Is Corbyn senile

[Glyn_Wigley]

Unfortunately, having a big majority to give you the title of leader doesn't mean that you'll be a good one.

[RobTheRover]

Labour get elected when  Labour supporters and floating voters vote in their favour.
If they rely on members of the Labour Party to get them elected then they might as well disband now.
The leader needs to be attractive to enough of the electorate to inspire confidence that they could form a government and then actually rule.
Who is going to be in his shadow cabinet? The big names and experienced MPs don't want to know.

If only the right wing media could get past the fact he cant tie his tie straight?  God forbid his actual views get reported.

[MachoMadness]

TTOI-surpassing levels of farce here - NEC votes on how to vote (a secret ballot is decided). Corbyn is asked to leave the chamber due to a conflict of interest but won't, as he's on the NEC anyway and Tom Watson hasn't been asked to leave despite also holding a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Angela Eagle asks Corbyn to condemn the attacks on her office, although it's pointed out he actually already has, and Angela just repeats herself, confused. Ruth Davidson the Scottish Tory MP makes several jibes towards Labour in a speech, and it's hard to disagree with any of what she says.

[BillyStubbsTears]

John McDonnell this morning: We don't want the party to split.

John McDonnell last night. https://mobile.twitter.com/BenQuinn75/status/752994128976285696/video/1

Diane Abbott's body language says it all. This man is not interested in keeping the Labour Party together or making it a credible electoral force. He's after the purge that he's wanted all his political life.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And just to clear up any lingering doubts, Owen Smith claims that when he warned McDonnell that the party might split, McDonnell shrugged his shoulders and said, "If that's what it takes."

When asked about that today, McDonnell says he has "no recollection" of saying that. The most weaselly political shorthand for "f**k! You've got me bang to rights. I've got to stonewall my way out."

These are the battle lines folks. McDonnell's not for compromising. If the destruction of the Labour Party is "what it takes", that's what will happen.

[Sammy Chung was King]

If it does split, the the conservative power to lead for a long time increases. They themselves are in a mess, but the labour party is nowhere near offering any challenge.
Angela Eagle might be a good politician, but she isn't somebody to compete to be pm. I see in the near future all parties breaking into bits, it's the way things are going, whichever side breaks up the least will be the next government.
There is an opportunity for the liberals, but they have far too much support to make up, but if the major parties split in two, and they don't, it could be a close run thing.

[Glyn_Wigley]

If it does split, the the conservative power to lead for a long time increases.

Not necessarily, if the centrists split and become the Official Opposition with airtime and PMQs to prove themselves and set out their stall, it might attract people as they'll have ditched and sidelined the far left that might have put them off before.

The SDP got a lot of support in the short term when they first formed, but they were still a small party of about 20 MPs. A split centrist party would be much bigger and whoever their leader was would have the benefit of being the Official Leader Of The Opposition to give them time to show statesmanship on the big stage.

[BillyStubbsTears]

As I've said before, there really is only one solution to the mess that politics currently is.

We HAVE to have full proportional representation.

The two-party system held for most of the period from 1925-2000-ish and FPTP was just about reasonable then. But it's utterly inadequate to the current five party system, which may very well be a six party system in Labour splits.

It's an affront to democracy to have a Govt with unfettered power having gained mid-30s% of the vote, the SNP winning all bar a couple of seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote, UKIP picking up 13% of the vote but only 0.2% of the seats.

It cannot be allowed to carry on like this a dim astonished that this isn't the number 1 theme on the political agenda right now.

[idler]

It suited the two big parties though that's why they didn't want it.
The big losers now would be Tory and SNP parties. How do you get enough votes in parliament ?
It is the only fair way but it will take years to try and force through.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I agree. And it was stupid of Blair not to see this in 97. There has pretty much always been a centre-left majority in this country and he could have sealed that by bringing in PR in the late 90s.

The way you force it through is by making it a key policy of whatever Left parties we end up with plus UKIP and the LDs. The SNP could hardly veto it as they use PR in Scottish elections. You then argue the case relentlessly that this is the only way you can revitalise our democracy. Build on the fact that EVERYONE's vote mattered in the Referendum, but only a couple of million votes every really matter in General Elections. Push on the fact that anyone rejecting this is being massively undemocratic in a 5-6 party system. Get campaigns to demand it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The country had the chance to have PR but they said no.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah but we didn't though Glyn.

What was on offer in 2011 was a very, very weak version of PR. And it was proposed by a LD party whose support and credibility had fallen off a cliff.

Bad PR. Bad politics.

In any case, the situation has changed beyond recognition since then. The rise of UKIP and the SNP has cleared away the old situation. And the fact that UKIP got 3 times as many votes as the SNP in 15, but a fiftieth of the seats is utterly unacceptable in a democracy.

[Glyn_Wigley]

So how does anyone decide which of the myriad forms of PR is used? Who decides who sits in parliament - the parties or the electorate? How do you keep the relationship between an MP and a constituency - or do you ditch it? How do you avoid the stalemate of Belgium or the instability that used to plague Italy - because the PR you seem to be advocating would encourage parties to splinter leading to even more instability....

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

Italy and Belgium are poor examples. Both are riven by far more serious regional divisions than we have in this  country.

How about a combined constituency & party list system? It works perfectly well in Scotland and in Germany. and the excessive splintering can be dealt with by having a cut-off level of votes below which you get no seats.

I agree, no method of PR is perfect, but we're not looking for perfect. We're looking for something significantly better than the totally inappropriate system that we have.

I'm not aware of any other major state that has six parties each commanding >4% of the national vote, but which uses FPTP.

And it's obvious why. Look at the vote share of each party in 2015, divided by the percentage number of seats won (so a perfectly fair system would have everybody on 1, and a high number means the system is giving you fewer MPs than your vote share deserves).

Con: 0.72
Lab: 0.86
UKIP: 63!
LD: 6.6
SNP: 0.55
Green: 19

It's simply unacceptable in the current political structure to stick with the current system.

[Dutch Uncle]

Con: 0.72
Lab: 0.86
UKIP: 63!
LD: 6.6
SNP: 0.55
Green: 19

It's simply unacceptable in the current political structure to stick with the current system.

63! is indeed a high number - about 1.98 x 10⁸⁷, or approximately 2 followed by 87 zeroes

No wonder UKIP are complaining

Once a mathematician always a mathematician 

[The Red Baron]

The country had the chance to have PR but they said no.

Alternative Vote is not Proportional Representation.

[The Red Baron]

As I've said before, there really is only one solution to the mess that politics currently is.

We HAVE to have full proportional representation.

The two-party system held for most of the period from 1925-2000-ish and FPTP was just about reasonable then. But it's utterly inadequate to the current five party system, which may very well be a six party system in Labour splits.

It's an affront to democracy to have a Govt with unfettered power having gained mid-30s% of the vote, the SNP winning all bar a couple of seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote, UKIP picking up 13% of the vote but only 0.2% of the seats.

It cannot be allowed to carry on like this a dim astonished that this isn't the number 1 theme on the political agenda right now.

I agree on PR but I can't let your last para go. It might be the No. 2 issue though.

Unless Labour commit to it though it's a non-starter. I agree about the SNP:  Even though they benefit massively form FPTP at Westminster, they would look awfully hypocritical if they didn't agree to adopting the same system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Like ukip or not, under the present system, they have one mp, when the amount who voted for them should have seen them have a lot of representatives. The present way of picking a government isn't the best way, it isn't fair to all parties, it favours the 'big two'.

[RedJ]

Congratulations on summarising what everyone else said.