Friday 2nd September 2016

[refitman]

Morning all.

[yahyah]

Morning all.

Morning.

When you use the site's system to block certain posters, is there any way of stopping their comments appearing in quotations in posts by people you don't want to block ?
Life's too short to respond to provocation.

edited to add: question was for Dan or Paul.

[yahyah]

More sad news for our badgers. Another reason we need Labour in government.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fu ... gh-8735310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[refitman]

Morning all.

Morning.

When you use the site's system to block certain posters, is there any way of stopping their comments appearing in quotations in posts by people you don't want to block ?
Life's too short to respond to provocation.

edited to add: question was for Dan or Paul.

I don't think so, as it will only be able to identify the current poster.

[yahyah]

Thanks.

[howsillyofme1]

Morning most

If people continually provoke in their posts then do not be surprised to get some comeback.......

and then make a big song and dance about blocking people

Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

[SpinningHugo]

Morning most


Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Absolutely anything they like.

[StephenDolan]

Morning most

If people continually provoke in their posts then do not be surprised to get some comeback.......

and then make a big song and dance about blocking people

Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

The usual.

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning all.

The clearout of those seen to be loyal to Cameron continues.

Apprenticeship adviser to PM dumped as future of role left in doubt

http://feweek.co.uk/2016/08/30/zahawi-n ... isor-to-pm

The future of the apprenticeship advisor post to the Prime Minister remains uncertain, as a spokesperson for Nadhim Zahawi has today told FE Week he is no longer in the role.

Mr Zahawi was appointed to the role in November last year by former PM David Cameron.

This was to support the conservative manifesto pledge to deliver 3m apprenticeship starts by 2020.

Today’s confirmation, by a spokesperson from Mr Zahawi’s constituency office in Stratford, comes after Number 10 refused for several weeks to be drawn on who his replacement would be — or if the post would even continue under the new Prime Ministership of Theresa May.

Calling the referendum and the handling of it will come to look like allowing a seismic shift of power in the Tory Party.

[StephenDolan]

Ah Mr Gove, why would your name come to mind?

' Ms Denham is unhappy about potential evasion of FOI via the use of private email. "People shouldn't be using private email accounts to conduct government business. If they do, legally it's subject to FOI - however, it frustrates the purposes of FOI from a search perspective."'


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37201283" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

Morning most


Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

[SpinningHugo]

Morning most


Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

You don't think Corbyn could have come close to winning anymore than I do.

[howsillyofme1]

Morning most


Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

I think I mentioned a whiles ago that the timing of all this has been awful for Labour

Willow did come back and say that the timing was probably based on the assumption that the Tories were going to be navel-gazing until September, and with the recess, there would be very little going on outside the leadership contests

I personally think that is a fair comment if you look at things from their point of view - and agree that this was pre-planned (which I am pretty much convinced it was)

I think though that if your assumption is wrong and actually the timing was nigh on catastrophic for Labour then you have to live with the consequences of that. As a Labour member I am absolutely livid about what has come to pass and that there seems to be very little comprehension that a lot of us feel that way.

There are others whose assumption was that there was not a coup....I suppose no-one will be keen to admit to it now looking at what has happened (or is likely to happen) as a consequence......the Tories being given free rein and Labour still having Jeremy Corbyn as leader.....


In terms of a flawed strategy...I think this is one that should go down in the textbooks under the title

'How to inflict as much damage as possible to a political party without achieving your stated objective whilst allowing a Government to recover from the most damaging policy mistake in a century'

with a sub-heading 'Managing to get your own leader blamed for that policy mistake instead of the true culprits'

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

Calais refugee camp running out of food as donor fatigue sees donations dry up

Charities warn of shortage of food, tents and blankets as number of refugees at site keeps growing while donations dwindle (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ons-dry-up

[AnatolyKasparov]

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

You don't think Corbyn could have come close to winning anymore than I do.

That does not justify doing what they did, when they did.

I have come to agree with the much missed poster Robert S - Benn and co were guilty of something close to actual treachery in letting the Tories off the hook like they did.

They are not going to be forgiven for that by many (and if you think that "many" is confined to confirmed Corbynistas, you are wrong about that as well)

[StephenDolan]

http://surveys.survation.com/s3/SkyLabourLeadership2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


For anyone interested in applying to attend the Sky leadership event.

[howsillyofme1]

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

You don't think Corbyn could have come close to winning anymore than I do.

What does this comment mean 'close to winning' in the past tense - the Stockton by-election or some General Election that has passed me by?

There is also the assumption in your comments that someone else has more likelihood of taking Labour to victory in 2020 than Corbyn......I do not accept that premise on the grounds that I think Labour are lacking in credible candidates who would not be slaughtered by the media, that there is no electoral evidence that Corbyn is 'unelectable' and that the electoral arithmetic is very much against us

The only evidence out there is anecdotal or from opinion polls which is very flimsy to base such certainty on, especially when there are no candidates who would be likely to make any difference

I will repeat what I said before.....all this trouble has been caused in order to just to have Corbyn reaffirmed as leader (in all likelihood) - or was the aim not to remove Corbyn but to create the conditions for a split? We will have to wait until the end of the month to see the reaction to his likely victory

If Smith wins then we can come back and discuss that scenario...I am just basingmy comments on what seems the most likely with the information we have

[PorFavor]

Green party to announce new leader as conference opens - Politics live

Rolling coverage of the opening of the Green party conference in Birmingham, including the election of a new leader (or leaders)

They also have to choose a new leader, although in truth they have already done so because the voting is over. The result will be announced at 2pm. Caroline Lucas, the former leader and only Green MP, is standing along with Jonathan Bartley as a job share and, although there are five other candidates, Lucas and Bartley are the overwhelming favourites to be elected. Almost 15,000 members votes[sic] in the contest (a turnout of 34%) but it is hard to avoid the suspicion that this is only the second most important leadership election for Green party voters this summer. After last year’s Labour leadership election a YouGov analysis concluded that 40,000 of those voting in the contest were people who had voted Green in 2015. Overwhelmingly they were voting for Corbyn. It is likely that this year there are more Green voters from 2015 taking party[sic] in Labour’s leadership contest than in the Greens’. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited to add -

Isn't a 34% turnout in a leadership election a bit on the low side? Does anyone here know what the turnout was last time?

[Willow904]

Absolutely anything they like.

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

I think I mentioned a whiles ago that the timing of all this has been awful for Labour

Willow did come back and say that the timing was probably based on the assumption that the Tories were going to be navel-gazing until September, and with the recess, there would be very little going on outside the leadership contests

I personally think that is a fair comment if you look at things from their point of view - and agree that this was pre-planned (which I am pretty much convinced it was)

I think though that if your assumption is wrong and actually the timing was nigh on catastrophic for Labour then you have to live with the consequences of that. As a Labour member I am absolutely livid about what has come to pass and that there seems to be very little comprehension that a lot of us feel that way.

There are others whose assumption was that there was not a coup....I suppose no-one will be keen to admit to it now looking at what has happened (or is likely to happen) as a consequence......the Tories being given free rein and Labour still having Jeremy Corbyn as leader.....


In terms of a flawed strategy...I think this is one that should go down in the textbooks under the title

'How to inflict as much damage as possible to a political party without achieving your stated objective whilst allowing a Government to recover from the most damaging policy mistake in a century'

with a sub-heading 'Managing to get your own leader blamed for that policy mistake instead of the true culprits'

Although I don't disagree that those who plotted from the start were not acting in the best interests of the party (though snubbing Angela Eagle for the shadow Chancellor role was not really the actions of someone who wanted to achieve unity, imo, although I guess Corbyn simply didn't feel up to the job without his friend's support in a key role) and am therefore not trying to defend anyone who is an actual plotter (though who these may be seem to be down to gossip and inference, so though I certainly believe there are plotters I can't be sure exactly who they are (I don't like some of the people mentioned, just can't know for sure they are plotters)),but I would like to pose a question. Given the credible evidence we have heard from many different sources, including from Richard Murphy as someone not part of the PLP, of how incredibly difficult the Corbyn leadership has been to work with, combined with the heightened emotions surrounding the EU referendum and aftermath, can you really be so very certain that Corbyn's shadow cabinet wouldn't have fallen apart anyway at the time it did? I can't be certain. I'm worried about what will happen to the party if the leadership continues as it is, if Seamus Milne remains in post and Corbyn continues to only discuss policy with his closest friends. This is why I support Owen Smith. Not because I have some magical insight into electability, but based on my assessment of his abilities to do the job, to communicate and collaborate with a shadow cabinet, to make the best use of the talent available within the party. Burnham was loyal, but Corbyn hasn't used his talents effectively and now Burnham has been lost to pastures new. These are the issues that worry me. Corbyn supporters sometimes say they accept he has flaws or limitations. These flaws and limitations concern me more than gossip about plotters that I have no way to objectively assess in the absence of facts. I understand the plotters actions are more important to others when weighing up who to support, but my basic belief, in absence of concrete evidence otherwise, is that the vast majority of the PLP aren't plotters and therefore my main interest in choosing who to support for leader is who is best placed to lead those non-plotting MPs. I'm not on the side of the vocal right-wingers, I'm on the side of the silent majority in the middle who deserve an effective leader.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Assuming it is a postal ballot, that does seem low yes. Certainly all Labour contests since individual voting was introduced in 1994 have been higher.

[tinybgoat]

Yes, we have the coup plotters to thank that for amongst much else.

Labour weren't losing by-elections like yesterday's in Stockton before they got to work either.

You don't think Corbyn could have come close to winning anymore than I do.

What does this comment mean 'close to winning' in the past tense - the Stockton by-election or some General Election that has passed me by?

There is also the assumption in your comments that someone else has more likelihood of taking Labour to victory in 2020 than Corbyn......I do not accept that premise on the grounds that I think Labour are lacking in credible candidates who would not be slaughtered by the media, that there is no electoral evidence that Corbyn is 'unelectable' and that the electoral arithmetic is very much against us

The only evidence out there is anecdotal or from opinion polls which is very flimsy to base such certainty on, especially when there are no candidates who would be likely to make any difference

I will repeat what I said before.....all this trouble has been caused in order to just to have Corbyn reaffirmed as leader (in all likelihood) - or was the aim not to remove Corbyn but to create the conditions for a split? We will have to wait until the end of the month to see the reaction to his likely victory

If Smith wins then we can come back and discuss that scenario...I am just basingmy comments on what seems the most likely with the information we have

So the Conservatives had a rich vein of apparently acceptable sociopaths to choose from, but chose Misty May. The Liberals have got a supposedly 'charismatic Christian', whose biggest achievement to date is probably getting Spitfire beer from the Dent brewery into a house of commons bar. UKIP are in the unenviable position of which swivel eyed fellow kipper to pick. Whereas Labour are lacking in credible candidates who would not be slaughtered by Labour, let alone the media.
It's not like the bar's been set very high, maybe if the party could all just make an effort to support a leader for a few years, they might appeal to a few more voters.
Stuff Democracy, Couldn't we just rank labour plp in order of appeal, starting with Danzcuk working upwards & then get the top ten to draw straws?
At least we'd avoid the pain of a leadership election & giving them chances to make prats/media targets of themselves.

(edited to demangle.)

[tinybgoat]

Assuming it is a postal ballot, that does seem low yes. Certainly all Labour contests since individual voting was introduced in 1994 have been higher.

They were probably trying to save trees, so didn't vote.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Are you here all week?

[Willow904]

@Tizme1

If you happen to be reading, I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to try to understand what I was trying to say about the drawbacks of direct democracy yesterday. Tinybgoat posted an interesting article about a concept called "hysteresis" which fascinated me in a quite abstract way and I thought it would make an interesting topic to debate, but when I've raised these ideas before on CIF I've been wildly misunderstood, so I'm glad that some people here were able to get some of what I was saying.

[SpinningHugo]

"there is no electoral evidence that Corbyn is 'unelectable' "

I don't agree. There is a vast amount of evidence of this.

If you want me to give chapter and verse I will, but we have been over all this before.

For an opposition party at this point Labour was doing very badly before the Brexit vote. The idea that there was even a fighting chance before the challenge to Corbyn's leadership is wishful thinking.

Some of us are just more optimistic than others.

I agree with Ed Miliband (and Lisa Nandy, Heidi Alexander, Lucy Powell, Owen Smith, John Healey, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Tom Watson, Yvette Cooper Neil Kinnock, etc and all the other conspiring Blairite ultras).

There might, I suppose, be something mildly amusing to see the softer parts of the left finding themselves in the same position the 4.5% were for the last decade, were it not that it meant the tragedy of the death of our social democratic party.

Are you still claiming Corbyn will quit?

[PorFavor]

It's looking vanishingly unlikely to me that Jeremy Corbyn will go voluntarily.

Or do I mean vanishingly likely? Any road up, I think he'll win again and then dig in his heels.

[AnatolyKasparov]

He may yet surprise you, maybe?

The widely known, but largely unspoken, factor in all this is that he never really wanted to be leader and doesn't greatly enjoy doing it.

So why has he insisted in staying put, then?? IMO this is partly because he strongly believes that he was given a mandate by the *membership* last year, and Labour MPs - however righteous, vocal and even at times justified in their criticisms - should not be able to override this by effective fiat. But there is also the feeling that were he to step down now, the "gains" (from a leftist point of view, anyway) of his leadership would be rapidly unravelled - and before we knew it Labour would be back to abstaining on welfare bills, handing effective power back to an unaccountable "SPADocracy" and having its political stances effectively dictated by (easily manipulated, of course) focus groups. An overwhelmingly likely result of this would be that one of the few unequivocal benefits of the Corbyn period (even though Blairite types, transfixed for eternity by the sort of politics I have just described, so foolishly disagree) - I refer of course to the massive burgeoning of party membership - would be squandered; most would quit Labour in disgust - at best they would return to the political void, in itself a terrible waste, at worst they would form the nucleus of a new rival left party.

In the next few years, though, if Corbyn stays there are likely going to be changes in the culture of the party which would make such a "counter revolution" next to impossible - he may then feel able to hand over, even if his successor is from the "soft left" rather than his own vintage.

Thoughts?

[tinybgoat]

It's looking vanishingly unlikely to me that Jeremy Corbyn will go voluntarily.

Or do I mean vanishingly likely? Any road up, I think he'll win again and then dig in his heels.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/je ... ur-8485603

Jeremy Corbyn will quit as leader if Labour loses the next general election, his closest ally has vowed.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said it was “inevitable” that both he and Mr Corbyn would resign if defeated by the Tories at the ballot box.

The above makes it look unlikely he'll go before an election. Maybe there should could be an 'employment contract' for the leader,
along lines of meeting certain targets, i.e. getting a specified approval level in polls by a certain date?
At least it would provide an agreed imperical measure of electability rather than just unfounded accusations.

[SpinningHugo]

1. Labour didn't abstain on the Welfare Bill. Every Labour MP voted against.

2. As I said to you at the time, the Campaign group have spent decades crying from the wilderness. Corbyn has spent decades fighting for this day. He hasn't done anything else. He hasn't served on a committee, or put forward a private members Bill in all his decades in parliament. The idea that he would quit and hand back power to the PLP was always far-fetched and misunderstood the nature of the Campaign group's aim: which is to transform the Labour party. You don't spend decades working for something, and then betray your small cadre of fellow travelers by quitting

This Corbyn's aims were not the same as other leaders of Labour (or indeed of all leaders of any major party in the last century) was revealed by his decision not to quit when 80%+ of the MPs gave him a vote of no confidence. Any other leader would have gone: because their aim would have been to achieve power for the Parliamentary Party they led. That isn't Corbyn/McDonnell/Milne's aim.

3. The next moves are obvious. Labour will lose badly in 2020. How then does the Campaign Group hold on to power?

First the PLP will be both diminished and changed.

Second there will be plenty of excuses for failure. Blairites under the bed will be, as ever, the preferred one.

Third the party will have been completely transformed. People like you will be in a small minority by then and so will pose no threat.

Labour is now the obstacle to the left winning in my lifetime. Too weak to win, too strong to die.

And that is so even thought the Tories are basically ridiculous. Just not as ridiculous as Labour.

[RogerOThornhill]

It's looking vanishingly unlikely to me that Jeremy Corbyn will go voluntarily.

Or do I mean vanishingly likely? Any road up, I think he'll win again and then dig in his heels.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/je ... ur-8485603

Jeremy Corbyn will quit as leader if Labour loses the next general election, his closest ally has vowed.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said it was “inevitable” that both he and Mr Corbyn would resign if defeated by the Tories at the ballot box.

The above makes it look unlikely he'll go before an election. Maybe there should could be an 'employment contract' for the leader,
along lines of meeting certain targets, i.e. getting a specified approval level in polls by a certain date?
At least it would provide an agreed imperical measure of electability rather than just unfounded accusations.

And, I would argue, makes an early election extremely unlikely.

Why would the Tories manufacture an early election with all the risks that entails and might mean they were out of office in say 2021 or 2022 when they could leave well alone and be there until 2025?

[ohsocynical]

YahYah.
and some pompous folk lack a sense of humour.

and the whole point of my comment to Tizme is that in no way could she be regarded as Blairite, but some people would regard her as one for considering that Corbyn doesn't appeal to a wider electorate.
But she will get accused of it by some. Note the word some, something some seem to not understand the meaning of despite a university education.

I have never accused all Corbyn supporters of being cultists.
I supported him myself for a time, my husband did too. Some, a small percentage thankfully are, as are people from other areas of politics including those who think Blairism is our only hope.

The only problem with using the blocking posts is that you still see people having a go at you in other people's quoted dialogue boxes.

And there are many people, lovely ones, who stopped posting last year because they felt marginalised because they didn't support Corbyn. More have gone this time because they don't support him.
All OhSo had to do was swallow her pride, apologise for calling Smith a lying snivelling sack of shit - something which could probably have gotten her Labour ballot papers stopped, and for acting childishly on the threads set up to try and provide a resource for FTNers.
If she feels she can't come back - then the fault lies with no one but herself. People who don;t behave

Same with Rob S. He told us his wife said he was being grumpy, so don't blame me.
He deliberately took umbrage at something I wrote about myself and Alex Andreou. For some reason he thinks everything is about him. And it ain't.

It is interesting that HS takes time to have a go at me, after my interaction with Tizme, which was based on some history between us and nothing to do with him, but never complained at posts presenting deliberate misinformation or swearing about Corbyn's rival. That says a lot.

I have to warn you, that if you use my name or refer to me in anyway in future on this board, or anywhere else, I shall seek legal advice.

[tinybgoat]

He may yet surprise you, maybe?

The widely known, but largely unspoken, factor in all this is that he never really wanted to be leader and doesn't greatly enjoy doing it.

So why has he insisted in staying put, then?? IMO this is partly because he strongly believes that he was given a mandate by the *membership* last year, and Labour MPs - however righteous, vocal and even at times justified in their criticisms - should not be able to override this by effective fiat. But there is also the feeling that were he to step down now, the "gains" (from a leftist point of view, anyway) of his leadership would be rapidly unravelled - and before we knew it Labour would be back to abstaining on welfare bills, handing effective power back to an unaccountable "SPADocracy" and having its political stances effectively dictated by (easily manipulated, of course) focus groups. An overwhelmingly likely result of this would be that one of the few unequivocal benefits of the Corbyn period (even though Blairite types, transfixed for eternity by the sort of politics I have just described, so foolishly disagree) - I refer of course to the massive burgeoning of party membership - would be squandered; most would quit Labour in disgust - at best they would return to the political void, in itself a terrible waste, at worst they would form the nucleus of a new rival left party.

In the next few years, though, if Corbyn stays there are likely going to be changes in the culture of the party which would make such a "counter revolution" next to impossible - he may then feel able to hand over, even if his successor is from the "soft left" rather than his own vintage.

Thoughts?

Possibly he might be happy to step down when he's achieved his goal, and it would be useful to know if this is his plan, I suppose it might then change how the rest of the plp interact with him(I would say, not necessarily for the better, but not sure it could be much worse ).
We'd still need to know what his goal(s) are, and if they're achievable, if he can't get party to where he wants it by a certain time then he's unlikely to want to step down & it wouldn't leave party in a good position if he did.
Interesting that Hugo was saying there are no 'wings' of party yesterday, just a rump & a hated plp. Your scenario has strong possibility of a quick return too form, given half a chance, which seems more likely.
I'd like too see some evidence that corbyn was planning/willing to step down at some point, maybe having others brought on as possible future leaders, although in present climate can see why this hasn't been practical (though Clive Lewis seems likely call candidate, at the moment)

[PorFavor]

@tinybgoat

As you say - what is his (Jeremy Corbyn's) goal? Without some sort of description of it (by him), it's a movable feast - he can't be pinned down on not having achieved his objectives because they are so amorphous. I'm not even clear that winning the next General Election has ever been one of his categorically stated aims. It certainly doesn't necessarily figure highly on the list of priorities of many of his followers. Yet. Maybe a comprehensive election defeat (not that I'm hoping for one) will be a dose of cold water for a lot of them.

[howsillyofme1]

Thanks ohsofor bringing that particular post to my attention....hadn't seen it before

The reason I don't complain about people calling other candidates names is that I don't really care that much
I have called Cameron very bad things, and Boris as well. I am sure they will not be the last

I have no issue with you insulting Corbyn if you want, or people insulting Smith......I don't do it myself to either of the candidates myself to be honest (or try not to anyway...there may be some examples)

What I do not like though is certain people who make out that all the insults come from one side and take a sanctimonious tone......that has grated on me recently

All sides outside this forum have stepped out of line and should start behaving more......within this forum things have sometimes over-stepped the mark with insults about the two candidates and other politicians......but we dio it with the Tories so why should our own be immune.

[tinybgoat]

Ohso & Yahyah
I admire both of you greatly,
and have to admit I'm also a big fan of 'Ladies of Letters'
You've both said/done things which were possibly I'll advised, and you've both been wronged & hurt.
And I'm probably speaking out of turn/line,
But please, is there any chance, you can both desist from morphing into a tribute act and at the very least call a truce?

[Willow904]

He may yet surprise you, maybe?

The widely known, but largely unspoken, factor in all this is that he never really wanted to be leader and doesn't greatly enjoy doing it.

So why has he insisted in staying put, then?? IMO this is partly because he strongly believes that he was given a mandate by the *membership* last year, and Labour MPs - however righteous, vocal and even at times justified in their criticisms - should not be able to override this by effective fiat. But there is also the feeling that were he to step down now, the "gains" (from a leftist point of view, anyway) of his leadership would be rapidly unravelled - and before we knew it Labour would be back to abstaining on welfare bills, handing effective power back to an unaccountable "SPADocracy" and having its political stances effectively dictated by (easily manipulated, of course) focus groups. An overwhelmingly likely result of this would be that one of the few unequivocal benefits of the Corbyn period (even though Blairite types, transfixed for eternity by the sort of politics I have just described, so foolishly disagree) - I refer of course to the massive burgeoning of party membership - would be squandered; most would quit Labour in disgust - at best they would return to the political void, in itself a terrible waste, at worst they would form the nucleus of a new rival left party.

In the next few years, though, if Corbyn stays there are likely going to be changes in the culture of the party which would make such a "counter revolution" next to impossible - he may then feel able to hand over, even if his successor is from the "soft left" rather than his own vintage.

Thoughts?

My thought is that all of that sounds plausible, reasonable and mostly desirable but, and it's a big but, I don't think the members Corbyn is attracting would ever accept a "soft left" leader. Or, at least, there are very little signs of it at present and that will continue to make holding Labour together as a broad coalition difficult for the foreseeable future.

[PorFavor]

3m ago 14:06

Richard Mallender, chair of the Green party executive, is announcing the leadership results.

Six times as many people voted as in 2012, he says. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Well, that answers my earlier question. Sort of. Who's worked it out yet?

[PorFavor]

Lucas and Bartley elected co-leaders with 86% of first-preference votes

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley have been elected co-leaders with 86% of the first preference votes. (Politics Live, Guardian)

[citizenJA]

@SpinningHugo
Labour aren't ridiculous, not more ridiculous than Tories. Tories function in ways Labour can't. Comparing the Tory party with Labour isn't comparing like with like. I've seen Tory action with my own eyes. I was astounded, awe-struck, over their swift consolidation of power their media showed the public following the EU referendum. Tory party resources and presumptuousness are vast. Tories own a lot. Tory owners expect their stuff protected even if country and most people will suffer. That's the Tory party.

The Labour leader is probably making a catastrophic mistake. I've no idea how he reckons success follows from actions taken.

[citizenJA]

@tinybgoat

As you say - what is his (Jeremy Corbyn's) goal? Without some sort of description of it (by him), it's a movable feast - he can't be pinned down on not having achieved his objectives because they are so amorphous. I'm not even clear that winning the next General Election has ever been one of his categorically stated aims. It certainly doesn't necessarily figure highly on the list of priorities of many of his followers. Yet. Maybe a comprehensive election defeat (not that I'm hoping for one) will be a dose of cold water for a lot of them.

Yes, I've noticed this too.

[RogerOThornhill]

Lucas and Bartley elected co-leaders with 86% of first-preference votes

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley have been elected co-leaders with 86% of the first preference votes. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Co-leaders?

It'll never work - look out for the first "hang on - you co-leader said something entirely different!" interview/announcement/whatever.

[StephenDolan]

He may yet surprise you, maybe?

The widely known, but largely unspoken, factor in all this is that he never really wanted to be leader and doesn't greatly enjoy doing it.

So why has he insisted in staying put, then?? IMO this is partly because he strongly believes that he was given a mandate by the *membership* last year, and Labour MPs - however righteous, vocal and even at times justified in their criticisms - should not be able to override this by effective fiat. But there is also the feeling that were he to step down now, the "gains" (from a leftist point of view, anyway) of his leadership would be rapidly unravelled - and before we knew it Labour would be back to abstaining on welfare bills, handing effective power back to an unaccountable "SPADocracy" and having its political stances effectively dictated by (easily manipulated, of course) focus groups. An overwhelmingly likely result of this would be that one of the few unequivocal benefits of the Corbyn period (even though Blairite types, transfixed for eternity by the sort of politics I have just described, so foolishly disagree) - I refer of course to the massive burgeoning of party membership - would be squandered; most would quit Labour in disgust - at best they would return to the political void, in itself a terrible waste, at worst they would form the nucleus of a new rival left party.

In the next few years, though, if Corbyn stays there are likely going to be changes in the culture of the party which would make such a "counter revolution" next to impossible - he may then feel able to hand over, even if his successor is from the "soft left" rather than his own vintage.

Thoughts?

My thought is that all of that sounds plausible, reasonable and mostly desirable but, and it's a big but, I don't think the members Corbyn is attracting would ever accept a "soft left" leader. Or, at least, there are very little signs of it at present and that will continue to make holding Labour together as a broad coalition difficult for the foreseeable future.

Corbyn if standing down would really have to recommend this candidate IMHO to have a chance of getting the (newer) membership on board.

[citizenJA]

Ohso & Yahyah
I admire both of you greatly,
and have to admit I'm also a big fan of 'Ladies of Letters'
You've both said/done things which were possibly I'll advised, and you've both been wronged & hurt.
And I'm probably speaking out of turn/line,
But please, is there any chance, you can both desist from morphing into a tribute act and at the very least call a truce?

I second this entreaty, thank you.

[citizenJA]

Corbyn if standing down would really have to recommend this candidate IMHO to have a chance of getting the (newer) membership on board.

Is that the first duty of a Labour leader? Genuine question - I don't know the answer to it.

[Willow904]

2. As I said to you at the time, the Campaign group have spent decades crying from the wilderness. Corbyn has spent decades fighting for this day. He hasn't done anything else. He hasn't served on a committee, or put forward a private members Bill in all his decades in parliament.

Interestingly I asked yesterday if Corbyn had ever put forward a bill, because I couldn't find any record he had done so, but "hasn't served on a committee"? Are you sure? I thought he'd served on a few.

[citizenJA]

Lucas and Bartley elected co-leaders with 86% of first-preference votes

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley have been elected co-leaders with 86% of the first preference votes. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Co-leaders?

It'll never work - look out for the first "hang on - you co-leader said something entirely different!" interview/announcement/whatever.

Depends on the two leaders, their personalities. I like alternative ideas on leadership, political parties, how best serving country and people.

[citizenJA]

2. As I said to you at the time, the Campaign group have spent decades crying from the wilderness. Corbyn has spent decades fighting for this day. He hasn't done anything else. He hasn't served on a committee, or put forward a private members Bill in all his decades in parliament.

Interestingly I asked yesterday if Corbyn had ever put forward a bill, because I couldn't find any record he had done so, but "hasn't served on a committee"? Are you sure? I thought he'd served on a few.

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP

Parliamentary Activities
Justice Committee - May 2011 - Mar 2015
London Regional Select Committee - Dec 2009 - May 2010
Social Security - Apr 1992 - Mar 1997

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/co ... corbyn/185" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Corbyn if standing down would really have to recommend this candidate IMHO to have a chance of getting the (newer) membership on board.

It would be tricky to pull off, I would have thought.

[citizenJA]

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP
Latest written questions
This member has yet to submit or answer a written question. This may be because the member:
• holds a Parliamentary post (eg Speaker) and, therefore, conventionally does not normally submit questions
• is a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) and, therefore, conventionally does not normally submit questions
• has not yet submitted a question this parliamentary session (2016-17).

Early day motions supported
This member has yet to support an Early Day Motion (EDM). This may be because the member:
• holds a Parliamentary post (eg Speaker) and, therefore, conventionally does not normally support EDMs
• is a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) and, therefore, conventionally does not normally support EDMs
• has not yet supported EDMs this parliamentary session (2016-17).

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/co ... corbyn/185" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think this is relevant to Corbyn, I don't think he's a PPS but I wasn't familiar with these appointments and thought it interesting.

A Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) is appointed by a minister to be his or her assistant.
He or she is selected from backbench MPs as the 'eyes and ears' of the minister in the House
of Commons. It is an unpaid job but it is useful for an MP to become a PPS to gain experience
of working in government.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-informati ... secretary/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;