Labour divisions

[jakswan]

I think it's very difficult, as the Blairites have a sense of entitlement, as far as I can see, so they will continue to attack Corbyn as somehow illegitimate.   On the other hand, Corbyn can't just expel all Blairites, that is just too bloody, and also you have to offer them a kind of modus vivendi.    Plus, of course, practically the whole media are anti-Corbyn, so it's quite hard to find out what is really going on.

I don't think the right have a sense of entitlement they just feel that they can win an election and the left can't. Some of the media are anti-Corbyn but some just genuinely disagree with him. I'm not a leftie but I've a lot of respect for James O'Brien and he seems to really want to believe but also to despair at the way Corbyn has handled things.   

[jakswan]

But if they do they are doomed.

I think that, clearly you think that but I don't think the left do. They may have a point as well, if they can get the young vote out they'll vote

A political party with the potential to win sufficient votes for power will necessarily be a reasonably broad church because so are the electorate.

So if the left of the Labour party got rid of the right it would cement itself as unelectable - as effectively a narrow protest group condemned to opposition.

It is interesting to note that Blair never moved to deselect Corbyn, or Skinner or Benn (senior) or others on the left of the PLP. He recognised that for the Labour party to win it needed to be sufficiently attractive to voters from the left and the right of the Labour political spectrum.

Sure but Blair was an operator

But I'm unclear how Corbyn would be able to achieve this anyway - while he can 'sack' his front bench team he can't really sack his MPs - sure he could suspend them from the party - but on what grounds - rebelling? Remember he rebelled countless times. He can try to get the MPs deselected, but that requires local parties to play ball - and guess what they are often rather fond of their sitting MPs. Or to massively change the rules to remove power from local parties - and good luck with getting that through the party processes and also achieving it without haemorrhaging of membership.

Boundary changes are a coming, the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.

[ProfessorDavey]

Boundary changes are a coming, the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.

Not sure if you are a Labour member and understand the way in which selection occurs. Well I am (at least for now) and from my experience standing MPs are re-selected as of right unless there is a trigger ballot decision to the contrary. Only if that happens will there be a contest between the sitting MP and other potential candidates.

And the membership that selected the MP in the past will, almost certainly, be the same people who will reselect him or her in the future. Why, just because there is a different leader would they suddenly chose to kick out an MP they previously supported. And that is not-withstanding the new members.

Why because most of those new members are likely to be 'armchair activists' - happy to vote in a leadership election, but very unlikely to actually take part in anything else.

And I speak from experience - my local branch (like many others) has seen a (on paper) massive increase in membership. I think something like 30% or more increase. Yet talking to friends who have been the mainstay of the local party for years (councillors, election agent etc etc) how many of those new members have put themselves forward to deliver leaflets, to stand as candidates, to go out on the doorstep and canvass - effectively zero. How many even had the get up and go to attend the regular local branch meetings - exactly zero.

So the people who will be responsible for the success or otherwise of a sitting MP in a trigger ballot will be the same people (almost entirely) who were previously.

Try it this way - in the mid 1990s there was a similar massive surge in members - largely Blairite centrists, who would never have joined in the 1970s and 80s. Did these new members kick out non Blairites, such as Corbyn himself under the same rules - no they didn't. He continued to be supported by his consistency, just as (I have little doubt) Hilary Benn will, and Liz Kendal, and Chuka Umuna - even though each of those MPs strongly disagree with Corbyn.

But there is a difference - those new centrist members of the mid 1990s actually got off their backsides, got out on the streets, knocked on doors and won general elections. No hope of the new Corbyn members doing that - far too busy playing armchair politics and having nice political debates across their dinner party tables. If they can't be bothered to turn up to a branch meeting, what hope is there of them pounding the streets and being abused on the doorstep while canvassing (as isn't uncommon). But then if you are comfortable to be perpetually in opposition so long as you retain your precious 'political purity' then you aren't actually interested in winning general elections.

[Nearly Sane]

Have to admit I find this all a bit odd.



https://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/the-bbc-admits-it-co-ordinated-in-advance-the-on-air-resignation-of-stephen-doughty/

[ProfessorDavey]

the membership is very supportive of Corbyn.

Don't forget that a majority of members (just) voted for candidates other than Corbyn. And that included all those new armchair members who only joined to vote in the leadership election and will be deeply 'slopey shouldered' with respect to any greater involvement.

[jeremyp]

I accept Corbyns age is irrelevant my bad.

No it is not. If he wins the next election, he will still be in office when he is 75. Probably he will be OK, but there is quite a significant risk he'll peg it before his time as PM is up or maybe suffer from something like Alzheimer's.

If he does stay healthy, I'm not sure he is competent to run a government at any age. He can't even do a shadow cabinet reshuffle without royally screwing it up.

Having ideals is not enough to run a country, you also have to be able to execute.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it is not. If he wins the next election, he will still be in office when he is 75. Probably he will be OK, but there is quite a significant risk he'll peg it before his time as PM is up or maybe suffer from something like Alzheimer's.

If he does stay healthy, I'm not sure he is competent to run a government at any age. He can't even do a shadow cabinet reshuffle without royally screwing it up.

Having ideals is not enough to run a country, you also have to be able to execute.

Perhaps it should be irrelevant, but it won't be. This will be a further negative factor in the perception of the electorate if he remains leader at the 2020 election.

But your later comments are on the mark - his biggest problem isn't his age - nope ahead of that are his chronic lack of experience in leadership (which is showing) and his policy positions which aren't close enough to the electorate mainstream to suggest he can come close to winning enough votes to win an election.

It is interesting that a man of 66 is so inexperienced in political leadership - but that's what happens if you spend your politician life on the back-benches as a perennial rebel, railing against not just the other parties but your own party. Despite being 66 we was, without doubt, the most inexperienced of all the leadership candidates in the skills needed for an effect leaders of a political party, lets alone a PM.

[jakswan]

Not sure if you are a Labour member and understand the way in which selection occurs. Well I am (at least for now) and from my experience standing MPs are re-selected as of right unless there is a trigger ballot decision to the contrary. Only if that happens will there be a contest between the sitting MP and other potential candidates.

No not a Labour member, I'm a former Labour voter so will concede to your better knowledge.

And the membership that selected the MP in the past will, almost certainly, be the same people who will reselect him or her in the future. Why, just because there is a different leader would they suddenly chose to kick out an MP they previously supported. And that is not-withstanding the new members.

Why because most of those new members are likely to be 'armchair activists' - happy to vote in a leadership election, but very unlikely to actually take part in anything else.

And I speak from experience - my local branch (like many others) has seen a (on paper) massive increase in membership. I think something like 30% or more increase. Yet talking to friends who have been the mainstay of the local party for years (councillors, election agent etc etc) how many of those new members have put themselves forward to deliver leaflets, to stand as candidates, to go out on the doorstep and canvass - effectively zero. How many even had the get up and go to attend the regular local branch meetings - exactly zero.

So will the mainstay of the party (who I presume sit somewhere to the right of Corbyn) be happy to volunteer to a party that no longer represents their views?

Try it this way - in the mid 1990s there was a similar massive surge in members - largely Blairite centrists, who would never have joined in the 1970s and 80s. Did these new members kick out non Blairites, such as Corbyn himself under the same rules - no they didn't. He continued to be supported by his consistency, just as (I have little doubt) Hilary Benn will, and Liz Kendal, and Chuka Umuna - even though each of those MPs strongly disagree with Corbyn.

Corbyn and MacDonald were irrelevant prior to Corbyn's victory, Galloway and Livingston had no where to go. If the Tories go to the centre Benn, Kendal and Chuka have options.

[ProfessorDavey]

So will the mainstay of the party (who I presume sit somewhere to the right of Corbyn) be happy to volunteer to a party that no longer represents their views?

There is a distinct possibility. From my experience the people pounding the streets prior to the 2015 general election were largely the same people pounding the streets in support of Brown in 2010 and Blair in 97, 01 and 05. They aren't Corbynites. There are of course other members - some new since the summer and others from the left of the party who refused to be active in the latter Blair years and Brown/Miliband because they left they were too right wing. Many of those will have voted for Corbyn

Of course they could take up the mantle, but there is little evidence that they are - for long-standing members who aren't active any more I think it is difficult to persuade someone who 'did their time' years ago, to return to leafleting and canvassing. I've had that conversation many times and with little success. And then there are the new members - my perception is that they are largely 'armchair' - happy to vote in a leadership election, to talk the talk about a new politics, to share stuff on Facebook, but when it comes down to real, old fashioned politics (which is what wins elections) are they really going to regularly do a leaflet round of 300 houses, or go out on a Sunday morning in January on a listening canvass. Hmm, I'm not convinced.