Red on Red, Labour implode

[Hope]

1: He supported remain and tells us he voted remain

He may have stated that he was going to vote to Remain, but it is clear that he has been antagonistic to the EU for many years, and whenever he spoke on behalf the Remain campaign he had to check his notes when encouraging people which side to vote for.  If he was fully in favour of remaining, he wouldn't have needed to do that.

2: Corbyn cannot be trusted to tell the truth but Keunsberg can be trusted not to try and influence events and show impartiality......Who is seriously deluded Hope?

Keunsberg doesn't have the influence that some would like to believe.

3: Eventually Brexit coverage and Corbyn coverage will not come out as the Corporations finest hour.

I suspect that, in time, their even-handed coverage of both will be seen to be just that.  It might not be as thrilling as some of the coverage of the events that we have seen from some other media outlets.

[jakswan]

No since Jeremy Corbyn's leadership was status quo and they didn't have a leader in mind.

Where is this rule book you are reading from?

The rest of your post was too Vladish for me, try again in English?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is this rule book you are reading from?

The rest of your post was too Vladish for me, try again in English?

Don't you mean Swanglish?

[ProfessorDavey]

Won't the voters just cease to be voters?

And that is, of course, the most important job in opposition. To prevent losing your existing voters and to persuade those who previously hadn't voted for you to do so.

Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.

That is the SWP idea of a small sharp axe is better than a big blunt one. That may be ok for Dave Sparts who don't seriously want to be in power, it is not a position that the leader of HM Opposition should take.

[jakswan]

And that is, of course, the most important job in opposition. To prevent losing your existing voters and to persuade those who previously hadn't voted for you to do so.

I don't think that is a given, I think the most important job in opposition is to hold the government to account.

Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.

When asked he claims to have momentum (pun) from election wins, not that I agree but that is what he claims.

There is a hard left\romantic idealists political group in the UK, they feel under-represented, controlling the Labour party makes sense to them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think that is a given, I think the most important job in opposition is to hold the government to account.

To hold the government to account is the roll of all of parliament outside of those actually in government, hence stuff like select committees. The specific role of an opposition (if they are any good) is not just that but to present themselves credibly to win the next general election and to do so requires them to improve their electoral position by gaining new votes and not losing existing ones.

When asked he claims to have momentum (pun) from election wins, not that I agree but that is what he claims.

Where - he has won a couple of locked on solid Labour seat by-elections. He hasn't gained any seats in a by-election (not that he has had any opportunity). He lost council seats in May, when any opposition with a serious chance of winning a forthcoming general election should have been winning loads against a second term government. He was trounced in Scotland, being beaten into third place by the Tories, lost ground in Wales.

The one and only impressive result is London - but frankly that was in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.

There is a hard left\romantic idealists political group in the UK, they feel under-represented, controlling the Labour party makes sense to them.

Indeed, but I've never had time for that view. I want the Labour party to be a strong, pragmatic centre left party that can reach way beyond the hard left ideolists - one that attracts voters to consider that they would be a good government and to vote accordingly. Ultimately any number of sterilise political meetings debating ideological points doesn't change anyone's life. Nor going out on a protest and holding a placard. Nope in politics you change people's lives by getting elected and actually being able to implement change.

But that las point is the crux - the hard left idealists are terrified of actually having power, because they'd have to do stuff and they'd be held accountable for it.

You can tell that I've spent far too much time in the company of SWP members who left the Labour party in the 1990s to keep their ideology pure

[Jack Knave]

Given that you seem to be incensed that I hadn't replied to that part of your post, I shall.

Who pays the salaries of the British representatives in the European parliament and on the commission? Well the UK tax payer does, in exactly the same way as they do for Westminster representatives. Where do you think the money comes from to pay them, JK. Do you think it is magically conjured out of thin air. Nope the costs of the EU are paid for by tax raised at member state level.

The two bits in my post were part of a single point or statement. They went together, and so could not be answered separately.

Unless I am grossly mistaken the EU isn't a tax raising body.

No it's worse than that it is a tributary system of servility.

[jakswan]

To hold the government to account is the roll of all of parliament outside of those actually in government, hence stuff like select committees. The specific role of an opposition (if they are any good) is not just that but to present themselves credibly to win the next general election and to do so requires them to improve their electoral position by gaining new votes and not losing existing ones.

That is your opinion.

Where - he has won a couple of locked on solid Labour seat by-elections. He hasn't gained any seats in a by-election (not that he has had any opportunity). He lost council seats in May, when any opposition with a serious chance of winning a forthcoming general election should have been winning loads against a second term government. He was trounced in Scotland, being beaten into third place by the Tories, lost ground in Wales.

The one and only impressive result is London - but frankly that was in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.

I agree but Corbyn doesn't, this refutes your earlier assertion "Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept".

Indeed, but I've never had time for that view. I want the Labour party to be a strong, pragmatic centre left party that can reach way beyond the hard left ideolists - one that attracts voters to consider that they would be a good government and to vote accordingly. Ultimately any number of sterilise political meetings debating ideological points doesn't change anyone's life. Nor going out on a protest and holding a placard. Nope in politics you change people's lives by getting elected and actually being able to implement change.

True but whilst you argue for the centre left others argue a different way, I would suggest that whilst there are more centre left voters, there are less centre left activists. Actually i don't know that but if that is correct then the centre left will lose the Labour party and have to find a new home.

But that las point is the crux - the hard left idealists are terrified of actually having power, because they'd have to do stuff and they'd be held accountable for it.

I suggest you are overreaching here, not all are like that, many of their supporters are though! (eyes Gonzo)

You can tell that I've spent far too much time in the company of SWP members who left the Labour party in the 1990s to keep their ideology pure

No doubt!

[ProfessorDavey]

True but whilst you argue for the centre left others argue a different way, I would suggest that whilst there are more centre left voters, there are less centre left activists. Actually i don't know that but if that is correct then the centre left will lose the Labour party and have to find a new home.

I'm not sure that is true.

Certainly in my experience the activists tend to be more centrist than the wider membership - certainly post Corbyn. Round my way I hardly any of the main activists - the ones who actually do the hard work - are Corbyn supporters. And I think that makes sense, because most of the people who are prepared to spend vast amounts of their free time as councillors, or delivering leaflets, or canvassing etc etc do so because they want more than anything to win elections. And they understand that you can't do that from the extremes.

Those members sat at home fighting their armchair revolutions may well be hard core Corbynites, but they aren't activists.

[ProfessorDavey]

So today there is a new PM after yet another astonishing 24 hours.

Corbyn has been officially challenged as leader of the Labour party.

And what is he doing to demonstrate his leadership throughout these unprecedented turbulent times ...

He is addressing the Cuba Solidarity Campaign - I mean WTF.

You couldn't make it up.

[jakswan]

I'm not sure that is true.

Certainly in my experience the activists tend to be more centrist than the wider membership - certainly post Corbyn. Round my way I hardly any of the main activists - the ones who actually do the hard work - are Corbyn supporters. And I think that makes sense, because most of the people who are prepared to spend vast amounts of their free time as councillors, or delivering leaflets, or canvassing etc etc do so because they want more than anything to win elections. And they understand that you can't do that from the extremes.

I'm defining an activist as someone who will join a party, don't really care what you call them.

Those members sat at home fighting their armchair revolutions may well be hard core Corbynites, but they aren't activists.

Fine lets call them armchair whatever, assuming this goes the distance you have a fight:-

1. Number that will join and vote from hard left\idealists.
2. Number that will join and vote from centre left.

I'm betting there are more of 1, you?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm defining an activist as someone who will join a party, don't really care what you call them.

Anyone who is an activist knows the difference between an activist and just a party member. Typically of your membership perhaps only 10% will be activists.

In the leadership election constituency parties can formally endorse a candidate and this will involve the core activists (the committee and members committed enough to turn up to a meeting). Last year Corbyn was nominated by 25% of the constituency parties. Now that's clearly a lot, but rather less compelling than the 49% of the member votes he got in the actual elections.

So that's pretty clear evidence that, certainly last year the activist block was rather more centre-ist than the wider membership.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fine lets call them armchair whatever, assuming this goes the distance you have a fight:-

1. Number that will join and vote from hard left\idealists.
2. Number that will join and vote from centre left.

I'm betting there are more of 1, you?

Yes you are probably right - but here lies one of the other divisive features of the whole mess. So Corbyn is completely at odds with his parliamentary party, but he also has far less support amongst the actual activists out in the consistencies - those that do the work. His core consistency are the armchair revolutionaries, and that really irritates the activists - nothing that a tireless party worker hates more than another party member who is quick to spout their views but won't deliver a single leaflet, knock on a single door and wouldn't be seen dead standing as a councillor.

[jakswan]

Anyone who is an activist knows the difference between an activist and just a party member. Typically of your membership perhaps only 10% will be activists.

In the leadership election constituency parties can formally endorse a candidate and this will involve the core activists (the committee and members committed enough to turn up to a meeting). Last year Corbyn was nominated by 25% of the constituency parties. Now that's clearly a lot, but rather less compelling than the 49% of the member votes he got in the actual elections.

So that's pretty clear evidence that, certainly last year the activist block was rather more centre-ist than the wider membership.

Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.

[jeremyp]

Norway is still partially in the EU and subject to its madness, such as free movement.

Norway is not in the EU. Look at the list of states in the EU, you will not find Norway on it.

And why do you characterise the ability to move freely taking jobs wherever you like as being madness? Surely a freer world is a better world.

Anyway there's an existential crisis going on in the EU caused by our referendum. The knives are coming out for 'Caesar'.

Yes, our stupidity (your stupidity - I keep forgetting I voted against the idiocy) is in danger of destroying the greatest project of cooperation between sovereign states there has ever been. They're not going to thank us for that.

[jeremyp]

Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.

You mean "lost".

The war is not meant to be for who has control ,of the Labour party but who has control of the country - the people or the corporations. A hard left Labour party is never going to challenge the Tories.

[jakswan]

You mean "lost".

The war is not meant to be for who has control ,of the Labour party but who has control of the country - the people or the corporations. A hard left Labour party is never going to challenge the Tories.

Semantics, I agree but they can't win a GE the hard left disagree with us both, Corbyn genuinely believes he can win.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.

There are three battles, the leadership, the PLP and the CLPs.

Currently Corbyn has won the leadership (whether that remains we may see today), the PLP is currently massively lost (hence the overwhelming vote of no confidence). The CLPs is perhaps the most interesting battle ground, with a view that winning the CLP battle will ultimately result in winning the PLP battle as centrist MPs are deselected and replaced by Corbynites.

Now I think that will be much harder than many imagine. First CLPs tend to be very loyal to their MP - even if they are somewhat ideologically at odds with the membership in that constituency. There is a kind of equivalent to the 'I kind stand tories, but my mate who is a tory is great'. So given that the constituency will have worked together with the MP to get them elected (perhaps several times) they tend to be rather loyal and supportive. Don't forget that the membership will likely know the MP well, have socialised with him or her, perhaps visited Parliament with them and will be, to an extent, in awe of the notion that this person is an MP. Coupled with that, most MPs tend to be be pretty hard working so they tend to command respect in their local party for their position and hard work, regardless of their ideology.

So I don't think it is at all a given that the Streatham CLP would deselect Umunna, nor Leeds Central deselect Benn, nor Stoke central deselect Hunt.

And there is another point - to deselect their sitting MP the CLP would need to select someone else - and they have to agree. Almost by definition this will be someone much less experienced that the obvious candidate (their sitting MP) and likely there would be no one person commanding universal support as an alternative to the sitting MP. I've seen this myself when a sitting MP decided not to stand again and all hell breaks lose between rival factions.

The final point is about actual electability. Again, by definition a sitting MP has been popular enough amongst the wider electorate to be voted in - and in most cases there is an incumbency bonus, in other words a sitting MP gains perhaps 1000 votes extra on the basis that they are simply the current MP, with high recognition factor, plus some level of personal vote from people they've helped who might not otherwise be natural supporters. CLPs know this very, very well so they run the risk that by deselecting their sitting MP (an election winner) that they lose that bonus, plus hack off a portion of the wider electorate who don't understand why are few extreme activists are preventing them from voting for their popular MP and putting up someone they don't know or trust instead. Result, in the more marginal constituencies - deselect your sitting MP, replace with a Corbynite and end up with a tory MP, or a UKIP etc after the election.

[jakswan]

There are three battles, the leadership, the PLP and the CLPs.

No, whilst the primary role of opposition is subjective, I have no doubt that the centrists regard their primary role as to form a credible government. If the leadership is lost then how can the Labour party form a government, they won't even be able to form a credible opposition!

If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.

Won't be decided today either both sides will go to court.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, whilst the primary role of opposition is subjective, I have no doubt that the centrists regard their primary role as to form a credible government. If the leadership is lost then how can the Labour party form a government, they won't even be able to form a credible opposition!

If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.

A glance at history suggests that's not the only way. In the early 90s Labour was taken over by the hard left and a new party was formed of the centrists - that didn't turn out so well did it and eventually Labour clawed its way back to the centre ground and began winning elections again.

So you are right that Corbyn might cling on now, but if he is soundly beaten in a general election it will be very, very difficult for him to hold on, nor to make any kind of credible case for positioning themselves on the hard left. There will be a re-appraisal and the party will begin to track back toward the centre. This seems to be the way of things - a kind of cyclical movement. We've seen it in Labour, we've seen it in the Tories too.

Won't be decided today either both sides will go to court.

Perhaps, but given the unprecedented number of unexpected events over the past few weeks I wouldn't bet on it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Semantics, I agree but they can't win a GE the hard left disagree with us both,

I certainly think there are some on the hard left who have so lost touch with reality that they genuinely believe that.

Corbyn genuinely believes he can win.

However I don't think that Corbyn is one of those people. I don't think he really thinks he can win a general election, he isn't that out of touch and lacking reason. I expect that he fully understands that the results he has been getting are way off what he would need to be doing at this stage in the cycle in opposition to have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020 (or earlier). But his key goal is ideological purity rather than the pragmatism needed to place yourself in a position to persuade 37% plus of the electorate to vote for you.

[john]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36773355

What chance of any sort of settlement in the Labour Party now violence has broken out between the factions. We've never seen anything like this in recent times.

[jeremyp]

If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.

So you're ruling out the Lib Dems then.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you're ruling out the Lib Dems then.

He is also ruling out Corbyn eventually going (perhaps following a catastrophic election defeat) and Labour moving back to the centre ground.

Either seem equally likely as being successful as a new party forming which is sufficiently popular to win an election.