New PM soon?

[RedJ]

Why do people seem to think that we directly elect a Prime Minister, or speak as though we do?

[albie]

Why would May call an election when she can wait for the Boundary Commission changes to take effect, and deliver up to an additional 30 Tory seats free of charge?

Whether she should is a different question to whether she will.

I think May (should she be called "May not") will use the Brexit process as an opportunity to defer, and go into a 2020 campaign on the basis of the outline deal she has managed to procure.

Labour cannot secure a majority under the new boundaries and political dynamics. A success for them is increasing the vote share (and some gains in Lab/Con marginals) , and hoping the LibDems bounce back in the SW to squeeze the Tory majority.

Longer term (asap in my view), a coalition of interests opposed to the Tories must combine to secure electoral reform. Tories will never deliver it if they benefit from the status quo.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas....Oh, hang on!

[albie]

Here is something to look forward to;
Cassetteboy vs The Snoopers' Charter - YouTube

What with the Snoopers Charter, and people needing £35k per year salary to come to the UK, the NHS is going to need that £350m boost from Boris/Gove/Farage.

Failing that, we could always privatise it along the US model, eh!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just heard May's speech from today.

More house building.
Workers' representatives on company boards.
Cracking down on tax evasion.


Oh dear Labour. You have rather a large problem.

The Tories have sated their Right with the Brexit vote. Now May is playing the game and shafting Labour. She's positioning herself to grab some centre-left policy positions and she's opening her arms to centrist voters.

This is what happens when you veer off to the edge of the political spectrum and vacate the centre ground. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. May looks like she's planning to fill it.

[MachoMadness]

Well, judging by that somewhat laughable speech by Angela Eagle, Labour won't be filling anything for quite some time if she's genuinely the answer.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM

We have a rather serious problem then, eh?

[MachoMadness]

Unless you're a Tory voter it does seem that way.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Does anybody think that, the leave politicians have been destroyed ruthlessly, and we will in spite of the new prime ministers words, get a 'watered down', eu exit deal?.
Out of the two candidates, May seems the one with experience and the right choice for leader, but could the remain voters still yet get most of what they want?.

[albie]

I saw the May speech as a sop to the left of the Tory party, the resentful remainers.

Talks have been going on between the Labour rebels and the soft Tories about a new centre alliance. May wants to head that off by offering a new economic agenda, but the trouble is nothing in her past record suggests that she will deliver on it. Her political instincts are authoritarian, and she will revert to the mean in due course.

The challenge to Corbyn by Eagle is a disaster for Labour. She is a very poor candidate, and is probably best seen as a stalking horse for a more realistic bid by someone credible later on. I think a drift to the centre right by Labour will  just accelerate the decline in the base level of support in the left behind constituencies.

Eagle not only voted for the Iraq war, but 3 times voted against any investigation of the circumstances leading to the war. At this time, I cannot think why she feels she is the right person to step up to the leadership.

[MachoMadness]

She isn't, and was probably talked into it by the orchestrators of the coup. When she inevitably flops the centre of the party can say "see! If only we'd got rid of Corbyn sooner!", let her quietly step down to be replaced by Benn or Jarvis who'll give her a nice Shadow Cabinet position and start to rebuild a New New Labour. Which is apparently more electable than the current regime despite being routed in elections over the past 6 years.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Macho

There are two cycles in politics. Short ones and long ones.

Parties lose elections. It happens. That's the nature of short-run cycles. It's a swing of ~5% of the electorate that defines the difference between success and failure. They swing. You win or you lose. That was the cycle that we were on in 2010-15. It was, always, perfectly possible that labour could win back that crucial 5% of voters if it had held its nerve, especially with the car crash that the Tory party has put itself through.

When parties give in to self-indulgence of their core membership and veer off to the wings, they lose 10-15% of the electorate. That is what drives long-run cycles. That is what Labour is in the process of doing. And it will be out of power for a generation as a result, no matter how you try to convince yourself that the country would support a Corbynist government. You'll learn. It'll be a f**king hard lesson, but you'll learn. On the Left, we seem to need to re-learn this lesson every generation or so. It's your turn now.

[MachoMadness]

Labour will be out of power for a generation, that much is true. To put it down to them electing a harder-left leader is entirely wrong though. The membership is the highest it's ever been, they did win a number of local elections despite many predicting they'd be trounced and they did enthuse many younger, apathetic voters. Would that be enough to win a general election? I don't know. Probably not, given the SNP's dominance in Scotland, but I doubt they could have done much worse than Miliband's Labour, and at least there was the opportunity there to attract a new generation of voters at a time of extreme political apathy.

I'm not blind to his flaws. He probably could play the game a little better, although his unscripted style is probably what's swelled his support so much too. But he's steering the ship through unprecedented waters and he's still gaining support - or at least, he was until the knives came out.

If you honestly believe Labour is better off going down this route - eating itself alive, alienating a generation of voters - just so it can have some centrist placeholder who can be Opposition in name alone, winning safe seats and nothing else for the next decade, then I don't know what else I can say other than we clearly hold the Opposition to very different standards.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Macho.

How many times? The size of the membership is irrelevant. It is less than 1% of the population. You could treble it again and it would barely be relevant.

Enthusing those who share your beliefs is great if you're in the job of making yourself feel good. But it does NOTHING to persuade the rest of the country.

Is that so hard to see?

[MachoMadness]

If the size of the Labour Party shrunk measurably, would it still be irrelevant?

It may seem irrelevant if you single it out, but this isn't something that's happened in isolation. Wins in local elections and in several high-profile mayoral elections, as I mentioned in my post, are also signs that Labour's popularity was not sliding to a 15% drop in the vote.

I'm always bemused by this claim the size of the membership doesn't matter as Corbyn is only preaching to the converted. Who was it who converted them in the first place?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Macho

You're a smart lad. You know that cherry-picking and slanting information to suit your opinion is the road to Hell.

You know damn well the sort of people who have joined the Labour Party over the past 12 months. He is mopping up support from the Left. But that is not and never will be enough to form a serious electoral force. Because for every one of those supporters he picks up, he will lose 2 on his Right.

Now, your previous posts (and ALL of Wesley's)suggest that you accept, indeed welcome that outcome. You are looking to purge the Labour Party of its centre and move the centre of gravity way over to the Left. You do that convincing yourself that Labour will be out of power anyway for a long time.

I say that is a self-indulgent dereliction of duty.

It's the consequence of infantile act of telling yourself that a centrist Labour Govt is no better than and no different from a Tory Govt. You start with that premise and you can convince yourself that a left Labour Party out of power is better than a centrist one in power. Which, as far as I can see, is your position.

[idler]

You need to keep traditional and occasional Labour voters as well as attracting new ones. I can't see Corbyn doing it.
It's the Michael Foot story all over again and he was a better politician than Corbyn in my eyes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Idler

Thing is, if you're coming from that angle, you are missing the point of the Corbyn story.

It's not about the dull, sell-out things, like compromising enough to get a big enough spectrum of supporters to win a General Election. It's about a big, historic re-positioning of the Labour party to the Left.

The Corbynistas know, just KNOW that if "genuine" socialism is put to the people, with a generation of supporter activists enthused and working hard, the public will go for it. You can't argue with them because they have the certainty of the zealot.

THAT is what it's about. It's not about compromise.

[MachoMadness]

You misunderstand my position BST. I'm not after a revolution of any kind, or some drastic remodelling of the Labour Party in my image. For me, and every Corbyn supporter I know, it's a simple as here is a bloke who says things we like. It's not even particularly a left wing thing. Outside of a love of Keynesian economics Corbyn isn't really as hard left as he's made out to be anyway. It's more to do with having someone who you feel represents your views. Someone who could once upon a time have represented those views as PM.

Look at those supporting him on social media. Pick an article about him on Facebook and read the comments. These people aren't mental trots bricking windows and calling people judas. They're ordinary people. His support is more widespread than you give it credit for. Which is why we have the farcical situation of the PLP trying to keep their 'unelectable' leader off a ballot because they know he'll just get elected again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM

Then I fear that you're playing the role of the Useful Idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I did that once. It's a scarring experience once you realise what the real intentions of the people pushing the agenda are.

[Sammy Chung was King]

I get the changing of how politics is served to the public, what i don't get is that Corbyn doesn't see, that he isn't the one to serve it.
Without votes to get into power, his thoughts and the way he wants to do things me nothing. It guarantee's tory power for some years to come.
The problem is, where are the leaders in the labour party?, the candidates are terrible. The tories themselves are a shambles, but have one decent option to hold the fort.

 Where are the candidates from any party, that get the people of the country, to see a difference, in what they have been offered before?.
Where are the candidates, who get people of out of the chair on voting day, who think this person will give us a better future?, i see none of that sort!.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Whatever Corbyn's thoughts he just cannot lead - it's impossible for him.  But no doubt the ultra left members will probably vote to keep him.  That's their choice, but ultimately it's difficult for Labour, do they elect someone that has closest values to their core left, or do they go for someone who could actually win an election for them?  Ultimately they keep choosing the former and that will just see them be a core opposition for a long time to come.  It's almost like they wish to stay in a comfort zone.

As for the new PM, her policies will be the real interesting thing and they so far appear to be keen to sieze the centre ground in UK politics.  Her aim clearly is to go for a big majority next time around and stick the dagger in to Labour.  Quite clever, but right now, it's an open goal for her.  The real key to success for her is how she handles Brexit, get that right and she can build a strong legacy, get it wrong and it's internal revolt in her party.

[idler]

I remember Thatcher coming across as talking a lot of sense when in opposition. That certainly changed once she was in power.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thatcher played it perfectly in opposition.

She played mood music. She played on the theme that the existing economic order was running into the buffers. That "Labour Isn't Working" campaign was genius. It struck a chord with people who were struggling.


But she certainly didn't crow about what her "solution" was. If she'd laid out details that her policies would required 15% interest rates and trebling of unemployment, she'd have been hammered. Even then, she only won because of the Winter of Discontent.

And that's the issue that Labour doesn't see at the moment. No Opposition EVER wins power. Its Govts who lose it. The job of Opposition is to position itself as a credible alternative. Not scare the horses. Be ready to grab power when the Govt slips, as they all do. If you indulge yourself in internecine fights and ideological debate, you are not a credible alternative Govt. So you let the actual Govt off the leash. Which is exactly what Labour did in 81-82.

Given the economic turmoil, an election in 83/84 was eminently winnable by a credible Opposition. Instead, the Left ripped the party apart and the result was another 14 years of Thatcherism, and a spasm too far right by Labour in desperation as a result.

And now, here we go again. A credible Labour opposition could have a horrifically divided Tory party on the ropes right now. Instead, we've given them a free pass.

[MachoMadness]

MM

Then I fear that you're playing the role of the Useful Idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I did that once. It's a scarring experience once you realise what the real intentions of the people pushing the agenda are.

I don't think generalising Corbyn's success as a massive, seditious communist plot is particularly helpful to the debate, BST. I thought you were above such discourse.

Put simply, I supported Corbyn before because I genuinely thought he could be an alternative Leader of the Opposition and ultimately PM. I support Corbyn now because if he's ousted it will lead to an entire generation of voters being completely alienated and THAT'S what will drive Labour to irrelevance. Corbyn was never the man to cause that, by any metric.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM.

You're apparently missing the subtlety of my post last night.

It's not about this being a communist plot (although when a Shadow Chancellor pulls out Mao's Little Red Book in a Westminster debate, one does wonder...)  But it IS about people on the Left having agendas that they won't fess up to, and relying on the support of people who perhaps have more altruistic intentions.

Back in the 80s, the Left didn't have a problem with Labour being unelectable. Because their philosophy was that the working class had to be put through the mill to radicalise them and make them amenable to true socialism. I knew people on the Left of the labour party who voted for Thatcher for that very reason.


When I hear about McDonnell shrugging his shoulders and saying "If that's what it takes" when faced with the danger of Labour splitting, I see that we're back where we were in those days. Except that the "if that's what it takes" people are now running the party. And I wonder if the majority of the members who support(ed) Corbyn really want to go down that route. Or whether they are being used as Useful Idiots.

[idler]

Most people that I know just don't see Corbyn as a credible leader never mind possible PM.
He comes across as someone with some good ideas but unable to ever have the nous to sell them to the electorate or enough of it to take power.
His age is also against him. Were he to remain opposition leader for another parliament where would that leave him next time round. Far to old to become a credible option for PM.

[jucyberry]

Perhaps we need someone with maturity at no10, after years of Bueugh and his cool Brittania and CaMoron and his big society.(I have scant respect for either man) Someone with more principles and less soundbites would be very welcome.
Most people that I know just don't see Corbyn as a credible leader never mind possible PM.
He comes across as someone with some good ideas but unable to ever have the nous to sell them to the electorate or enough of it to take power.
His age is also against him. Were he to remain opposition leader for another parliament where would that leave him next time round. Far to old to become a credible option for PM.

[NickDRFC]

Interesting that you suggest the need for "someone with maturity" whilst calling Blair "Bueugh" and Cameron "CaMoron"!

[Donnywolf]

She should call an election, she demanded that when Brown inherited the job, citing that he had no mandate from the electorate

As usual in Politics - "that was then - this is now". I have a better chance of getting 6 Balls tonight and I HAVE got a Ticket

[idler]

Perhaps we need someone with maturity at no10, after years of Bueugh and his cool Brittania and CaMoron and his big society.(I have scant respect for either man) Someone with more principles and less soundbites would be very welcome.
Most people that I know just don't see Corbyn as a credible leader never mind possible PM.
He comes across as someone with some good ideas but unable to ever have the nous to sell them to the electorate or enough of it to take power.
His age is also against him. Were he to remain opposition leader for another parliament where would that leave him next time round. Far to old to become a credible option for PM.

Debs, I retired aged nearly 66 two years ago and knew that I couldn't do what I did when I was younger. I've  been to the gym three times this week also realising that I can't do what I used to.
I don't have much faith in someone that old running the country going on my experience. He might possibly have the knowledge but would he have the stamina?