Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Gremlin]

Smith saying he/Labour will challenge the article 50 thing (if he wins) will **** off a lot of the Labour root supporters.

Not to mention his own constituents.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The government have had very little legislation pass through parliament without being watered down or scrapped. That has come to a halt since the party leader has been made to fight another leadership election. Whatever you think of Corbyn it is generally agreed that he will win this second leadership election and the only effect this election will have will be to reaffirm his support from the membership, publicise the disunity in the party and give the Tories 3 months to do whatever they want.

The promotion of Smith to leader contender shows that the challenge is half arsed - he has been an MP for 6 years, few people had ever heard of him and despite the low level of coverage they get he makes as many 'gaffs' as the likes of Corbyn and Boris Johnson.

The Tories can do what they want right now because the leader of the Labour Party is being made to reapply for his job and be involved in numerous lengthy televised debates.

Wow.

Do you really believe Corbyn was being an effective Leader of the Opposition prior to the leadership challenge? Do you really think that if he wins the leadership challenge he will all of a sudden become an effective Leader of the Opposition and that is the only thing stopping him?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Wow.

Do you really believe Corbyn was being an effective Leader of the Opposition prior to the leadership challenge? Do you really think that if he wins the leadership challenge he will all of a sudden become an effective Leader of the Opposition and that is the only thing stopping him?

Wow?!!
Depends how you define effective - he has been in the job for less than a year and in that time Labour have won big elections in London, Sheffield, Bristol, Oldham and in some with increased majorities, the government have had to water down or abandon major legislation and the Labour membership has nearly doubled and I think I'm right in saying their membership is now more than all other UK parties combined. So taking those major things into account - if the party were sensible they would accept that the leader is elected by the members and though his brand of socialism may not be their brand of socialism they are better off working with it and trying to adapt it rather than confront it and in doing so confront maybe 400,000 of the membership.
Will Labour decide to use the strengths to their advantage and work on reducing the weaknesses? Probably not. And will that affect how effective the opposition is - most definitely.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Wow?!!
Depends how you define effective - he has been in the job for less than a year and in that time Labour have won big elections in London, Sheffield, Bristol, Oldham and in some with increased majorities, the government have had to water down or abandon major legislation and the Labour membership has nearly doubled and I think I'm right in saying their membership is now more than all other UK parties combined. So taking those major things into account - if the party were sensible they would accept that the leader is elected by the members and though his brand of socialism may not be their brand of socialism they are better off working with it and trying to adapt it rather than confront it and in doing so confront maybe 400,000 of the membership.
Will Labour decide to use the strengths to their advantage and work on reducing the weaknesses? Probably not. And will that affect how effective the opposition is - most definitely.

Sorry, thought I said Leader of the Opposition not leader of the Labour party:unsure:

Labour membership being boosted by Trots returning to the party or Tories signing up to sabotage Labour is neither here nor there when it comes to the running of the country. The victory of a London mayor who had to distance himself from Corbyn during the campaign is hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn either, but as that has nothing to do with being an effective Leader of the Opposition we can let that slide, like you did the car crash that is Labour in Scotland.

If the party were sensible they would accept that their MPs, who are incidentally elected by the country and hold a far wider mandate between them than Corbyn, have cottoned onto the fact that Corbyn is useless and find a replacement who can better hold May to account. Surely there's got to be someone vaguely competent in Labour?

 

[callan]

Sorry, thought I said Leader of the Opposition not leader of the Labour party:unsure:

Labour membership being boosted by Trots returning to the party or Tories signing up to sabotage Labour is neither here nor there when it comes to the running of the country. The victory of a London mayor who had to distance himself from Corbyn during the campaign is hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn either, but as that has nothing to do with being an effective Leader of the Opposition we can let that slide, like you did the car crash that is Labour in Scotland.

If the party were sensible they would accept that their MPs, who are incidentally elected by the country and hold a far wider mandate between them than Corbyn, have cottoned onto the fact that Corbyn is useless and find a replacement who can better hold May to account. Surely there's got to be someone vaguely competent in Labour?

Come on Yorkie....give us a clue who?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Come on Yorkie....give us a clue who?

Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis appeal to everyday people which is probably why they don't go anywhere near the current balls up of a leadership.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

There's a very funny story brewing around the Labour conference over a botched tender for security, where it looks like the conference security is going to have to be provided by a company one of the labour Unions paying for the conference is boycotting. To attend all delegates will be crossing a picket line!

It's like Labour have elected Barna.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

There's a very funny story brewing around the Labour conference over a botched tender for security, where it looks like the conference security is going to have to be provided by a company one of the labour Unions paying for the conference is boycotting. To attend all delegates will be crossing a picket line!

It's like Labour have elected Barna.

It's not really brewing, it was news a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Sorry, thought I said Leader of the Opposition not leader of the Labour party:unsure:

Labour membership being boosted by Trots returning to the party or Tories signing up to sabotage Labour is neither here nor there when it comes to the running of the country. The victory of a London mayor who had to distance himself from Corbyn during the campaign is hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn either, but as that has nothing to do with being an effective Leader of the Opposition we can let that slide, like you did the car crash that is Labour in Scotland.

If the party were sensible they would accept that their MPs, who are incidentally elected by the country and hold a far wider mandate between them than Corbyn, have cottoned onto the fact that Corbyn is useless and find a replacement who can better hold May to account. Surely there's got to be someone vaguely competent in Labour?

Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party are the same thing. But I accept your apology (despite not really knowing what you are apologising for).


Labour has over half a million members - how many Trots do you think exist in the UK? Them and Tories (!) joining the Labour Party do not equate to more than a handful - even if you do go along with that Daily Mail line of thinking you need not worry as the party machine is operating along these paranoid lines and rejecting applications from former members of SWP and even going to the lengths of rejecting people who have expressed support for the Greens in their social media musings. I have seen rejection letters for that very reason.


If you are willing to go along with the line that the extra quarter of a million members are Trots and Tories then you will fail to understand where the drive of the party is currently coming from.


And membership is very much here and there when it comes to running the country as that is the main thing the party has going for it. After years and years of falling voter turn out we have one party in this country that is attracting people that fell out of love with politics. Labour can go on making the same mistake of trying to win the middle ground or trying to win over Tory voters but the biggest untapped source of votes is the people that don't vote - those are the people that Labour can win over.


If a sizeable proportion of the Labour membership are active then more votes are canvassed, more voters knocked up on polling day.


Sadiq was slated every morning and evening in the London free press and slander stated in the Commons by Cameron and Fallon were reported as if fact. The Tories targeted specific ethnic groups to plead with them to fear the Muslim. Vote Kahn Get Corbyn said the Evening Standard front page. And he won. London was won back from the Conservatives despite all of their advantages and what did Sadiq have that Zac didn't? Thousands of members doing the donkey work, grafting for a Labour victory.


So it may not fit your mindset of how politics works but the way I see it is the way forward for Labour is the membership. Miliband was constantly slated in the Tory press and lost. Kahn was constantly slated in the Tory press and won. The main difference was not in policy or personality but in the doubling of the membership that came with Corbyn. That's how I see it and that in the route to effective opposition - bottom up. And Labour have a...erm......very big bottom.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

 

[rigsby]

what did Sadiq have that Zac didn't?

A personality.

Zac Goldsmith came across as a very wealthy Tim nice but dim. With his uncle Boris having to hold his hand he was a disaster.

The next election will be fought on Brexit....Labour could end up in third place.

 

[Benfleet A1]

what did Sadiq have that Zac didn't?

A personality.

Zac Goldsmith came across as a very wealthy Tim nice but dim. With his uncle Boris having to hold his hand he was a disaster.

The next election will be fought on Brexit....Labour could end up in third place.

No they wont.

 

[Uncle Leo]

So it may not fit your mindset of how politics works but the way I see it is the way forward for Labour is the membership. Miliband was constantly slated in the Tory press and lost. Kahn was constantly slated in the Tory press and won. The main difference was not in policy or personality but in the doubling of the membership that came with Corbyn. That's how I see it and that in the route to effective opposition - bottom up. And Labour have a...erm......very big bottom.

The main difference is that Ed Miliband was running for the country and Sadiq Khan for London. Of course, London had a Conservative mayor for eight years, but that was due to Boris Johnson being an exceptional politician rather than any great love for the Tory party across London.

Full credit to Khan for winning that election, particularly in light of the rubbish thrown at him, but him winning London does not equate to Jeremy Corbyn having a realistic chance of winning a general election.

 

[Uncle Leo]

So it may not fit your mindset of how politics works but the way I see it is the way forward for Labour is the membership. Miliband was constantly slated in the Tory press and lost. Kahn was constantly slated in the Tory press and won. The main difference was not in policy or personality but in the doubling of the membership that came with Corbyn. That's how I see it and that in the route to effective opposition - bottom up. And Labour have a...erm......very big bottom.

The main difference is that Ed Miliband was running for the country and Sadiq Khan for London. Of course, London had a Conservative mayor for eight years, but that was due to Boris Johnson being an exceptional politician rather than any great love for the Tory party across London.

Full credit to Khan for winning that election, particularly in light of the rubbish thrown at him, but him winning London does not equate to Jeremy Corbyn having a realistic chance of winning a general election.

 

[londonblue]

Labour can go on making the same mistake of trying to win the middle ground or trying to win over Tory voters but the biggest untapped source of votes is the people that don't vote - those are the people that Labour can win over.

Mistake? They won three elections. Some mistake. They then had the car crash that was Gordon Brown and Ed Millibland. They lost those elections because of them and a very untimely worldwide crash that the tories managed to blame Labour for, not because of the middle ground.

Mind you, if GB and EM were car crashes where does that leave Corduroy? Train crash I suppose.

 

[Blueronron]

The main difference is that Ed Miliband was running for the country and Sadiq Khan for London. Of course, London had a Conservative mayor for eight years, but that was due to Boris Johnson being an exceptional politician rather than any great love for the Tory party across London.

Full credit to Khan for winning that election, particularly in light of the rubbish thrown at him, but him winning London does not equate to Jeremy Corbyn having a realistic chance of winning a general election.

Not sure exceptional politician is correct wording, more he had a good PR team behind to be one of "ordinary " people could relate to him
Dangling from a zip wire was one heck of a PR stunt, so was the Rugby tackle in the football match some years ago, very cleverly keeps him in the public eye as Good old Boris
He may have been a clever Politician in the way he waited to see which side he came out on Brexit, if true Cameroon offered him the world to change sides and yet he ends up in TM cabinet, maybe keep your friends close and your enemies closer

Would never call Boris an exceptional politician, just knows how to play the crowds

UTS

 

[Uncle Leo]

Not sure exceptional politician is correct wording, more he had a good PR team behind to be one of "ordinary " people could relate to him
Dangling from a zip wire was one heck of a PR stunt, so was the Rugby tackle in the football match some years ago, very cleverly keeps him in the public eye as Good old Boris
He may have been a clever Politician in the way he waited to see which side he came out on Brexit, if true Cameroon offered him the world to change sides and yet he ends up in TM cabinet, maybe keep your friends close and your enemies closer

Would never call Boris an exceptional politician, just knows how to play the crowds

UTS

I should be clear - I am not a fan of his.

I meant exceptional more in the sense that he is an exception. Can do ridiculous things like the zip wire but the reaction is "ah, good old Boris" whereas Ed Miliband gets caught looking odd eating a sandwich and is widely written off.

He can certainly play the crowds - he's also a right devious ****er.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

what did Sadiq have that Zac didn't?

A personality.

Zac Goldsmith came across as a very wealthy Tim nice but dim. With his uncle Boris having to hold his hand he was a disaster.

The next election will be fought on Brexit....Labour could end up in third place.

Third - so who would be first and second?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Mistake? They won three elections. Some mistake. They then had the car crash that was Gordon Brown and Ed Millibland. They lost those elections because of them and a very untimely worldwide crash that the tories managed to blame Labour for, not because of the middle ground.

Mind you, if GB and EM were car crashes where does that leave Corduroy? Train crash I suppose.

If I talk about making the same mistakes what would make you think that I'm taking about the three elections they won rather than the two more recent ones they lost?
Mistakes tend not to be associated with things you win.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The main difference is that Ed Miliband was running for the country and Sadiq Khan for London. Of course, London had a Conservative mayor for eight years, but that was due to Boris Johnson being an exceptional politician rather than any great love for the Tory party across London.

Full credit to Khan for winning that election, particularly in light of the rubbish thrown at him, but him winning London does not equate to Jeremy Corbyn having a realistic chance of winning a general election.

I'd have to disagree that Boris is an exceptional politician - as Mayor he made countless bad financial decisions and the nativity he showed in things like announcing a start date for the 24 hour tube but refusing to discuss the staffing of it with the staff reps - leading to a year delay. He was up against Ken who a lot of people had grown tired of. Boris' 'oh ****' face the day after the EU referendum and subsequent bailing on the leadership contest show him to be anything but an exceptional politician.


But he was deemed to be popular and Zac could be seen as a continuation of that - similar policies, similar background, and with Boris' full support. Sadiq had himself, a sense of having worked his way up to wear he had got, and masses of people connecting with the public on his behalf. That is the point I am making. Sadiq benefitted from the massive increase in party membership. The party should recognise that is a big advantage and something they have at their disposal right now and to turn their back on that for.....Owen Smith? That is crazy.