lead. We've just had an extended example of it over the campaign. He was, by turn, invisible, ambivalent and self-indulgent. And, I suspect, mendacious in how he, himself actually believed the vote should go, and actually voted.
You can't lead a national political party in the style of a student debating society.
-
Fact is though Billy, he has never been given a chance as a leader by either the PLP or the media. What the PLP are afraid of is if he tears out the undemocratic structures built by Blair which are a threat to the careerist tossers we have either in the PLP or who are waiting in the wings as spads. People need to look beyond Corbyn and look at his vision for a better society. Some of his policy ideas are hugely popular, even with Tory voters, like renationalisation of the railways (something possible now we're out of the EU -even though I voted remain!) We need a to offer the electorate a radical alternate to austerity, something Miliband failed to grasp which is one of the reasons core Labour voters are looking to UKIP as a misguided solution to their problems and blaming immigrants for all their problems.
So he was elected leader by using 'undemocratic structures'..? How can what the PLP is doing be an 'affront to democracy' then? You can't have it both ways...
-
And if the MP's cant toe the line, they should be de-selected, starting with that shithouse Flint.
Don't worry, if Corbyn stays, he won't have any MPs to de-select. All he'll have is a rump of about 40 loyalists. If he's lucky.
-
Labour won't challenge at the next election regardless of whether Corbyn leads of not. Eagle would find hersekg in Corbyns position pretty quickly and Benn and Jarvis are war monguerers. Corbyns job now must be to scourge these Career politicians and those happy to stick the knife in and bring about true reform to the Labour Party.
I've said it from the start of the coup but should Corbyn be overthrown I will cancel my membership and never vote for the party again. It isn't that he's gone but the manner in which it's taken place by Torys in Red ties.
-
Labour won't challenge at the next election regardless of whether Corbyn leads of not. Eagle would find hersekg in Corbyns position pretty quickly and Benn and Jarvis are war monguerers. Corbyns job now must be to scourge these Career politicians and those happy to stick the knife in and bring about true reform to the Labour Party.
I've said it from the start of the coup but should Corbyn be overthrown I will cancel my membership and never vote for the party again. It isn't that he's gone but the manner in which it's taken place by Torys in Red ties.
What if he goes into a full and proper leadership election but this time loses? Would you consider that a coup by the party membership?
-
Wes
Once again, I'm hearing my own words from 30 years ago.
The casual denigration of people to the right of centre in the Labour Party as being Tory in all but name, is infantile, intellectually vacuous and ultimately self-defeating.
You go into the comfort zone of saying "my Labour Party or no Labour Party" if you wish. I did that in the early 80s and the results were utterly catastrophic.
And don't reel off the equally vacuous "it'll be different this time" response. We did that back then too. And I see nothing in the response of the Left today to say that they even wish to engage with that history, let alone learn from it.
You go off to your comfort zone, being convinced that you are correct and it is everyone else in the party that is wrong. And the result will be PM Boris until 2030.
-
Well done Jezza, you're a record breaker!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pat-glass-resigns-from-labour-shadow-cabinet-two-days-after-she-was-appointed-by-jeremy-corbyn-a7108916.html
-
A headline makers dream this Glass resignation.
' Is this the glass ceiling'
'Glass shatters record' etc
A rally planned by Momentum for later today has had to be cacelled due to so many Corbyn supporters wanting to attend.
Not looking good for any challengers if he continues to dig his heels in.
-
A headline makers dream this Glass resignation.
' Is this the glass ceiling'
'Glass shatters record' etc
A rally planned by Momentum for later today has had to be cacelled due to so many Corbyn supporters wanting to attend.
Not looking good for any challengers if he continues to dig his heels in.
Cancelled due to too much interest! That's a new one. Presumably the venue was too small.
Is it just me, but when they talk about "Momentum" I keep thinking "Militant." Reeks of a party within a party.
-
Labour won't challenge at the next election regardless of whether Corbyn leads of not. Eagle would find hersekg in Corbyns position pretty quickly and Benn and Jarvis are war monguerers. Corbyns job now must be to scourge these Career politicians and those happy to stick the knife in and bring about true reform to the Labour Party.
I've said it from the start of the coup but should Corbyn be overthrown I will cancel my membership and never vote for the party again. It isn't that he's gone but the manner in which it's taken place by Torys in Red ties.
.... not to mention those on here (and throughout the Country) who gladly paid £3 to get a vote and made sure Labour got a Leader that they may not have.
-
A headline makers dream this Glass resignation.
' Is this the glass ceiling'
'Glass shatters record' etc
A rally planned by Momentum for later today has had to be cacelled due to so many Corbyn supporters wanting to attend.
Not looking good for any challengers if he continues to dig his heels in.
Cancelled due to too much interest! That's a new one. Presumably the venue was too small.
Is it just me, but when they talk about "Momentum" I keep thinking "Militant." Reeks of a party within a party.
Exactly what it is.
-
Never had a chance? What was he doing during the local elections and the referendum then? Anything?
Far more than the press would have you believe
-
A headline makers dream this Glass resignation.
' Is this the glass ceiling'
'Glass shatters record' etc
A rally planned by Momentum for later today has had to be cacelled due to so many Corbyn supporters wanting to attend.
Not looking good for any challengers if he continues to dig his heels in.
Cancelled due to too much interest! That's a new one. Presumably the venue was too small.
Is it just me, but when they talk about "Momentum" I keep thinking "Militant." Reeks of a party within a party.
No, I'm involved with momentum and nothing is further from the truth...progress however....
-
Well, whatever Jezza decides to do, he won't be Leader Of The Opposition this time next year.
-
Because of his stubborness we are destined to become a one party state, the Labour Party will split and so will their core voters, the climate is ripe for UKIP of the LibDems to be the main opposition party
-
A headline makers dream this Glass resignation.
' Is this the glass ceiling'
'Glass shatters record' etc
A rally planned by Momentum for later today has had to be cacelled due to so many Corbyn supporters wanting to attend.
Not looking good for any challengers if he continues to dig his heels in.
Cancelled due to too much interest! That's a new one. Presumably the venue was too small.
Is it just me, but when they talk about "Momentum" I keep thinking "Militant." Reeks of a party within a party.
No, I'm involved with momentum and nothing is further from the truth...progress however....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
:lol:
-
When you step back a little its quite surprising to find people defending a labour party at its lowest ebb for decades - as something that somehow needs to be sustained, propped up with some faux clothesline leadership but not actually any closer to power because of it.
Let's change tack here. If not Corbyn then who?
-
The big question for me is this. Would you trust a single politician that has been involved over the last few days?
I've personally emailed Winterton thanking her for her loyalty shown to a leader decided by the biggest Labour membership since Blair was elected as PM.
In terms of this 'militant group' nothing could be further from the truth and I find it disheartening to see anyone criticising any kind of movement that has seen young people engage in politicics. BST, your argument seems to based on 'it hasn't worked for me so why should it work for you?' and Glyn, how you cannot see this as a coup by MPs that seem to have grossly misread the feelings of their constituents is beyond me. Corbyn will not lose any leadership vote taken by the Members of the Labour Party. I'd be stunned if he didn't fair better than he did just last year.
So who is at fault for dividing the Labour Party? A man who has decided to stand by the people who have voted him to represent their party or war mongers like Benn who could take some loyalty tips from Judas Iscariot?
-
Wes
No. You're personalising it. And, frankly, your comments about Hilary Benn are a disgrace, and are identical to the way in which centre-left politicians were treated by Militant et al in the 1980s. That's not acceptable debate. It is the, "I'm right, therefore anyone else must by definition be an amoral Kitson" approach to politics.
I'll keep saying it. That's what we did in the 1980s. I and many others a deeply ashamed of that and deeply sorry for the way that we let down the country and the people we thought we were representing.
You ask who is at fault for dividing the Labour Party? It's the "membership" (sic) which is indulging itself in the comfort zone of its own bubble and utterly failing to see the larger picture in the country. They have convinced themselves that, because they KNOW what the solution is, the country will follow.
It won't. It doesn't. It'll hurt, but you will learn the lesson that (most of) my generation learned. Unfortunately, a f**k-load other people will get hurt far more on the way.
-
The alternatives for leadership seem to be Angela Eagle and Dan Jarvis, neither of whom jump out at you as election winners anyway, and neither of whom would have the support of members, donors or unions following their conduct in this sorry affair. None of them will get Labour any closer to power over the next decade than Corbyn. The less said about Watson the better.
The only one I can see who's better than Corbyn is Andy Burnham, who's already thrown his hat in another ring anyway.
-
Glyn, how you cannot see this as a coup by MPs that seem to have grossly misread the feelings of their constituents is beyond me.
Because their constituents voted for them as representative of a Labour Party led by Ed Miliband. They certainly didn't vote for them as representative of a Labour Party led by Corbyn. So how exactly have they have 'grossly misread' them?
-
ahh yes, Ed Miliband, a party united behind its leader - how did that end up?
-
Labour members - who give money to allow those MPs to run - voted him in overwhelmingly. Labour voters joined the party en masse. Labour voters still overwhelmingly supported Labour under Corbyn in local elections AND in the referendum. What makes you think his mandate has in any way diminished?
-
Yeah. That's an old Left standard.
Conflate "The feelings of Labour activists and my peer group" with "The feelings of constituents".
I'm feeling quite nostalgic. I wonder what the next one is going to be?
And THIS is the core of the problem with Corbyn and his circle. This is the reason why he is unfit to be a leader. It's because a leader of an organisation as disparate as the Labour party, builds a broad coalition of support. (S)he synthesises opinions and beliefs from a wide, and often difficult to reconcile range. They develop messy compromises that perfectly suit no-one, but that most are able to support to some extent.
And THAT is why Corbyn is unfit to be a leader. He's not a compromiser. He's not a synthesising politician. He is a factionalist and someone utterly convinced of his own approach. That is a sexy message to give to those who agree with you. It makes people want to give body and soul to the cause. Trouble is, it does the square root of f**k all to convince those who don't agree with you. True leaders get their hands dirty in the messy, unpleasant, deeply unsexy compromises that make real politics work. Corbyn has never and will never do that. Therefore he cannot possibly lead an organisation as diverse as Labour.
-
ahh yes, Ed Miliband, a party united behind its leader - how did that end up?
As a party with 229 MPs in the Commons. How many do you think Corbyn will leave it with?
-
Labour members - who give money to allow those MPs to run - voted him in overwhelmingly. Labour voters joined the party en masse. Labour voters still overwhelmingly supported Labour under Corbyn in local elections AND in the referendum. What makes you think his mandate has in any way diminished?
Then he'll stroll any Leader election challenge and put all the MPs in their place then, won't he?
-
You'd imagine so, yes. If it turns out I'm wrong on that despite all polls suggesting his approval rating among members is higher now than it was when he was elected, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
Why do you think the PLP is so desperate to have him resign rather than run in an election?
-
I'm feeling quite nostalgic. I wonder what the next one is going to be?
The one I remember being chucked around in the 80s was 'the electorate have never had a true socialist option to vote for'.
-
Macho.
Labour voters joined the party en masse?
Give me strength.
Look at the current scale of Labour party membership:
4% of all the people who voted Labour in 2015
<3% of the number of people that we'd need to see a majority Labour Govt
0.8% of the electorate.
Is it so hard to see? Overwhelming support from a tiny, specific sub-set of the population is no indication of anything at all, other than that sub-set's personal preference. It means nothing about either Corbyn's personal and professional ability. It means nothing about his ability to reach out beyond that sub-set.
-
You'd imagine so, yes. If it turns out I'm wrong on that despite all polls suggesting his approval rating among members is higher now than it was when he was elected, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
Yes, I think he'd win a Leadership election if challenged and he ran himself.
THat's not the problem though. If he won, all those MPs who voted that they have no confidence in him will be in an untenable position. So they'll quit the party and set their own up. Which will immediately become the Official Opposition and the leader of the new party will take the title of Leader of the Opposition from Corbyn, consigning Corbyn and his rump to insignificance and ineffectiveness, or at worst, nothing more than a joke.
Now, I'm not saying I want to see that happen but it's what will happen if Corbyn wins a challenge to his leadership.
-
And what fair test have we had thus far of his ability to reach beyond this sub-set you are referring to?
-
And what fair test have we had thus far of his ability to reach beyond this sub-set you are referring to?
The Local elections, perhaps?
-
Latest word on the street (Sky News, so take it with a shaker of salt) is that a lot of the timing of this has to do with Chilcot, and Corbyn is hanging on to release a statement on it and call for a Blair war crimes trial.
BST,
That's all well and good, but the Labour Party was unelectable before and I'd wager having a stronger member base would help their voter base expand exponentially. That is, if resources are going into campaigning and not staging a coup.
Every test Corbyn's Labour has had so far, they've done better than expected. Before, they were doing significantly worse than expected. Centrist Labour certainly wasn't appealing beyond that subset, and if it really is about Corbyn's fitness to lead, surely it's the party's job to shield Corbyn's weaknesses instead of standing there with the knives out ready to expose him from day one.
I keep saying it, Corbyn's failure is a self-fulfilling prophecy on behalf of the PLP.
-
And what fair test have we had thus far of his ability to reach beyond this sub-set you are referring to?
The Local elections, perhaps?
In which Labour actually did fairly well? I know opposition parties tend to do well in local elections, but it was widely considered Corbyn's Labour would get mullered. They weren't.
-
Copps:
His alienation of all bar a 20% sub-set of MPs? Do you think they are ALL Blairite regicides? Do you think that all of them are doing this for personal gain? Do you stop and think for a moment that when MPs who have been politically close to Corbyn go on record as saying that they cannot work with HIM personally, that they have been in meetings where he has ignored every opinion that runs counter to his own, that they might just have a point? From personal experience?
-
Wes
No. You're personalising it. And, frankly, your comments about Hilary Benn are a disgrace, and are identical to the way in which centre-left politicians were treated by Militant et al in the 1980s. That's not acceptable debate. It is the, "I'm right, therefore anyone else must by definition be an amoral Kitson" approach to politics.
I'll keep saying it. That's what we did in the 1980s. I and many others a deeply ashamed of that and deeply sorry for the way that we let down the country and the people we thought we were representing.
You ask who is at fault for dividing the Labour Party? It's the "membership" (sic) which is indulging itself in the comfort zone of its own bubble and utterly failing to see the larger picture in the country. They have convinced themselves that, because they KNOW what the solution is, the country will follow.
It won't. It doesn't. It'll hurt, but you will learn the lesson that (most of) my generation learned. Unfortunately, a f**k-load other people will get hurt far more on the way.
172 MPs voted against Corbyn, 184 abstained on austerity cuts. I know who I believe sits closer to my beliefsurprise. I uphold my comments on Benn (I actually toned down my opinion for the Viking Chat public).
There is no candidate currently within the Labour Party who would fair any better than Corbyn, however removing him will ostracise a generation of Labour voters forever.
-
Chris Ship ✔ @chrisshipitv
NEW: Just been told Corbyn has said in the last day he wants out, he's had enough. But his Dir of Comms @SeumasMilne told him he should stay
-
Macho
By what measure did Labour "actually do fairly well" in the local Govt elections. Those elections were, broadly, in the same councils and wards as the those competed in 2012.
In 2016, Labour LOST seats compared to 2012. And remember that in 2015, Labour was annihilated. So, under Corbyn, at a similar point in the cycle, Labour is already doing worse than it did in the last Parlimament.
AND, in 2012, Labour was facing a united Tory party, In May 2016, Labour was facing a fractious and divided Tory party. And Labour STILL did worse than in 2012.
You can dress it up all you like, but there is no evidence whatsoever of Corbyn reaching out beyond the laager of the committed.
-
From what was reported, a lot of the stuff during the Referendum campaign that the MPs were unhappy about seemed to have originated from Milne.
-
By the measure that they are now the largest party at a local level, when the general consensus was that they'd lose a lot of ground. Just discounting 2015 because "Labour got annihilated" doesn't wash, either. They still took some of that ground back despite the PLP and media being convinced of otherwise.
I'd disagree that Labour was facing a united Tory Party in 2012 too - they were actually facing a coalition, by definition a fractious and divided party.
-
Craig Murray gets to the heart of the Labour problem on his blog, internal party democracy;
Craig Murray - Vauntie Cybernat, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/)
The relevant bit is here:
"The Labour crisis is a result of that party’s lack of internal democracy. In the SNP, every MP and MSP must seek reselection as the candidate for every election. Sitting MSPs and MPS can be and are regularly deposed by party members without fuss.
In the Labour Party, the system has been designed to put in MPs for life. Members have no right to challenge them. An extraordinary number of the right wing MPs were parachuted in from HQ and have no connection whatsoever to the northern constituencies they represent. It is fascinating that two thirds of the Shadow Cabinet members who resigned yesterday ostensibly over Corbyn’s insufficient EU enthusiasm, represent constituencies which voted for Brexit. This might call into some doubt their own campaigning effectiveness."
The present kerfuffle is also about Chilcot Report, which is due next week. It is likely to conclude against Blair/Straw and those who voted for war in Iraq with them.
The Labour Party cannot form another Government, whoever leads it. Scotland has gone, boundary changes lose another 20 plus seats, and it has only a lingering death to look forward to. Better to re-invent a new force on the left, which involves letting go of some old tribalisms and addressing the future. Sad, but necessary.
The discussion on here shows us all why. I posted this before, but it bears repeating;
We need to build a new left. Labour means nothing today | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/we-need-to-build-a-new-left-labour-means-nothing-jeanette-winterson)
-
You want to accept that Labour cannot get back into power? You want to invent a new force on the Left?
Fine. Off you go and do it.
If you're so confident that that is the way forward, either start your own organisation, or put up a prospective Labour leader who campaigns explicitly on that message. One who says: "Vote for me. I cannot win an Election for you because Labour is finished, but I can build a new force on the Left."
If that's what you want, go and do it, with my blessing.
Do NOT do it by having that as a hidden agenda and seeing the collapse of the Labour party as just collateral damage on the way. That seems to be the unspoken plan of the entryists now, just as it was in the early 80s.
-
Billy,
I don't want to accept it any more than you do, but if it is true that Labour cannot form a majority, then what to do?
If you think that Labour can form a government, explain how you think that will be achieved? Changing the leader is one small part of that, but do you really think it is enough.
Politics is now a reality TV game show, in which celebrities compete to earn applause by being more outlandish than the others. Evidence and the truth is discounted to entertainment value.
That is where we are, and I don't like it any more than you. The difference between us is that I don't think you search out the future in the past. The power of the media is shaping debate is not going to change any time soon, and a new Labour leader will be under attack from early days once the chase is on.
I have been a Labour Party supporter since I was a lad, but the world has changed and folk on the left have to move with that change,like it or not.
-
Albie.
Labour has, several times over the years, won a majority of votes and seats ignoring Scotland. It did so in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. The claim that Labour can never win without Scotland is manifestly false.
That said, that can only happen due to the vagaries of our antiquated political system. I hate that system. It gave Thatcher unchallenged power. It gave Blair unchallenged power. It'll give Johnson unchallenged power.
I would do one very simple thing to re-establish the credibility and future of both the Left and politics as a whole. I'd make it Labour policy (and shout it loud and clear and remorselessly) to bring in full and meaningful PR. If anything is responsible for the disconnect between people and politics, it is the knowledge that most people's votes in GEs do not count for anything. I'd do away with that and I'd campaign flat out on that issue and that issue alone.
Strip out the old politics. Bring in a system that properly enfranchises EVERYONE in the country. And THEN I'd allow the Labour Party to split into the two factions that it has always been. I'd welcome Corbyn on one side and Cooper on the other being able to openly campaign for policies that they genuinely believe in.
If you REALLY want a re-alignment of our politics, it cannot happen without that move.
If the Referendum did anything, it re-invigorated a sense of control of destiny among voters (whatever you think of the result). We need to harness that feeling and use it productively. Let our politics grow up. Destroy the artificial marriages of convenience that are the existing Labour and Conservative parties. And once we've done that, we might get a stronger sense of civic engagement.
Nothing else really matters in politics at the moment, except re-connecting the bridge between politics and the people. So I'd have a 1 page manifesto as Labour. Vote for us. We will form a caretaker Govt. We will introduce a Bill to bring in a genuinely representative voting system. And then we will dissolve Parliament.
You want radicalism? There is the radical solution.
-
Yep...I agree with nearly all of that BST.
Thing is, Labour has stood against PR voting, and it is still not party policy.
The point about Scotland is not that Labour could win in the past without Scottish votes, but that it cannot do so now. Take into account the boundary changes and it is a big ask, much more difficult going forward.
I still think people are diverted by the Corbyn issue from the real questions facing Labour. To me, it should not matter so much who is the leader, but what policies they follow on behalf of the party.
Interesting article from Suzanne Moore;
The bloodletting over Jeremy Corbyn is sad – the left is stuck in old binaries | Suzanne Moore | Opinion | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/the-bloodletting-over-jeremy-corbyn-is-sad-the-left-is-stuck-in-old-binaries)
I don't agree with all of it, but I think she is on the right track with the overall critique.
-
Reports now stating that the PLP are desperately scrabbling round for a credible candidate who opposed the Iraq war for when Chilcot lands next week. Makes the story that Corbyn is hanging on until Chilcot a little more interesting...
-
Be tough for Eagle then won't it given her voting record on the subject.
-
Be tough for Eagle then won't it given her voting record on the subject.
Eagle? Is that the best they can do?
-
From what was reported, a lot of the stuff during the Referendum campaign that the MPs were unhappy about seemed to have originated from Milne.
"King's Evil Counsellors," Glyn.
-
Remind me. Is this supposed to be about the future of the Labour Party or retribution for the past?
-
Be tough for Eagle then won't it given her voting record on the subject.
Eagle? Is that the best they can do?
To be fair I hardly expect Labour to put forward their best bets at this stage. Whoever gets the job is going to be the head of an unelectable mess of a party so any politician with genuine PM ambitions isn't going to take it. The ramifications are going to rumble on for a while and whoever gets the job will be on a hiding to nothing as they paper over all the cracks.
-
Be tough for Eagle then won't it given her voting record on the subject.
Eagle? Is that the best they can do?
To be fair I hardly expect Labour to put forward their best bets at this stage. Whoever gets the job is going to be the head of an unelectable mess of a party so any politician with genuine PM ambitions isn't going to take it. The ramifications are going to rumble on for a while and whoever gets the job will be on a hiding to nothing as they paper over all the cracks.
There's some evidence that happened last time with people like Umunna and Jarvis deciding to hang back. Thing is, if they just replace one poor leader (who at least has the virtue of being popular with party members) with another then it makes you wonder if all the aggro is worth it.
There's also the risk that the party becomes irrelevant, of course.
-
Both of your last two points are true, of course. I was just looking for some semblance of logic in ousting someone who, even with question marks over his wider appeal, still has the full support of the members and donors, and replacing him with someone who has the support of nobody - including her own CLP.
-
.... if they let everyone pay £3 again and Vote as a Member of the Party then it will end the same way
IC1967 was I remember saying on here that he was doing just that and I remember at the time there was a huge outcry about "voting irregularities" so if they have not fixed both those "flaws" I expect the same result
I dug this Thread out and IC1967 was first off the blocks but by god it makes a good read all the way through
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=253222.msg554813#msg554813
-
IT'S tempting for any Tory to do that. Thankfully I'm a bit more mature.
Cameron was clever today criticising Corbyn thus making it another step harder for him to resign.
Eagle won't win I wouldn't think, she's not a strong enough candidate. Mind Jeremy has a lot of support at activist levels, but they can't see that doesn't translate to the big vote.
I don't often agree with bst politically but he's right here that labour is becoming a party that talks only to itself. The other parties will all benefit.
-
The people who voted labour, in the last election, should be the one's electing the new leader, after all whoever it is, is representing those voters. Take the decision out of mp and union hands.
-
In a current poll on Wikileaks' twitter, the percentage support for the various candidates in the Labour leadership race is as follows:
Corbyn 66%
Umuna 14%
Eagle 11%
Cooper 9%
I'm not drawing any conclusions from that (who is voting in the poll, what do they want for Labour in terms of good/bad etc.) but it's quite a majority that Corbyn has in the wider populace outside of the PLP bubble.
My two penn'orth FWIW is that I agree with Billy in terms of the need for electoral reform. I've believed that this is required for all my adult life as the FPTP system is grossly misrepresentative of the will of the electorate. Yes, it would mean a few more "nasties" getting a seat but in practice it would lead to a much more balanced and broader-reaching government which is desperately required to re-engage the regions outside of London/home counties.
My personal view on Corbyn is that it's refreshing to have someone campaigning on points of principle and why he believes his principles will have a positive effect rather than simply mudslinging at the opposition. The idea is right and there is clearly a high level of support for him out there which grates against the PLP establishment. Unfortunately he lacks the mettle required to be a statesman on the world stage and Putin would have him on toast. Nevertheless I would hope to see him retain the leadership and do better than the pundits keep predicting as it may force something of a cultural change in UK politics.
Billy, I hear you loud and clear with your warnings from the past and generally I would agree with your pragmatic approach. Usually, I believe things are cyclical and history is the best barometer of future predictions however I genuinely believe that something has fundamentally changed since your idealistic days of the early 80s.
It's criminal to underestimate the power of social media in disseminating messages amongst peer groups regardless of their accuracy. I was a remainer but thought most of the way through the referendum campaign that leave would win by a narrow margin purely based on the groundswell of opinion on social media. I changed my prediction to a small-margin victory for remain based on the bookies' odds and a slice of hope.
NB to put some perspective on where I'm coming form I've only voted Labour once in my life which was at the last GE. I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat voter but as per much of the party's grass-roots support I wanted to bloody the nose of the Clegg regime as I felt that they had failed us in their weakness throughout the coalition period.
Within days of a Tory majority taking hold it became self-evident how much nastiness and prejudice the LD's had managed to prevent during the power-sharing phase but they made the fatal error of not shouting about it at the time.
All anyone remembers s the broken pledge on tuition fees. Had they framed it as "in a coalition we had to concede on this point in order to win on our challenges to welfare cuts, regional support etc." they would've fared much better and retained more support.
As it is, I voted against them and along with around 10k others joined the party the next day to reform from within. I firmly believe that the core values of fairness and equality are as important (if not more so given the post-referendum rise in reported racism) as ever.
Bob mentioned on page 1 of this thread that it's a long road back for the LD's after that broken pledge but if they can unite the floating remainers and even recruit some of the regretful Brexit voters, I can foresee the green shoots of recovery at the next GE.
-
Mike
The tuition fees thing was not the issue for me. The LD's historic mistake wasn't about that. It was far more fundamental.
They campaigned in 2010 on an anti-Austerity ticket. Then, within days of the Election, they had signed up to Austerity lock, stock and barrel.
That is the biggest single mistake that any political party has made since the War. That made them the fall guys for the totally unnecessary 2.5 years of lost growth. The OBR's own figures indicate that we lost something between £100-250bn as a direct result of Austerity between 2010-2013.
It was the LDs who allowed this to happen. They didn't have to do. They could have drawn red lines and let the Tories form a minority Govt if they wouldn't accept them. But they weren't strong enough to do that. Clegg had the frighteners put on him by Mervyn King and he folded. He made up an incoherent story about why he had changed his mind and betrayed the millions of people who voted for him on a false premise. You don't recover from that. Not for a generation or more. That one decision crucified the LDs and it led us directly to the state we are currently in.
-
What odds would I get on UKIP being the second largest party in England after the next election? It sounds daft. But I'm not sure it is all that daft right now. This ought to be THE time for the LD's. But, and I really am sorry Jonathan, they have nowhere near paid the price of their infamy yet. Their vote will go up. It can hardly do otherwise with Labour imploding. But the sexy party is UKIP. we've seen very clearly just how ready disgruntled Labour voters are to vote their way. 69% voted out in Donny.
BobG
-
What is the raison d'être of the UK Indepdence party now we have achieved Independence. It surely can't go on as the same party particularly given people were funding it on one issue.
-
Also worth noting that the Green party have offered to form a progressive alliance with Corbyn's labour.
-
Be tough for Eagle then won't it given her voting record on the subject.
Eagle? Is that the best they can do?
Eerie choice .... but probably the most talon-ted MP they have
-
I think that even a lot of Brexiters are so fed up of Farage their popularity will drop. The BNP will also show itself up and not get as many protest votes.
Proportional representation in some shape or form would give a disillusioned electorate the chance to make each vote count. The LDs would possibly then do better.
-
Billy, I'm broadly in agreement regarding the capitulation of Clegg. He was a king-maker turned scullery maid as he wasn't strong enough to really show courage in his principles. He was clearly scared of being recorded by the history books as the bloke who went into a coalition which collapsed within months leading to at best another GE.
That being the case he shouldn't have entertained the prospect of a coalition in the first place but he pissed his pants at the prospect of "power". I genuinely believe he thought that from a senior position in the government he would give liberal values a stronger and more widely-reported platform but he was out of his depth and outnumbered. The party needed a short, sharp shock and the grassroots rebellion gave them one.
On the subject of austerity, I believe that the severity of cuts imposed by Gideon as soon as he had the unfettered power of a majority Tory government behind him is indicative of the influence of the LD coalition in staving off some of the most punitive austerity measures. Their mistake was not making enough of this. It was assumed that the rise in personal PAYE allowance would be credited as a great leap forward for low-paid workers but in reality it's not really registered in any significant way with most people.
Bob, regarding the "price of their infamy" I'm not so sure. Versus the competitive set their relative anonymity of the last couple of years has probably done no harm as the quiet rebuilding goes on.
Whilst I do have fairly significant concerns about Farron's personal religious convictions, he has presented a level-headed and empathetic approach which seems to be working in re-engaging not only the sandals and socks brigade but also the disenfranchised centre-left youth.
I joined the party on a back-to-basics fairness, equality and compassion ticket and I don't feel let down at all. Again, comparatively with the "big two" the stability and togetherness is outstanding.
-
I think that even a lot of Brexiters are so fed up of Farage their popularity will drop. The BNP will also show itself up and not get as many protest votes.
Proportional representation in some shape or form would give a disillusioned electorate the chance to make each vote count. The LDs would possibly then do better.
I used to chuckle at the Liberals cries on behalf of PR - and I am sure they had John Cleese doing an advert on their behalf. Just because you cant win I used to think !
I have supposedly got wiser as I have grown older and now I have been an advocate of PR in some format for the last 15 years. I see the unfairness of the whole system now and I know what they wanted AND why they and we as an Electorate should get it.
-
Mike
Unfortunately, the LDs DIDN'T blunt the NET effect of Austerity measures. Yes there were some positive micro-economic measures that the LDs championed. But the Coalition Agreement was not for watered down MACRO-economic fiscal policy. It implemented the full, broad Tory spending cut plan.
If you want to know why we voted Out last week, take a look at Fig1 here.
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea020.pdf
For nearly 50 years [1] our GDP per head has risen steadily. Every time there's been a blip, it's returned to trend. Because we KNOW how to respond to booms and recessions. Even when Thatcher had her mad monetarism experiment that worsened the 1981 recession, she ditched it within 12 months and went back to conventional economics.
Not in 2010. In 2010, we were just starting to recover from the worst of the Great Crash. And then the LDs gave the Tories carte blanche to run with Austerity for 30 months. And just LOOKwhat they did.
At core, that is why we voted out. Because the social pact has been ripped up. Govt dropped the baton and drove the recovery into a wall. And no-ones been getting any better off for nearly a decade. And then Farage and Johnson and Gove scream that the reason you're not getting better off is because of them f**king Poles.
May 2010. Nick f**king Clegg.
-
I voted to leave, I've no regrets and would do so again tomorrow, I did think that the Country as a whole would vote to remain. Whats clear to me regarding the voting is that it appears the referendum has been used as a protest vote against the establishment in this Country, every persons vote counted as oppesed to the first past the post system used in general elections, people are fed up of self serving polititians that have no interest in the common man, and even now, in the padt week the farce continues and the Country is in limbo because they are all jostling for their own position rather than looking after the interests of the Country
-
Filo
Which is exactly why the push should be full AV now.
Our politics is totally broken. It needs fixing from bottom up.
-
Filo
Which is exactly why the push should be full AV now.
Our politics is totally broken. It needs fixing from bottom up.
BST. Surely STV would be a better system? Adopting the system they use in Scotland would also make sense.
Despite what was said in that referendum we had, AV is not really proportional representation. It is just a means of reducing the need for tactical voting.
-
Sorry TRB...my mistake. I didn't mean AV. I meant full PR. Brain's not working today.
STV would be my way forward. Let us have permanent coalitions. Let the main parties break up into the sub-parties that they actually are. Let them campaign for what they truly believe in, without having to make the wide compromises that they currently do. And, most importantly, let everyone feel that their vote actually counts.
Our current system is an utter disgrace. It gives almost unfettered executive power to Govts voted for by fewer than 40% of those hwo vote and fewer than 30% of the electorate. And it effectively disenfranchises 80% of the electorate, who vote either in a constituency where there is only one possible outcome, our vote on principle for a party that they believe in, but that party has no chance of winning the seat. That system is the main reason why there is such a disconnect between the people and Parliament. There is nothing more important in the country than fixing that, quickly.
-
100% completely and unequivocally agree with that, Billy.
Even though it would lead to the likes of UKIP getting more seats at least it's a true reflection of democracy in action.
-
Remind me. Is this supposed to be about the future of the Labour Party or retribution for the past?
Now there's a comment based on recent debates on Orgreave and Hillsbrough....Retribution has to come depending on Chilcott results..The same as any other enquiry..The blairites know it's coming which is why they are lining up there horses now...For Labour it will get worse before it gets better I fear...Which even as a centre ground tory scares me,one party states are dangerous things...
-
100% completely and unequivocally agree with that, Billy.
Even though it would lead to the likes of UKIP getting more seats at least it's a true reflection of democracy in action.
The greens getting a few seats or even the BNP would be worth it. Extreme parties would never be able to steamroller their policies through. Hopefully it would lead to reasoned debate and a measure of compromise.
-
The BNP are non existent. Gone, finished. Can't remember the figures but they got next to no votes at the last general election.
The big losers in the current system are the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens and the big winners are the SNP.
-
...and whichever party is the larger of the two main ones.
e.g.
in 2015, The Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote and 50.8% of the seats.
in 2005, Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats.
It's always been argued that at least FFTP gives us strong Govt. Apart from the fact that "strong" can mean "unfettered power that doesn't reflect the public mood" (Iraq? Thatcherism?), we haven't even had strong Govt recently. It's been hobbled by internal party politics. Just like it was in the mid-70s under Labour.
It can't go on, and we will not have grown up, democratic and functional politics in this country until we change it.
-
...and whichever party is the larger of the two main ones.
e.g.
in 2015, The Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote and 50.8% of the seats.
in 2005, Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats.
It's always been argued that at least FFTP gives us strong Govt. Apart from the fact that "strong" can mean "unfettered power that doesn't reflect the public mood" (Iraq? Thatcherism?), we haven't even had strong Govt recently. It's been hobbled by internal party politics. Just like it was in the mid-70s under Labour.
It can't go on, and we will not have grown up, democratic and functional politics in this country until we change it.
.... and was'nt the Major surprise win a majority of 21 seats and the votes to have generated a win for Labour about 1100 ?
Based on 21 seats - which had they lost 11 of them would mean they would have lost by a Seat
Then in the 11 closest majorities they won some by say 75 votes so had 38 voted against the in that Seat they would have lost and so on ... it added up to just over 1000 I think
Slightly different to PR I know but annoyed me then AND I DO carry a grudge !
-
The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.
-
The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.
No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.
-
Christ, imagine a Tory in No. 11 and Labour running the NHS...
-
Christ, imagine a Tory in No. 11 and Labour running the NHS...
And Nigel Farage as Foreign Secretary..!
-
The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.
No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.
Why do you think intelligent people, can't find a way of working together. A manifesto could very easily be worked out between those elected to each position. The public would be given a list of candidates for each role, and then a government formed, using the different viewpoints to run the country better. Are you telling me labour and the conservatives policies are really so different?, i don't think so.
The Con/Lib coalition worked well enough to a point. Why not have the strongest person in each role?
-
The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.
No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.
Why do you think intelligent people, can't find a way of working together. A manifesto could very easily be worked out between those elected to each position. The public would be given a list of candidates for each role, and then a government formed, using the different viewpoints to run the country better. Are you telling me labour and the conservatives policies are really so different?, i don't think so.
The Con/Lib coalition worked well enough to a point. Why not have the strongest person in each role?
So, in your Utopia a manifesto is worked out after we've voted for the candidates and in effect we're giving the winners carte blanche to do whatever they like without the mandate to do it?
What happens if someone turns out to be crap at the job, do they have to stay there for the full five years because we've voted them there?
Who picks all the Junior Ministers, Select Committee members etc. etc.?
Oh, and who decides th list of candidates that you're talking about - do we get to vote for who makes that decision?
-
Then they are accountable, they lose the job they occupy. No as always it would be voted on, but in my way of thinking the amount of mp's would be made smaller. A compact government, would work better, rather than a top heavy government.
There would be a vote on who the public want to see in each job. The candidates would be put forward by currently serving mp's, and narrowed to three for each position.
Each person in each position as head of that department, would then appoint other mp's to his or her department. They would be given the funding for a streamlined department.
The candidates would campaign on why they are most suited to the role. The public should be able to decide, for example who is the better leader for the country, rather than being stuck with a leader, just because he or she is the current party leader.
What would be so wrong in having the best people in each role?. You see it everytime a government is elected, mp's being shoved into a role that doesn't suit them, and often the party not in power have better candidates for that job.
Under my way, a manifesto wouldn't be needed as a group any more. Each person put into a position would work hard for the country, rather than one party. It would cut away having to listen to lies, and would make them accountable if they fail !.
-
That would be utter, utter chaos.
-
Then they are accountable
To who? The public once every five years or Parliament and the Select Committees as they currently are?
they lose the job they occupy
Who decides that if they're proven to be incompentent six months into a five year tenure?
No as always it would be voted on, but in my way of thinking the amount of mp's would be made smaller. A compact government, would work better, rather than a top heavy government.
Erm...you do know that Parliament and the Government are two separate entities, don't you, and reducing the number of MPs does nothing to the size of the Government? If not, it explains a lot.
There would be a vote on who the public want to see in each job. The candidates would be put forward by currently serving mp's, and narrowed to three for each position.
Narrowed to three by whom?
Each person in each position as head of that department, would then appoint other mp's to his or her department. They would be given the funding for a streamlined department.
Who decides the amount of funding each department gets and how it would fit into a cohesive economic strategy? What if the Head of Department rejects the level of funding as unworkable and resigns? You do know that 'streamlining' a Department is nothing to do with the number of politicians but the civil servants who do the actual work don't you - why do you think think the NHS, HMRC and DWP have fallen apart since they've been 'streamlined' since 2010?
The candidates would campaign on why they are most suited to the role. The public should be able to decide, for example who is the better leader for the country, rather than being stuck with a leader, just because he or she is the current party leader.
You mean a President? Then why didn't you just say so?
What would be so wrong in having the best people in each role?. You see it everytime a government is elected, mp's being shoved into a role that doesn't suit them, and often the party not in power have better candidates for that job.
Because they'd have such disparate views on what is best for the country they wouldn't agree a proper short, medium and long-term strategy. And if they don't get what they want, they'd resign because they wouldn't be able to accept Collective Responsibility.
Under my way, a manifesto wouldn't be needed as a group any more.
And you'd be wanting people to vote for someone without having any idea of what their ideas are for the future of the country? Would you expect the personal manifesto of the leader to be imposed on the rest of the government? Would you really expect an elected head of Department to implement policies that they completely disagree with? What happens if one elected Head of Department's personal manifesto clashes completely with another directly elected Head of Department's manifesto?
Each person put into a position would work hard for the country, rather than one party.
So what's Parliament's role in all this without a party structure to ensure a consistent policy platform is voted through? What happens when a directly elected Head of Department's proposed legislation is voted down by Parliament?
It would cut away having to listen to lies, and would make them accountable if they fail !.
Accountable to who? The public, just once every five years? And you really think they ain't going to lie about their achievements (or lack of them!) to stay in power??