Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
SpinningHugo wrote:I confess to being somewhat surprised that nobody seems interested in Smith's 20 point plan (or anything he said today).
That may tell us something of interest of course.
Still digesting it, but I didn't feel there was a lot of substance there. I agreed with most of your assessment tbh. 'Wealth tax for higher earners' sounds economically illiterate to me.
1. A pledge to focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
2. Scrapping the DWP and replacing it with a Ministry for Labour and a Department for Social Security.
3. Introducing modern wages councils for hotel, shop and care workers to strengthen terms and conditions.
4. Banning zero hour contracts.
5. Ending the public sector pay freeze.
6. Extending the right to information and consultation to cover all workplaces with more than 50 employees.
7. Ensuring workers’ representation on remuneration committees.
8. Repealing the Trade Union Act.
9. Increase spending on the NHS by 4% in real-terms in every year of the next parliament.
10. Commit to bringing NHS funding up to the European average within the first term of a Labour Government.
11. Greater spending on schools and libraries.
12. Re-instate the 50p top rate of income tax.
13. Reverse the reductions in Corporation Tax due to take place over the next four years.
14. Reverse cuts to Inheritance Tax announced in the Summer Budget.
15. Reverse cuts to Capital Gains Tax announced in the Summer Budget.
16. Introduce a new wealth Tax on the top 1% earners.
17. A British New Deal unveiling £200bn of investment over five years.
18. A commitment to invest tens of billions in the North of England, and to bring forward High Speed 3.
19. A pledge to build 300,000 homes in every year of the next parliament – 1.5 million over five years.
20. Ending the scandal of fuel poverty by investing in efficient energy.
A right ragbag of promises there, something for everybody except the plutocrats .
Afternoon folks,
I worked for a while for a head who had terrible presentational skills. He was boring, had a monotonous voice, and, more trivially, was obese and quite ugly. However, he had a tremendous vision for education and a lifelong determination to put his ideas into effect. He succeeded in doing so by surrounding himself with people who could do the things he couldn't, and had the skills he lacked. Together, we created an outstanding school that was renowned internationally.
But, applying X-factor standards, he was a terrible leader.
SpinningHugo wrote:Yes. Views like that were my supposition as to why he was being ignored: people don't care.
Which means, of course, that if that persists thee is nothing the PLP can say or do to change people's minds.
Smith needs to get Miliband and others who have support among the base to endorse him.
I would be extremely hesitant to equate me with the Membership of the Labour Party, but there are likely to be some of them with my mindset. I doubt that it is too many though. It's fairly obvious that the diehard 'Corbynistas' aren't going to budge. It's a given that Smith has the diehard 'anti-Corbynistas' in the bag. What is less clear is how folk like Yahyah will be swayed.
I don't actually think Corbyn's support is as strong as is being made out. There is likely to be a soft middle etc. that are open to persuasion. I'm not convinced Smith is the person to do that persuasion but I won't rule it out either.
PS. I don't think endorsements from Miliband etc are going to help that much. It's not like Miliband has been very ardently supportive of Corbyn anyway. He's just not been vocally as negative about him as others.
ohsocynical wrote:I'm afraid Smith is just another politician. Padded expenses, ambitious, and saying whatever he thinks will get him more votes.
I'm not so sure. Looking at his leadership bid today, it strikes me that an awful lot of it owes more than a nod to Ed Miliband's manifesto and style, which would tend to put him fairly squarely on the soft left, alongside Ed, which is where it is claimed he is. Some of it was a bit woolly (like the wealth tax) but I liked what he said about how the Tories have privatised debt, it shows he has some grasp of the economics of what they've been doing as well as the politics. He's certainly not the change of direction people think they have in Corbyn, but I honestly don't think he's some kind of Blairite pretending to be left of centre.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
2. Scrapping the DWP and replacing it with a Ministry for Labour and a Department for Social Security.
That one has already had a comment from J.Portes
Jonathan Portes @jdportes 3h3 hours ago
Jonathan Portes Retweeted Owen Smith 2016
Would reverse one of the very few successful machinery of government changes (creation of DWP). Pointless & wasteful
Pretty sure I read something from the IoG some years back that shuffling govt depts around very costly and nearly always don't produce required results.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
It must have slipped me by, but does anybody know or have a link to whatever shadow cabinet meeting took place immediately after the referendum result? I only seem to have gleaned events from Cameron's resignation at the dispatch box and beyond.
Last edited by utopiandreams on Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ohsocynical wrote:Is it me, or is the fact that Labour has a democratically elected leader been carefully swept into a corner on this board?
What about that the PLP acted disgracefully? Neglected the job we elected them to do? Lost one of the best opportunities we've ever had to bring the Tories to heel?
Sorry if it grates, but I haven't forgotten.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party hasn't worked for most of the Labour party MPs - those people are an essential part of the team. I wish Corbyn had been able to effectively lead them. I've never been an MP and I'm beginning research on what being a Labour party MP currently entails. The Labour MPs having difficulty aren't receiving adequate direction and support from Corbyn. It's not a matter of those MPs knuckling down and believing in Corbyn for all to be well. If it were, enough of them would've continued to do that. I think you're not appreciating the difficulty Labour MPs are having due to Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party.
Thing is Willow, he may be genuinely soft left. He still
a) took part in the coup and
b) may well have promises to keep to the Progress mob if he succeeds.
Why not serve his apprenticeship under Jeremy? I don't have a vote, but if I did, nobody who has taken part in the betrayal of a leader with an overwhelming mandate would get my vote.
What I heard of his speech was fine. But can I trust him?
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many - they are few."
frog222 wrote: 1. A pledge to focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
2. Scrapping the DWP and replacing it with a Ministry for Labour and a Department for Social Security.
3. Introducing modern wages councils for hotel, shop and care workers to strengthen terms and conditions.
4. Banning zero hour contracts.
5. Ending the public sector pay freeze.
6. Extending the right to information and consultation to cover all workplaces with more than 50 employees.
7. Ensuring workers’ representation on remuneration committees.
8. Repealing the Trade Union Act.
9. Increase spending on the NHS by 4% in real-terms in every year of the next parliament.
10. Commit to bringing NHS funding up to the European average within the first term of a Labour Government.
11. Greater spending on schools and libraries.
12. Re-instate the 50p top rate of income tax.
13. Reverse the reductions in Corporation Tax due to take place over the next four years.
14. Reverse cuts to Inheritance Tax announced in the Summer Budget.
15. Reverse cuts to Capital Gains Tax announced in the Summer Budget.
16. Introduce a new wealth Tax on the top 1% earners.
17. A British New Deal unveiling £200bn of investment over five years.
18. A commitment to invest tens of billions in the North of England, and to bring forward High Speed 3.
19. A pledge to build 300,000 homes in every year of the next parliament – 1.5 million over five years.
20. Ending the scandal of fuel poverty by investing in efficient energy.
If that's his manifesto, then the sad truth is that even if he wins, there's little to no chance he'll get any opportunity from the PLP to try and implement even half of it before the vocal right of the PLP are condemning him for having unelectable, 'hard left' policies. Either he'll be shedding most of it between now and 2020 or we'll be back with another leadership election in 2018.
Edited to trim out some of the quotes that weren't needed to make my point (and to fix the name of the person quoted after making my first edit. Sorry frog222)
Last edited by JonnyT1234 on Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
utopiandreams wrote:It must have slipped me by, but does anybody know or have a link to whatever shadow cabinet meeting took place immediately after the referendum result? I only seem to have gleaned events from Cameron's resignation at the dispatch box and beyond.
I've never seen reference to one. If you come across it, please link it here because I'm curious about it too.
utopiandreams wrote:It must have slipped me by, but does anybody know or have a link to whatever shadow cabinet meeting took place immediately after the referendum result? I only seem to have gleaned events from Cameron's resignation at the dispatch box and beyond.
I've never seen reference to one. If you come across it, please link it here because I'm curious about it too.
As a far as I am aware, one didn't happen because the knives were stuck in within 48 hours of the result and there was no shadow cabinet left to call. Or is my recollection wrong?
I listened, not too intently I may add, to Owen's speech and felt that he lacked economic reality by failing to delineate day-to-day expenditure from infrastructure spending. Both seemed funded from the same pot. That shall not play well to the broader electorate.
JonnyT1234 wrote:If that's his manifesto, then the sad truth is that even if he wins, there's little to no chance he'll get any opportunity from the PLP to try and implement even half of it before the vocal right of the PLP are condemning him for having unelectable, 'hard left' policies. Either he'll be shedding most of it between now and 2020 or we'll be back with another leadership election in 2018.
Edited to trim out some of the quotes that weren't needed to make my point.
(cJA edit)
Corbyn is a fine Labour MP. There's more to being a Labour party leader than being a good MP. He's not able to effectively accomplish what needs doing in his current job.
55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,
I worked for a while for a head who had terrible presentational skills. He was boring, had a monotonous voice, and, more trivially, was obese and quite ugly. However, he had a tremendous vision for education and a lifelong determination to put his ideas into effect. He succeeded in doing so by surrounding himself with people who could do the things he couldn't, and had the skills he lacked. Together, we created an outstanding school that was renowned internationally.
But, applying X-factor standards, he was a terrible leader.
I think the key point is where you say this head surrounded himself with able people. That is, indeed, a sign of a good leader. I don't think the appointment of Seamus Milne cones into this category myself, and McDonnell's failure to keep the economics experts on board is part of why I think the Corbyn leadership is headed down a cul-de-sac. I suspect people wanted to work for your head because, over the the years, he had worked his way up through the ranks of teacher, assistant head etc, amassing a huge amount of experience and skills appropriate for the job. Corbyn hadn't even held a shadow cabinet post before becoming leader and his network of influence falls mainly outside of mainstream politics in the single issue campaign movements, which is why he is extremely well suited to being chair of CND, but maybe less suited to being leader of the PLP.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
JonnyT1234 wrote:If that's his manifesto, then the sad truth is that even if he wins, there's little to no chance he'll get any opportunity from the PLP to try and implement even half of it before the vocal right of the PLP are condemning him for having unelectable, 'hard left' policies. Either he'll be shedding most of it between now and 2020 or we'll be back with another leadership election in 2018.
Edited to trim out some of the quotes that weren't needed to make my point.
(cJA edit)
Corbyn is a fine Labour MP. There's more to being a Labour party leader than being a good MP. He's not able to effectively accomplish what needs doing in his current job.
True. Conversely, there's more to being a Labour Party leader than being 'not Corbyn'.
ohsocynical wrote:Is it me, or is the fact that Labour has a democratically elected leader been carefully swept into a corner on this board?
What about that the PLP acted disgracefully? Neglected the job we elected them to do? Lost one of the best opportunities we've ever had to bring the Tories to heel?
Sorry if it grates, but I haven't forgotten.
You're right again Mrs Ohso.
People saying that Labour need to be in govt to make a difference could maybe stop and think of how electable Labour would be in these two scenarios
1)Jeremy Corbyn elected as leader with a huge mandate,unions reaffiliate(if that's a real word.poss not),hundreds of thousands of people join Labour.
Labour mps work hard,unite,take the battle to the tories
2)JC elected as above,Labour mps spend months leaking to the press,rubbishing their leader,refuse to work with him,plot coup and wait for the very minute they can actually blame Corbyn for something(though he is not to blame)then very publicly tear the party apart ,causing polling for labour to drop through the floor.
Nothing that Corbyn has done has damaged the party a fraction of the damage done by the PLP these past weeks.
And we are supposed to be convinced by speeches from Owen Smith.Who was paid a six figure salary as a PR man for a major pharmaceutical company,because,presumably,he was very good at sounding compassionate and sincere.
55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,
I worked for a while for a head who had terrible presentational skills. He was boring, had a monotonous voice, and, more trivially, was obese and quite ugly. However, he had a tremendous vision for education and a lifelong determination to put his ideas into effect. He succeeded in doing so by surrounding himself with people who could do the things he couldn't, and had the skills he lacked. Together, we created an outstanding school that was renowned internationally.
But, applying X-factor standards, he was a terrible leader.
I think the key point is where you say this head surrounded himself with able people. That is, indeed, a sign of a good leader. I don't think the appointment of Seamus Milne cones into this category myself, and McDonnell's failure to keep the economics experts on board is part of why I think the Corbyn leadership is headed down a cul-de-sac. I suspect people wanted to work for your head because, over the the years, he had worked his way up through the ranks of teacher, assistant head etc, amassing a huge amount of experience and skills appropriate for the job. Corbyn hadn't even held a shadow cabinet post before becoming leader and his network of influence falls mainly outside of mainstream politics in the single issue campaign movements, which is why he is extremely well suited to being chair of CND, but maybe less suited to being leader of the PLP.
Good Lord.
Corbyn was surrounded by experienced and able MPs.
They flounced off and refused to form a shadow cabinet
Willow904 wrote:
I think the key point is where you say this head surrounded himself with able people. That is, indeed, a sign of a good leader. I don't think the appointment of Seamus Milne cones into this category myself, and McDonnell's failure to keep the economics experts on board is part of why I think the Corbyn leadership is headed down a cul-de-sac. I suspect people wanted to work for your head because, over the the years, he had worked his way up through the ranks of teacher, assistant head etc, amassing a huge amount of experience and skills appropriate for the job. Corbyn hadn't even held a shadow cabinet post before becoming leader and his network of influence falls mainly outside of mainstream politics in the single issue campaign movements, which is why he is extremely well suited to being chair of CND, but maybe less suited to being leader of the PLP.
Good Lord.
Corbyn was surrounded by experienced and able MPs.
They flounced off and refused to form a shadow cabinet
Don't forget those who agreed to serve then used their position to undermine him.
utopiandreams wrote:It must have slipped me by, but does anybody know or have a link to whatever shadow cabinet meeting took place immediately after the referendum result? I only seem to have gleaned events from Cameron's resignation at the dispatch box and beyond.
I've never seen reference to one. If you come across it, please link it here because I'm curious about it too.
As a far as I am aware, one didn't happen because the knives were stuck in within 48 hours of the result and there was no shadow cabinet left to call. Or is my recollection wrong?
Corbyn didn't discuss the EU referendum outcome with his Labour colleagues - the MPs and the MEPs - when the results came in or before he spoke in the House Friday morning.
frightful_oik wrote:Thing is Willow, he may be genuinely soft left. He still
a) took part in the coup and
b) may well have promises to keep to the Progress mob if he succeeds.
Why not serve his apprenticeship under Jeremy? I don't have a vote, but if I did, nobody who has taken part in the betrayal of a leader with an overwhelming mandate would get my vote.
What I heard of his speech was fine. But can I trust him?
I'm not really interested in gossip and supposition. It's absolutely impossible for me to know what is true and what is not. When Smith launched his leadership bid an awful lot of stuff was written on this forum that seems to have come from the pages of Guido Fawkes, not the most trustworthy of sources. What is being ignored here is the referendum result and how it changed things. It's one thing to feel Corbyn is an ineffective leader but ultimately agree with his basic policies and thus give him a chance to get better, rather another to find yourself disagreeing with fundamentals of policy and direction post-Brexit on top of still thinking him an ineffective leader. If, like me, you believe the vote of no confidence wouldn't have happened if there had been a remain vote, it doesn't look so like a betrayal.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
ohsocynical wrote:Is it me, or is the fact that Labour has a democratically elected leader been carefully swept into a corner on this board?
What about that the PLP acted disgracefully? Neglected the job we elected them to do? Lost one of the best opportunities we've ever had to bring the Tories to heel?
Sorry if it grates, but I haven't forgotten.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party hasn't worked for most of the Labour party MPs
It would have been nice if they had all tried to see if it worked. Instead, some were campaigning against him even before he was elected. These are not the kind of people who should be representing the party and their constituents in parliament.
I think Labour MPs did try to make it work, RobertSnozers. I've not met all the Labour MPs but I think many are good at representing all of their constituents and are a credit to the Labour party.
yahyah wrote:Labour need to be in government to change Tory policies.
No they don't. I refer you to Jonny's post yesterday.
I'll reiterate it here: an opposition don't have to be in power to change the direction of the government's policies (e.g. Tax credit reversal, etc).
They do need to be in power, though, to implement their own.
If Labour had actually got fully behind Corbyn from day one, we would now be in a position to determine just how effective at the former his leadership would actually have been. It is somewhat ironic that because to many of them have been stabbing him in the back - and latterly the front - from prior to his winning the leadership election, we can't actually answer that. Has Corbyn been rubbish? If he has been rubbish, how much is down to him and how much is down to a chunk of the PLP behaving like a bunch of spoilt brats for 9 months? If Labour is unelectable, is it Corbyn or is it the PLP or is it both?
Because we can't say, it's diminished the chances of Smith winning, not increased them.
Thanks for your summarising, I do get that point but thanks for bringing it up again.
One of the reasons I voted for Corbyn was in the vain hope that the drift to the right might be curbed through the arguments getting more of an airing in the media, and strong opposition would help stem the Tory excesses. But in the end things like the Bedroom Tax can't be repealed by the Opposition.
In answer to your last question, I suspect, as in much in life, it is 50:50 or some other numerical representation of the reality. Things are rarely as cut and dried as they seem.
There does seem to be a reluctance from some to accept any need for the leadership team to up their game in some areas. People like Murphy suggest there is a need to.
That's what I wanted to see from Corbyn and his close supporters, a willingness to compromise by accepting not everything is as it could be.
That's obviously my perception, other people will have a different perception.
But elections can be won or lost on a matter of how voters perceive things.
I agree that if Labour had got behind Corbyn things may be different. But it is obvious some will not get behind Smith if he wins. So the self destructive cycle will continue whoever wins.
Still believe Labour should want to be elected, and set the sails accordingly, fighting to move back the Tory tide is not enough, however hard Corbyn works at it.
Last edited by yahyah on Wed 27 Jul, 2016 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ohsocynical wrote:Is it me, or is the fact that Labour has a democratically elected leader been carefully swept into a corner on this board?
What about that the PLP acted disgracefully? Neglected the job we elected them to do? Lost one of the best opportunities we've ever had to bring the Tories to heel?
Sorry if it grates, but I haven't forgotten.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party hasn't worked for most of the Labour party MPs - those people are an essential part of the team. I wish Corbyn had been able to effectively lead them. I've never been an MP and I'm beginning research on what being a Labour party MP currently entails. The Labour MPs having difficulty aren't receiving adequate direction and support from Corbyn. It's not a matter of those MPs knuckling down and believing in Corbyn for all to be well. If it were, enough of them would've continued to do that. I think you're not appreciating the difficulty Labour MPs are having due to Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party.
First of all who says they can't work with Corbyn. Is it the PLP by any chance? From day one they've been obstructive.
I believe I read of a meeting right after he'd won the leadership where they banged the table and shouted him down. They've humiliated him, someone in the Whips office has been working against him. There has been a year long stream of rumours and whispers to the press. Snide Tweets. All sorts of lies.
Please don't tell me they've tried. The evidence is too overwhelming to say otherwise.
Do you honestly believe they've done their best to be good employees - because that's what they basically are.
If they'd been working for any other organisation they'd have been down the road a long, long time ago.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
citizenJA wrote:
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party hasn't worked for most of the Labour party MPs
It would have been nice if they had all tried to see if it worked. Instead, some were campaigning against him even before he was elected. These are not the kind of people who should be representing the party and their constituents in parliament.
I think Labour MPs did try to make it work, RobertSnozers. I've not met all the Labour MPs but I think many are good at representing all of their constituents and are a credit to the Labour party.
Could you include some evidence of labour MPs trying to make it work?
Like Cooper et al refusing shadow cabinet positions where their experience would have been helpful?
And the plotting and planning to get rid of him from before he even won?
And the disgustingly bad manners presented at PMQs?
See,I have seen a lot of disrespect from MPs from the word go.
So please do present your evidence to the contrary.
And please do not include the tearful Eagle .
55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,
I worked for a while for a head who had terrible presentational skills. He was boring, had a monotonous voice, and, more trivially, was obese and quite ugly. However, he had a tremendous vision for education and a lifelong determination to put his ideas into effect. He succeeded in doing so by surrounding himself with people who could do the things he couldn't, and had the skills he lacked. Together, we created an outstanding school that was renowned internationally.
But, applying X-factor standards, he was a terrible leader.
I'm assuming that that's a Jeremy Corbyn analogy (above) so I'll point out that I don't apply X-factor standards to the Labour leadership. Neither do I think that Jeremy Corbyn possesses the qualities that the head teacher referred to had. I'm not convinced (although it's just a feeling) that Jeremy Corbyn would admit to there being things that he is incapable of doing. Or, strangely, the converse. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any "doing" at all. Just a lot of rallies; which are fine in their place in the scheme of things but aren't, in isolation, what's needed.
frightful_oik wrote:Thing is Willow, he may be genuinely soft left. He still
a) took part in the coup and
b) may well have promises to keep to the Progress mob if he succeeds.
Why not serve his apprenticeship under Jeremy? I don't have a vote, but if I did, nobody who has taken part in the betrayal of a leader with an overwhelming mandate would get my vote.
What I heard of his speech was fine. But can I trust him?
I'm not really interested in gossip and supposition. It's absolutely impossible for me to know what is true and what is not. When Smith launched his leadership bid an awful lot of stuff was written on this forum that seems to have come from the pages of Guido Fawkes, not the most trustworthy of sources. What is being ignored here is the referendum result and how it changed things. It's one thing to feel Corbyn is an ineffective leader but ultimately agree with his basic policies and thus give him a chance to get better, rather another to find yourself disagreeing with fundamentals of policy and direction post-Brexit on top of still thinking him an ineffective leader. If, like me, you believe the vote of no confidence wouldn't have happened if there had been a remain vote, it doesn't look so like a betrayal.
And a lot of what was reported has - gasp, shock amazement - been proved true.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,
I worked for a while for a head who had terrible presentational skills. He was boring, had a monotonous voice, and, more trivially, was obese and quite ugly. However, he had a tremendous vision for education and a lifelong determination to put his ideas into effect. He succeeded in doing so by surrounding himself with people who could do the things he couldn't, and had the skills he lacked. Together, we created an outstanding school that was renowned internationally.
But, applying X-factor standards, he was a terrible leader.
I think the key point is where you say this head surrounded himself with able people. That is, indeed, a sign of a good leader. I don't think the appointment of Seamus Milne cones into this category myself, and McDonnell's failure to keep the economics experts on board is part of why I think the Corbyn leadership is headed down a cul-de-sac. I suspect people wanted to work for your head because, over the the years, he had worked his way up through the ranks of teacher, assistant head etc, amassing a huge amount of experience and skills appropriate for the job. Corbyn hadn't even held a shadow cabinet post before becoming leader and his network of influence falls mainly outside of mainstream politics in the single issue campaign movements, which is why he is extremely well suited to being chair of CND, but maybe less suited to being leader of the PLP.
True, but it's important to remember that Smith barely has any more experience in shadow cabinet roles, and a whole lot less experience of parliament.
Yes, that's true. I hope that he might be better, but it's not a foregone conclusion, by all means.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
citizenJA wrote:
I've never seen reference to one. If you come across it, please link it here because I'm curious about it too.
As a far as I am aware, one didn't happen because the knives were stuck in within 48 hours of the result and there was no shadow cabinet left to call. Or is my recollection wrong?
Corbyn didn't discuss the EU referendum outcome with his Labour colleagues - the MPs and the MEPs - when the results came in or before he spoke in the House Friday morning.
Wasn't it that Benn rang Corbyn really early or late at night and told him he'd been disloyal, Corbyn sacked him, and that was the signal to start the walk outs. Which was when a decent opposition would have been gathering to sort out their reactions and answers to the Leave vote?
And lets not forget the orchestrated with the BBC resignation that happened not long ago. The PLPs behaviour has been an utter disgrace
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
I have a little interesting dilemma or an interesting little dilemma.
I left the Labour Party a few months ago, I don't much care for Corbyn and I don't like the folk who are around him. It tends to remind me too much of the early 80s when I was a proper active Labour Party activist (wiv a badge an everyfin).
I came across some very ugly people in those days - ugly in views, ugly in actions, ugly in intentions - who were not really interested in the Party or those who might vote for it.
I'm an old fashioned sort of socialist and I have no time for pie-in-the-sky views of any persuasion.
Anyway, my dilemma.
I have received a letter today which states that I can renew my Labour Party membership and take part in the Leadership vote (it says that actually I'm 'in arrears' whereas I thought I had left, resigned, walked away with hands in pockets and bowed shaking head, etc, etc.
The problem I have is that I'm not sure it's worth the £4 per month.
The leadership is a binary choice and neither contender inspires me. Whatever the result there'll be 'trouble at t'mill'.
The present Labour Party itself doesn't inspire me. In fact, if anything, it's embarrassing.
IMO Corbyn can not win a General Election (the voters in general are not interested) and Smith is just blowing hot air making promises he knows he will/can not keep.
Labour will not be seen as a possible effective government if it can not be seen to be an effective opposition. At the present time Labour are nothing at all like an effective opposition.
I have a week to decide weather to rejoin the Party and be eligible for a vote in the leadership contest, at the moment I don't really see the point. No membership = less grief.
"A lack of compassion is as vulgar as an excess of tears"
Willow, I'm as near certain as I can be there'd have been a coup on some pretext or other eventually; that's where we differ. If I'm honest, I'm glad it's out in the open now. I want to see the PLP boil lanced good and proper.
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many - they are few."
citizenJA wrote:I think Labour MPs did try to make it work, RobertSnozers. I've not met all the Labour MPs but I think many are good at representing all of their constituents and are a credit to the Labour party.
Some did. Many apparently did not.
Now someone's reminded me of it - and assuming we can believe at least some of the reporting about it to be true - the first meeting of the PLP following his election as leader was extraordinarily rude to him. No acknowledgement of his success. Met largely in silence by the majority of the MPs. Very little visible support. Lots of antagonism from those that have become the usual suspects in the intervening 9 months (iirc, Bradshaw(?) was reported as being terrifically offensive towards Corbyn).
citizenJA wrote:... Corbyn didn't discuss the EU referendum outcome with his Labour colleagues - the MPs and the MEPs - when the results came in or before he spoke in the House Friday morning.
That is what I suspected, which begs the question was one called. Albeit disheartening, Corbyn's reaction to Cameron's acquiescence to the result and resignation at the dispatch box was no more than an immediate response without discussion. So was one called and if not why wasn't one proposed by any responsible member of the team?
Not a bad list from Smith. How many of the PLP would join a shadow cabinet using that as a basis for a GE manifesto? It's not exactly Progress friendly. A useful crib sheet for asking MPs though.
Had an email from Owen Smith.
He grew up in South Wales during the miners' strike.
That's when he decided to become a corporate lobbyist and pr man for big pharma,sorry ,should have written,that's when he came alive politically.
frightful_oik wrote:Willow, I'm as near certain as I can be there'd have been a coup on some pretext or other eventually; that's where we differ. If I'm honest, I'm glad it's out in the open now. I want to see the PLP boil lanced good and proper.
I am certain that the coup was planned for 1)when Labour lost Oldham
2)when the May elections were as foretold
3)when Khan lost to Goldsmith
4)when Corbyn brought in 67% of labour voters for remain but the majority of Tories voted leave.........Oh,great,that will do.Might not get another opportunity for a few months.
After JC was elected a large majority of the PLP accepted that he should be given the opportunity to put his ideas into practice. Some (eg Cooper) refused to serve in the shadow cabinet (she became Labour representative on refugees). There is no obligation to serve is my understanding. Miliband would not have served under anyone.
My perception (and we all know that mine is not the majority view) is that regardless of viewpoint, the leadership has been shambolic. This is well captured by this documentary (by a pro-Corbyn filmmaker)
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ignoring the bumps in the road, up until the Spring the biggest split had been over Syria. It isn't a good look to have a leader opposed by the bulk of the PLP and his shadow foreign secretary on a matter of national security. But, free votes on matters like this kept the show on the road.
Then came Europe. The general perception (and I share this) was that Corbyn was at best half hearted in his support for EU membership, and that there were members of Corbyn's team positively undermining the Remain campaign. Johnson claims the same.
Once the campaign was lost, Corbyn's first response on BBC Radio 4 the next morning was to suggest that Brexit meant Brexit and article 50 should be invoked immediately. This was a giveaway sign of his general attitude.
The reaction of a large majority of the PLP to this will have been the same as mine: complete fury. That was the trigger. if the vote had gone the other way, none of this would have happened. I don't think Miliband, Watson et al wanted to try and remove him this year but they felt the same way that I do about the EU. I do know that for many other people, including many on here, it is a low salience issue, and so the EU explanation seems unsatisfactory.
Rumours of a 'plot' then began to circulate. Corbyn acted first: sacking Hilary Benn in the middle of the night. It may well be that there would have been resignations anyway, but it was Corbyn who struck first.
Waves of resignations then began, and we had the vote of no confidence. 81% of Labour MPs is an overwhelming majority: this isn't a small group of plotters or a number of ill-informed dupes. With any other leader of Labour or any other party, that would have been enough to trigger their resignation. A leader serious about trying to win in 2020 would have done so. but I don't think that is Corbyn's agenda, and I think many of his supporters agree (see the claims above about how you can achieve lots in opposition, which rather ignores the fact that Labour has been an ineffective opposition and is now going to get much worse). Again, Corbyn's behaviour at this crucial point reveals what is driving him (and McDonnell and Milne etc).
The shadow cabinet Corbyn now leads is a rump group.
Going forward I see no good solution. All trust has broken down on both sides. Corbyn will win easily as, although polls now show he would lose amongst the September 2015 Labour electorate, that has now changed because of an influx of new members. It looks like Momentum has won.
Now talks of plots and coups and so on seem to me to be misplaced. This is just a power struggle. It is between different wings of the Labour movement that have always been there: the 'social democrats' and the 'socialists' if you like. No socialist of Corbyn's kind has led the Labour movement before, Attlee, Wiilson, and Miliband were all of the 'soft' left as is Smith. The glue that held these sides together was the prospect of power. But, I think like George Eaton here
many members have decided either that that isn't going to happen, or that it requires compromises (eg the Iraq War) that they are no longer prepared to accept.
The consequence for Labour is disastrous in a FPTP system. IN a PR system, they'd split, see the strange bedfellows Lewis and Reynolds arguing together for PR
StephenDolan wrote:Not a bad list from Smith. How many of the PLP would join a shadow cabinet using that as a basis for a GE manifesto? It's not exactly Progress friendly. A useful crib sheet for asking MPs though.
Jess Phillips doing her thing again I see.
Pretty much all of them would join, because at a later date they can always thump the table and flounce out if they didn't agree, then over throw the leader if he/she dug their heels in
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
RobertSnozers wrote:What's your definition of a coup?
A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government is my definition.
So use of the word 'coup' is inapposite in almost every way. This isn't against a government. It isn't violent (save for the odd brick through a window) and it isn't illegal (it is a challenge under the rules).
Just thought I'd pop in to say that Owen Smith's 20-point plan has nothing of substance for millions of people.
Nothing on tax credits (claimed by 4.5 million people, 80% of whom have children); nothing on ESA (2.5 million people); DLA/PIP (3 million people); nothing on the WCA and PIP assessments; nothing on Universal Credit, in-work conditionality, jobsearch conditions for carers; nothing on sanctions, bedroom tax, new charges and fines; nothing on pensions (10 million people); nothing on rents or rent controls - but an expensive major re-organisation and new names for what is currently DWP.
Wages councils, un-freezing public sector pay, and banning zero-hour contracts are helpful, certainly - but what we seem to have here is a lot of nice ideas that will take a long time to have any effect - and meanwhile people who have so little they are forced to beg from food banks have nothing to get excited about.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
It seems to me the crux of the leadership battle and why so many don't think Corbyn is a 'leader', is because if you listened to what he first said, - and is still saying, he want the electorate to have more say in government, in what happens to them. He wants to change how our so called democracy works. He wants MPs to answer to their constituents more than they do at present.
He wants a shift in power.
Purely and simply it threatens the status quo. It stops MPs like Kinnock minor and Eagle being parachuted in to so called safe seats by the right. It really will take power away from the lobbyists and tax dodgers.
Judging from posts on my Lab party Facebook page those CLP members who took part in the purge of the left wing in the eighties, are the ones most insistent that Corbyn is a threat. They are the ones openly calling all the new members 'Trots'. It doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to see they fear a right wing purge.
Edited to add. And they've stupidly put themselves in that position. And are still doing it.
Last edited by ohsocynical on Wed 27 Jul, 2016 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
Rebecca wrote:Had an email from Owen Smith.
He grew up in South Wales during the miners' strike.
That's when he decided to become a corporate lobbyist and pr man for big pharma,sorry ,should have written,that's when he came alive politically.
He didnt actually grow up on the coalfields, of course, so he didnt see the kids he was growing up with clothes slowly fall apart at school, or take beef and salmon spread sarnies down to the picket line at lunctimes. Both things to be fair to him Adam Price went through + did (he was a full on militant socialist as a kid) but I would say a lot of us stuck in the middle of it came of age politically at that point. Smith's only a year older than me, so I can understand where he is coming from even if it strikes me as rather shallow.
My great uncle was senior bod in NACODS in Wales, when the NACODS strike was called off, it was the first time I saw a grown man cry that I can remember. We all knew the NUM had lost at that point. IT was devastating, but I wouldnt have the mines back for love nor money - the community though, the sense of collective responsibility, the valleys have never recovered, and that was the crime. Anyone who remembers what it was like before 84 can see that chain still around our necks.
(it says that actually I'm 'in arrears' whereas I thought I had left, resigned, walked away with hands in pockets and bowed shaking head, etc, etc.