Not happy with the decision?

[MachoMadness]

Macho

Your postings are thoroughly depressing in that you are showing EXACTLY the blinkered mindset that I keep talking about.

Where have I EVER said that Labour should be "centrist"? You are simply not listening to what I say. You are projecting an impression of what you WANT me to be saying, because that strengthens your belief that you are correct.

What I have been saying consistently is that, in the current electoral system, Labour should be a broad church, not a narrow faction. The fact that you interpret that as meaning that Labour should be centrist speaks depressing volumes. It the puerile binary approach to this issue which is deeply, deeply divisive and troubling. But it's one that I am seeing every single day in this discussion, all over the Internet.

If you're not with Corbyn, you're a Blairite/centrist/Red Tory/careerist/warmonger/Judas.  That's not political debate. It is from the "f**k off, I'm right and you're f**king wrong" playground.

We need better than this Macho or we are f**ked, no matter how many members sign up.

Just a few pages ago you noted Labour historically doesn't get elected when it lurches to the left. You have, in the past accused the membership of being self indulgent by electing a left wing leader who has been at odds with the party's centrist wing in the past.

My point has always been that Labour under Corbyn COULD have been an umbrella for the left, attracting progressives from every background. This doesn't seem to be getting through though.

By contrast, I've never once called Labour rebels Judases or criticised you as such for not subscribing to Corbyn's views. It seems like you're the only one projecting here, BST.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Macho

No, you haven't descended to those depths unlike at least one poster round here. But, along with Crofty and pretty much every other Corbynista I've exchanged views, with you HAVE set up the classic false dichotomy of the Left: if you're not with us over here, you're with them over there. You have assumed that because I dislike some of Corbyn's policies, and most of his leadership skills, that I'm a"centrist".

I expect that sort of Manichaean thinking from puddle-headed SWP bods like Yargo. But the strength of the Labour Party has always been the fact that it is a continuous spectrum. It's not a black and white party.

You might be one of the exceptions, but everything I'm seeing from the zealots who have rushed into the party of late is that they have no interest in a big tent and in compromise. They are right and that is that. And that worries me greatly for the future of the party.

Now, onto whether Corbyn COULD have built a big tent. Yes, maybe he could. But he would have profoundly disappointed his new following. And I'm also struggling to see how a man who has called Hamas "friends" and who was the Editor of a magazine that, weeks after the Brighton bomb, published a letter saying, "What do you call 4 dead Tories? A start." is going to have much appeal to moderates of any hue. Or have any chance of ever getting remotely close to No10.

But maybe I'm just too centrist.

[Copps is Magic]

If, as you just said, the majority of the electorate don't care about actually invading Iraq why would they care about something Corbyn said about Hamas years ago?

That's just one of the questions. There are others, of course, like - do you spend as much time discrediting Tory politicians as you do labour ones? You supporting labour and all. Smith apparently gets a free-pass as we've seen above.

[Glyn_Wigley]

To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.

How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps. 


Do I criticise Tory MPs? Oh, only for about the past 40 years. Go and have a look at what I was saying right here in 2010 for example. Or every year since and before then.

But you're doing it again mate. If you're not with Corbyn, your on the other side, eh? Not useful.

As for Corbyn and Hamas and the IRA, as I've said before (and you've ignored before) he will be painted, like it or not, as the terrorists' friend. You need a REALLY strong response to that. I'm struggling to see what that response is when both Corbyn and McDonnell initially opposed the Irish peace process because, as they said, the IRA freedom fighters gave their lives for a United Ireland, not a compromise.

Any answers?

[Copps is Magic]

To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.

How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?

Well, approaching 2/3rds of labour's 600k members will follow him in spite of those MPs - so what better indication do you want at the moment? (I know bst doesn't think it's significant but what else is there - you have no evidence to say the opposite is the case)

I'd recommend reading the link Albie posted, not a thorough analysis but provides some indicators. He basically needs to appeal to those who don't vote (some evidence he is doing that given the age and social make-up of that group) and appeal to 'working class' voters whose political views don't really follow a simple left-right dichotomy.

If we can drag a few doubters such as yourself and bst along the way to vote for him then you never know do you.

[Copps is Magic]

Copps. 


Do I criticise Tory MPs? Oh, only for about the past 40 years. Go and have a look at what I was saying right here in 2010 for example. Or every year since and before then.

But you're doing it again mate. If you're not with Corbyn, your on the other side, eh? Not useful.

No billy, YOU're doing it again. YOU have no idea what Labour party you support you just know it's NOT Corbyn. I can sit here in full confidence and tell you I want a socialist Labour leader and thatI support nine out of ten of the views that Corbyn has. I have no idea what the 'other side' is - I would really like to know, in fact, because it is yet to define itself.

As for Corbyn and Hamas and the IRA, as I've said before (and you've ignored before) he will be painted, like it or not, as the terrorists' friend. You need a REALLY strong response to that. I'm struggling to see what that response is when both Corbyn and McDonnell initially opposed the Irish peace process because, as they said, the IRA freedom fighters gave their lives for a United Ireland, not a compromise.

Any answers?

Crikey, is this meant to be news? Corbyn will be portrayed badly by the press shocker! Terrorist sympathiser wouldn't even be the worst. Just add it to the list. The world's changing - people don't get their information from the same sources they once did and trust has eroded in the established way of doing things. There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.

If you need reminding - Boris Johnson currently has a seat of power in this country.

[Akinfenwa]

Owen Smith - the former Head of Public Relations at the asset-stripping and somewhat ethically questionable pharmacutical giant Pfizer - this is the man you trust to end austerity and save the NHS? This is what Labour has come to has it?

Clement Atlee wont be turning in his grave - he will be digging it deeper.

Yes, he spent some of his career in a top PR job for big pharmaceuticals, but I don't see how that necessarily translates into wanting to pursue privatisation of the NHS when actually in charge of public policy. As an MP he has voted along with the party against NHS privatisation and has recently spoken in favour of a 100% publicly owned NHS. As for austerity, I have no idea why anyone would think that he isn't anti-austerity based on his campaign so far.

So yes, this IS what Labour has come to. Does Smith have a perfect history? Of course not, and he may not be the right man going forward, but he is the least toxic option at this moment. I don't see how the party can continue to function with these divisions if Corbyn is re-elected (which I don't doubt is very likely).

Clement Attlee you say? Is this the same Clement Attlee who said:

"Labour has nothing to gain by dwelling in the past. Nor do I think we can impress the nation by adopting a futile left-wingism. I regard myself as Left of Centre which is where a Party Leader ought to be."

(Yep, I did just nick that quote from Wikipedia)

[Glyn_Wigley]

To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.

How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?

Well, approaching 2/3rds of labour's 600k members will follow him in spite of those MPs - so what better indication do you want at the moment? (I know bst doesn't think it's significant but what else is there - you have no evidence to say the opposite is the case)

I'd recommend reading the link Albie posted, not a thorough analysis but provides some indicators. He basically needs to appeal to those who don't vote (some evidence he is doing that given the age and social make-up of that group) and appeal to 'working class' voters whose political views don't really follow a simple left-right dichotomy.

If we can drag a few doubters such as yourself and bst along the way to vote for him then you never know do you.

I would quite happily go along with him if he could do what a Labour leader is supposed to do and keep all the factions of the party together and at least give the appearance of unity. You admit yourself that less than two-thirds of the party support him - which is a pitiful thing to say in support of someone who's supposed to be uniting a party.

Also, if the views of the Party membership are that vital, how can you support a Labour leader who votes against the policy decided by that membership in Parliament??

You are missing the point completely, it's not all about the policies (there has and always will be disagreements within the Labour party about what they should be), it's his complete lack of ability to LEAD.

Far from giving the appearance of being a potential Prime Minister, he bumbles about, mincing his words when talking about a subject that difficult for him to talk about because of his previous stances; and when he does talk with any substance about a subject he's on comfortable ground with, he talks like a Guardian feature article instead of in the simple direct language that the very people you say he should be enthusing can take on board quickly. Yes, it might be 'soundbite politics' but it works a damn site better at winning an audience than giving them lecture notes.

On top of that, it appears (though I could be wrong) that when it comes to facing his opponents within the party he's happy to stand back and let McDonnell and Milne (and others) be his rotweilers/enforcers instead of having the balls that Kinnock had in 1985 and saying it himself. He wants to keep his hands clean but it just makes him look ineffective, or at worst, a silent (and therefore cowardly) condoner.

And again, I asked it before but I haven't seen anyone answer it - what has he done - if anything - to win round the doubters in the PLP? Uniting the party is what a LEADER does, it's the very core of his job description. As far as I can see he's done absolutely nothing in the ten months he's been leader to address this problem - in fact from various accounts he's done the exact opposite and antagonised them instead. Can somebody enlighten me as to what he's really done about this?

[Glyn_Wigley]

There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.

Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?

[wilts rover]

If you look at the links I posted he has also said he was for 'more choice in the NHS' (ie private companies running NHS services) and he abstained on the vote against the Welfare Bill last year - thus supporting the austerity cuts.

Which is the problem I have with him. What is his position - on on anything? He says one thing one minute - and another the next. His background is big business, in particular ones who have been involved in unethical business practice that it was his job to sell. He seems a perfect fit for the Tories not Labour.

I cant see any way the division will be healed, the two sides are just too far apart. If the PLP dont want a leader with a socialist agenda (not even a radically socialist one) then what do they want? It certainly wont be one that helps the less well-off in our society will it, which is what the founders of the party and then Atlee attempted to do.

(I get all my stuff from Wikipedia - dont worry no-one will notice)

[wilts rover]

There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.

Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?

He has been consistent in that he has had a view on it, which has changed as the nature of the EU has changed. I believe his position on the referendum was that it has a lot of problems, we cant control immigration whilst we are in it, but on balance we are probably better off in it than not.

[Glyn_Wigley]

There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.

Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?

He has been consistent in that he has had a view on it, which has changed as the nature of the EU has changed. I believe his position on the referendum was that it has a lot of problems, we cant control immigration whilst we are in it, but on balance we are probably better off in it than not.

Really? So his view was changed by the changing nature of the EU was it? What exactly changed about the EU when he became leader of Labour to make him change his mind..?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Another little nugget I've found - is Jezza still consistent with this view he had in the Morning Star of 24 September 2003..?

"New Labour has alienated millions of people...there should be an annual election for leader."

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.
Good attempt at squaring the Corbyn circle on the EU. It sounds like you've even convinced yourself.

But exactly HOW did the EU change so much that Corbyn decided to ditch 3 decades of opposition to it whilst remaining true to his core beliefs? (EDIT: just seen Glyn's post on the same theme.)

And whilst we're on the subject of consistency, what is Corbyn's current position on NATO, and how does that tie in with his long-held beliefs?

[Glyn_Wigley]

There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!

[Copps is Magic]

Interesting.

It should be pretty clear that Corbyn now has two major roles. One as the leader of the labour party and one as a politician with his own political views. At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.

For the disinterested audience reading, what is going on here is that when he does stick to his views he will be labelled too left field to be leader, and when he does compromise on his views to lead the party he will be labelled inconsistent.

I hope everyone can see the game that BST and Glynn are playing. They apparently want to have their cake and eat it. It's a bias really.

It's not the only bias that Corbyn and the labour party face


*A further idiosyncrasy, of course, being that, according to the knockers, he didn't campaign ferociously enough for the remain side when the figures, in fact, show that he campaigned a hell of a lot more than Angela Eagle in terms of sheer volume and work hours put in. Now he is being criticised for campaigning at all.

[Mr1Croft]

Croft

Yes, you ARE wrong and you've got to the core of the left-wing mythology. Read this post thoroughly because I'm going to set out precisely where my philosophy is, and why I am in despair at where Labour is going.

The Left ALWAYS convinces itself that anyone and everyone who accepts positions anywhere to the right of them is, by definition, an unprincipled traitor to the cause.

It's always been thus. That's what I was alluding to last night in the comment about the insult of choice in the 1980s being "ideologically unsound".

Here's where that leads to. It leads to a situation where the last Labour Govt brought in working tax credits, spent a fortune on a new school building programme, massively increased funding to the NHS and led the world in the response to the Great Crash, blunting what could have been a re-run of the Great Depression by active Govt borrowing and spending, and yet the idle insult from the Left is that they were Red Tories. We "might as well have had a Tory Govt" because "there was no difference between Labour and the Tories."

There are two types of people who trot out those lines. One is the genuine hard left types who don't want Labour to blunt the worst effects of Capitalism. They WANT the worst effects so that people will hurt and kick against it. And I hate those people with a vengeance. They are the zealots who genuinely want the poorest and weakest to be put through hell to be radicalised. The second type are just useful idiots. Woolly headed thinkers who parrot those lines because they sound deep and thoughtful, but who never actually think about the genuine successes of the last Labour Govt.

Now, I said you were wrong when you trotted out that idle trope that effectively conflated pragmatism with having no moral compass whatsoever. And here's why.

My stance and, I think, the stance of the vast majority of the PLP is that Labour's position should be to be as radical as possible whilst still being electable. There is then a genuine, adult debate to be had about where that point is. I was way to the left of Blair on this issue, but equally I'm some way to the right of Corbyn. That doesn't make me someone who has no moral standpoint, no ideology and no principles. It comes from f**king well thinking HARD on the issue for years, and learning from where we went wrong both in 1983 and in 1997.

If you want a binary "us pure: them unprincipled" division, then you utterly misunderstand politics. But I fear that is where Labour is headed, having seen the vitriol that the recently arrived members seem to have for the longer standing party members.

 If you're serious about contributing to this discussion, leave idle, thoughtless playground quips like the one you posted at the door and actually engage with the arguments of those who disagree with you. Otherwise, for all your good intentions, you WILL destroy this party.

Thanks for the lesson BST, but I'm afraid I am not a Labour party member or a Supporter. I personally don't feel we should identify ourselves with who we voted for at the last election but given the context of the discussion it should come of no great surprise that I voted for the Tories in every election where I have been legible to vote. Therefore when I speak about the current situation surrounding Labour I speak as someone who disagrees with the left ideology wholeheartedly.

So, back to the original point; I did not suggest that you, or any one of the PLP are traitors to the cause because they aren't hard left like Corbyn. I merely built on your words that stated you believed it was the number one aim of the Labour MPs to be re-elected. Personally I believe the number one aim of any MP is to represent the people that voted for them under the values they outlined they would protect and improve when they campaigned during the election. If that doesn't lead to re-election then at the very least they have done (or failed trying) what they were elected to do. Perhaps this is where you and I have differing viewpoints of what the main aim of an MP is.

But I am still interested to hear your answer to the following: Which is more desirable for you: A Labour Party in opposition that is representative of the membership or a Labour Party in Government that isn't? I ask that regardless of the current identity crisis and right/left ideologies.

[Mr1Croft]

There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!

I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.

[Glyn_Wigley]

At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.

And you accuse me and BST of having our cake and eating it too? Hahahahaha, nice one!

[Glyn_Wigley]

There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!

I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.

How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?

[Copps is Magic]

At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.

And you accuse me and BST of having our cake and eating it too? Hahahahaha, nice one!

Do tell me what you're struggling with? The nuclear renewal vote was an individual vote for each MP on which he voted. Interestingly, only 140/230 labour MPs voted in favour so not the overwhelming majority you might believe exists. The EU was not a vote for MPs but a national constitutional referendum that covered vast swathes of our lives in which the vast majority of his party supported remain.

Are you willing to accept now that he will compromise his own views to follow party lines in the future or not?

[Mr1Croft]

There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!

I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.

How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?

It's an attempt/coerced act to topple/overthrow the leader. It may not be strictly a 'coup' as defined in the Oxford Dictionary but it's accurate enough for me.

[Glyn_Wigley]

There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!

I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.

How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?

It's an attempt/coerced act to topple/overthrow the leader. It may not be strictly a 'coup' as defined in the Oxford Dictionary but it's accurate enough for me.

You overthrow someone by voting you don't have confidence in him??

[BillyStubbsTears]

Crofty

You are doing it again. You are setting up binary false dichotomies.

The world isn't a binary "either THIS or its polar opposite" place. That is a juvenile way of looking at important arguments. The choice that you pose is meaningless because it is not the one that exists in the real world. It's not "do you want us to be ideologically pure and permanently out of power, or jettison every principle and be in power." That's a daft question (although it's one that seems to have traction with the Corbynistas.

I've explained before, on this thread, where I stand, but since you  don't seem to have read it, I'll repeat it. There are inevitably some compromises that any large political organisation has to make. It cannot satisfy everyone. (And by the way,reflect on that when you talk about what "the membership" wants...) There has to be give and take, both to keep "the membership" happy, and to make itself electable. I'd have thought that much was self-evident, no?

There is a continuous spectrum of views, not a binary division. Labour has to sit somewhere on that spectrum AND BE ELECTABLE. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

Forgive me but this is now getting silly. Your stand is changing daily.

A week or so ago, you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused. Then last night you said that you support Corbyn because he is a true socialist.

You elaborated on that today, saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views. But he changed his view on the EU pretty much overnight. And you say this is OK because he had to follow a party line. Even though you also say it wasn't a party issue.

I'm struggling to follow the thread here.

Anyway, back to the question I posed earlier. What IS Corbyn's take on NATO? There is a really serious possibility of an Article 5 moment in the Baltics within the next few years. Would PM Corbyn commit British forces in such an event? Because every word of this article he wrote screams "no" to me.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3235-Welcome-to-the-Nato-fest#.V5UAWvRHmnM

Have a read. It's pretty lightweight stuff. In fact, quite scarily lightweight for a would-be PM. I can see why he flunked his degree though. That essay might get a D- at Islington Poly.

But actually, this isn't a laughing matter. This is as serious as it gets. Before I could dream of supporting Corbyn, I'd want an unequivocal answer to the Article 5 question. There is no responsibility greater than that on a PM's shoulders.

[IDM]

From a perspective of someone who isn't a labour party member - I can see there is a problem in that the MPs don't support their elected leader, but their party members do?

Is that about right - not the whys and wherefores or political histories etc, but just an indication of where the support lies?

However, what that does mean, to people like me who frankly don't rate any party or politician too highly - they are all as bad as each other IMHO and I have spent most of my adult life being a-political anyway.  So much so I rarely vote at general elections...

Shouldn't labour, the MPs, leader and the members be just as concerned with persuading the vast part of the electorate who either doesn't care, or prefers to vote "anyone but.." that labour can be worthy of their vote?

To an outsider, the whole thing looks a mess.  I am not interested whether BST's argument is the most accurate or not, nor anyone elses in the thread.

But how does the current shambles of the labour party help convince the electorate as a whole???

[Copps is Magic]

Copps

Forgive me but this is now getting silly. Your stand is changing daily.

A week or so ago, you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused. Then last night you said that you support Corbyn because he is a true socialist.

You elaborated on that today, saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views. But he changed his view on the EU pretty much overnight. And you say this is OK because he had to follow a party line. Even though you also say it wasn't a party issue.

Are you in politics? I'm starting to think you might be. It's as easy as clicking on my username and going back through my posts if that's the level you want to go to;

a) "you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused"

wants to redress many of the damaging benefits changes enacted by the tories and who wants to increase public house building and controls on private rents. They are two of the most important issues to me personally.

I didn't say that's all I wanted.

b) "Corbyn because he is a true socialist"

I want a socialist Labour leader

Can't see the word true there.

c) "saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views"

There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has

The relative sense in which I speak is plain to see (or so I thought)

Tedious tbh this isn't it?

[Copps is Magic]

Anyway, back to the question I posed earlier. What IS Corbyn's take on NATO? There is a really serious possibility of an Article 5 moment in the Baltics within the next few years. Would PM Corbyn commit British forces in such an event? Because every word of this article he wrote screams "no" to me.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3235-Welcome-to-the-Nato-fest#.V5UAWvRHmnM

Have a read. It's pretty lightweight stuff. In fact, quite scarily lightweight for a would-be PM. I can see why he flunked his degree though. That essay might get a D- at Islington Poly.

But actually, this isn't a laughing matter. This is as serious as it gets. Before I could dream of supporting Corbyn, I'd want an unequivocal answer to the Article 5 question. There is no responsibility greater than that on a PM's shoulders.

Yeah, I've just read the article and all I take from it is that he is critical of the organisation and critical of commitments to overspend on military defence (in an era when our military interventions have been less than successful). I agree with that personally, don't you?

[wilts rover]

Well if you Google it Billy you will see he has said recently that he believes Britain should stay in Nato
https://www.rt.com/uk/315827-corbyn-mcdonnell-nato-membership/

and he is prepared to commit to the Nato requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-considers-adopting-nato-spending-guarantee-in-rethink-of-defence-policy-a6698231.html

but I could just as easily have picked up negative stories about him as well - as you did.

However as this appears to be a major issue for you then can you tell me what Owen Smith's view on Nato is? Because I can't find anything whatsoever. So I take it then you will abstaining from the vote?

Of course circumstances change over time, but there is no way that whoever is PM at the time could commit the UK to an action in the Baltics with the commitments we have at the moment. We can't even match them fully or effectively - has the much publicised vote to get involved in Syria achieved anything at all?

And you and I both know the vote in November is a lot more crucial to future NATO action than whatever Corbyn (or Smith) is thinking now.