Yesterday was another tough day.
I wrote an honest opinion that suggested that the policy options that I have long proposed on this blog will not see the light of day under the current Labour leadership, whose views they seem to have influenced. As a result I suggested that leadership should now stand aside to give someone else the chance to deliver on those promises. Knowing that this choice would ultimately rest with the Labour Party membership, who seem inclined overall to share some of the opinions that I promote, I thought that an appropriate and measured suggestion since no party leader has any hope of winning an election without the backing of their parliamentary party.
I am sorry to say that many seemed to not read a word I said on policy, and appeared to only note any personal comment.
Others never got beyond the headline and declared I am now a Blairite.
I had hoped for better. I had presumed reasoned argument might be of benefit, and that policy was more important than person if it had become apparent that a person could no longer deliver, whether that was fair or not (and politics is not fair). Clearly that was a mistake on my part.
But let me reiterate.
I have not changed my opinion.
I remain firmly apolitical: I did not say vote Labour or anyone else yesterday, any more than I did before Jeremy Corbyn borrowed my ideas (as have others from several parties done in the past).
What I did was say that if those ideas, that I think serve the interests of those in greatest need in this country, then Labour might need to change leader and then make sure that whoever followed Jeremy Corbyn was committed to these ideas.
As a result some offered abuse.
Others just lied as to my motive.
In spite of that I will stick to my unchanged ideas on tax and economic justice, and to saying what I think without following party lines.That is what I have always done: for the record nothing has changed. As ever I will offer my honest opinion, which has rarely been the easy one.
But I will say I would really prefer that people do a little reading and thinking before commenting. And that where it is apparent that this has either not happened or that abuse is the sole aim of a comment then the delete button will be used without hesitation because I have not got the time available to moderate the intemperate outbursts of others just because I have, as wise people do when circumstances change, altered my apparent position.
Let me also add that for much of today I will be out of blog action. Please don't hurl abuse in that case because your comment has waited for hours to be published: I have a day job to do as well as this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’m afraid right now, I don’t see a realistic alternative. Sometimes you need to stand firm and face down seemingly impossible odds. I’m beginning to hear Tory friends expressing grudging admiration for his perseverance in the face of ridiculous and unfair pressure. There’s a narrative here that could resonate with the electorate.
There are no safe options.
Of course there are no safe options
But you can’t win from a divided party
That much is certain
True. But I find it difficult to see who could re-unite it, particularly given the calculatedly cynical way the challenge has been mounted.
I rally do not think it has been calculated or cynical
It would have been better done if it was
But you’re not going to win either if the party is solidly backing the wrong horse.
The problem here however is the serious issue of the democratic deficit.
In this I am speaking hypothetically, this view could be about any Party, because above all else, I am a democrat.
The “split” in the Labour Party is as follows –
a percentage of PLP MPs have expressed no confidence.
251,000 people voted for JC
200,000 people became members because of JC.
49% of the established members ie before the election, voted for JC
10,000 people turned up for the rally in Parliament Square to support JC (I attended – the emotion was palpable, and the anger raw).
over 200,000 people have signed the 38 degrees petition to keep JC
over 52000 people have signed the momentum petition to keep JC.
This is unprecedented.
To ignore this is tantamount to totalitarianism.
I would still say that if it was another party, because it is morally wrong, even though of course it would not upset me as much due to my political stance.
This is not totalitarianism
It is all about winning for the people who do not need a right wing government
Please, for heaven’s sake, look at the bigger picture
Why are you engaged in politics if you cannot
There has been a suggestion that the coup was planned and orchestrated though. I cannot vouch for the source personally, but the blogger says he can.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/27/labour-rebels-have-been-plotting-coup-since-april/
My view on the whole affair is mixed. I don’t know Jeremy Corbyn at all, and cannot comment on his management skills, but the timing of the attempt seems suspicious, and the change in comments from the resigning shadow cabinet members also rings hollow. For example, Angela Eagle has criticised Jeremy’s running of the campaign, yet just 10 days before the vote was full of praise (complaining instead about the lack of media coverage for anything but the “blue on blue” Tory infighting!) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/13/eu-referendum-live-labour-remain-campaign-final-10-days-vote?page=with:block-575ed486e4b0aa348f1cc33f
My worry is that, should Jeremy be forced to resign, there will be careful control of the nominations to ensure that a candidate the “moderate” wing of the party (read “right wing”, “Blairite”, “Bitterite” as you choose) would be happy with, ensuring there is no left wing candidate, meaning the policies you espouse would never get to see the light after all!
Difficult times!
I have no idea if things were coordinated – I am not at all sure it was based on what I hear
And yes I worry about the next candidate
But the question has to be asked about whether there is a desire for a viable alternative to Johnson
Further signs that the coup was managed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/
The article was dated 13th June, 10 days before the referendum. The sources specifically mention using a media storm to stage the coup, which reflects the events of the last few days.
While I don’t know enough about how vociferously Jeremy campaigned for a Remain vote (he was rarely in the media, and when he was it was always reported negatively, but that’s pretty much been the media line since he was elected), and as for the change of tone from Angela Eagle between 13th June (high praise for his efforts) and yesterday (resigning over him not doing enough)…
Maybe
But I still doubt it
And neither can a party win when the majority of its MP’s are behaving in such an undemocratic and appalling fashion.
You mean MPs are not allowed to express their opinions?
What a very odd democracy that would be
What would you call it?
Agreed. Question is, if he sounds again, will they knuckle down? And how long will this take?
I do not know
Bother. For sounds read wins.
Richard
The pragmatist side of me that trusts your judgement thinks you may be correct.
However I dont see why the PLP should be able to dictate to the party as a whole. Putcshes (is that the plural?)always leave a bad taste (or worse).
I agree with that
Nothing about this is welcome
Corbyn was always the accidental leader of the Labour party. He stood merely to make a point, not expecting to win and, very likely, not even really wanting the job. However, he found himself riding a tiger and he couldn’t get off. Corbyn might well be perfectly happy to step down if he felt that he could hand over to someone of similar views to his own, but if a Blairite leader is imposed, the Labour party is finished, if not for good, then certainly for a long time to come.
If that happens, you wonder with our electoral system who is going to be able to provide effective opposition. If austerity and neoliberalism continue unchallenged things can only get even nastier and that is a really horrible thought.
I think you are reading an old politics
I find myself in a stunned torpor just observing some of the developments in UK politics this last week. Go clean the car or nip to the shops and another sledgehammer development comes down and makes my jaw drop. It was remarkable that last Friday a British Prime Minister resigned his premiership and it only made item 3 on the TV news!
As for the latest developments in the Labour party, well… All I can say is some of the people being attacked for being ‘Blairites’ have been for years so left wing they cannot get themselves taken seriously on main stream media. Richard has for many years been excluded from the media limelight because his views have been definitely socialist in nature.
At times of decline and prolonged deprivation, people do polarise to the extremes, that’s not new news, but those people who feel pulled to one side or the other do need to realise that most of society remain centrists and will always be centrists. No party of either flavour can win a general election and implement a policy without those centrists. That’s why I’ve every faith that the Farage right will not ulimately conquer Britain nor will Jeremy Corbyn’s vocal group of followers.
Where does that leave the Labour party? Well, with a leader who is a very effective campaigner (on those issues he feels passionately about) but who is unable to take his parliamentary colleagues with him. If he cannot at least keep bottoms on seats in the Commons then he cannot take the country with him. He cannot hope to win over half the country if he cannot win over moderate Labour MPs. Therefore, like the Tories, the Labour party has a lame duck leader too!
One day soon the proverbial 100th Monkey will wise up to these thoughts but my fear is that it will be too late. If Jeremy was smart and decisive he’d realise the struggle to hold on to his territory is stopping his views and ideals from ever having a chance of becoming Government policy.
Thank you
‘nor will Jeremy Corbyn’s vocal group of followers.’
What’s not centrist about Corbyn;s proposals including his ideas that nationalisation could be based on ‘co-operative principles.’? There is nothing that would not be centrist about that except for the fact that you might not have noticed that the ‘centre’ has moved to the ‘right’
Julie, you say ‘No party of either flavour can win a general election and implement a policy without those centrists’ yet one of the most right wing governments in Europe was re-elected last year after some of the most extreme and socially unjust policies I have witnessed in my life-time.
Please explain that.
People were not offered an alternative
Done
Which is why I argued policy yesterday
I have immense respect for your thoughtful and measured comments. We country is in turmoil and feelings running high, sadly crowd pleasing rallies will not help solve the problems of Labour. I voted for Corbyn, and heard you speak at one of his hustings, so understood that your suggestions on policy were being supported by him. Sadly Corbyn has disappointed me and I have no confidence that he can govern, and believe that under his leadership Labour will resort to being a campaigning group. If Labour want to achieve a change to the UK for the better, then he must go. He may have gained adoration from the young graduates, but inspires no confidence from w/class voters. Corbyn may not “do personalities”, but voters do. His unspun, ordinary bloke persona may have been a welcome change, but now more than ever we need someone who can play hardball on an international,stage, and the thought of him trying his shtick on Merkel, Netanyahu, Putin, Clinton et al, is preposterous . Keep up the good work Richard, and thank you.
Thank you
The right are much worse
Whatever we think, Labour is in the grip of a process. Corbyn has to stand firm. Of he wins, he can sell the narrative of the naive campaigner thrice forged into a quietly confident, decent, principled and powerful leader.
The plotters have proved that they can’t shut up, so they’ll have to put up. We can only hope that if they win, they’ll find the intestinal fortitude to embrace am alternative to austerity.
Either way, despair is a mortal sin. The struggle continues
Start struggling for the people who need representation
‘they’ll find the intestinal fortitude to embrace am alternative to austerity.’
Unfortunately there is barely a scintilla of that. Just intellectual vacuity and Overton Window fear, that won’t do the job, nor will mentioning ‘immigration’ as many times as possible substitute for real ideas. Trying to pander to perceived populist views will come across as condescending and fail miserably -it has before and will again.
But Yes! The struggle continues, it’s what makes life meanigful.
‘He may have gained adoration from the young graduates’-how utterly condescending, if I may say so. Corbyns meeting were attended by people of all ages. I joined Labour at the age of 56. There wer plenty of people older than me who felt re-connected to labours roots and real purpose.
‘Corbyn may not “do personalities”, but voters do.’ I agree, Corbyn lacked real bite at times but the danger of ‘personlity’ as you call it in this era is that we get a sham like Johnson. After WW2 , Atlee was a softly spoken man, no stentorian tone. It is possible to have a softly spoken leader with others around to deliver the fire. Our reliance on ‘personalities’ has overtaken content and Corbyn could be a corrective to that -unless you want dumbed-down sheep as a public.
Attlee could never have been PM now. Let’s live in the world we have
‘ Let’s live in the world we have’
But that’s what we don’t want, nor do you. I think what you mean is:
‘Let’s start from where we are and work FROM there for change.’
I think Corbyn has started that by achieving quite a lot -chiefly that the right wing media need not be bowed down to anymore. That is a HUGE event and has not been recognised. If Labour returns to kissing its arse, well…we know the result.
We CAN work our way back to the Atlee phenomenon by stages -Corbyn has started it. We need ideas and occasionally big voices, they don’t have to be present in ONE person.
We can on,y start from where we are and where most people are is what I meant
Not sure I buy that “apolitical” bit.
Apart from your apparent dislike of the Conservative Party, taxation is, in itself, political.
I have a lot of Conservative friends
I quite regularly go for a drink with a Conservative councillir. We disagree on much. But I like him as a person.
The point I make is I am not party political
But of course tax is political
There is a difference
That is wonderful 🙂 We need more drinking in the pub with people who’s views we don’t share.
I totally agree with Will. This is the time to stand firm. Tories are divided as much as Labour. Are you saying they can’t win next election?
I’ve learnt so much from you Richard, but I think you’ve called this one wrong. Peace.
If I have called it wrong so have many others
The whole Party set up is in dissaray-I think we need to see that. I mean Westminster itself is in trouble and it is this ‘interegnum’ that we need to be very careful. Globalisation and international capital has rendered Parties near irreverent and brought them all to what Tariq Ali has called ‘The Extreme Centre’. This is the crisis we need to admit and face. Reforming th Labour Party and re-papering the cracks ain’t gonna do it because it’s like cleaning up a bit of pollution while not addressing the source from which it is gushing.
The political class has become irrelevant to a large degree and we now face a vacuum. It’s a dangerous situation but if politicians could face up to this it would help -for heaven’s sake it is finance capital that runs the world and politicians need to address it. Healey admitted as much in the 1980’s’ that government was becoming impotent.
Fascism is not a vacuum
It is real
I do feel that the Labour MPs have just about made JC unelectable – but it makes me furious. It feels like giving in to 2 year old tantrums. It hardly seems likely that if they mange to depose JC that they will elect someone on the left, hence we can assume that John McDonnell will also go along with any chance for your ideas being implemented, It will also lose all the good work they have been doing on policies.
I wonder at the impact on the electorate of all this – the dreadful lying campaign of the Referendum, and now rapid backsliding of many of those “promises”, now this debacle.
The final disillusionment of the young in politics?
I think you make some massive assumptions there
‘The final disillusionment of the young in politics?
Not just the young, I can assure you -I’m 56 and joined Labour for the first time after Corbyn’s ascension.
The left are a pleasant bunch
Richard, it seems that Corbyn and his core support have forgotten how our electoral system works. Someone needs to point out to them the ridiculous rules of the game but how they must be followed in order to win. You can’t successfully fight the electoral system as the opposition. The truth is no matter whether it was 4,000 or 10,000 in Parliament Square last night if Labour wants to win those voices must be largely ignored and the party must seek to attract the floating voters in middle England. Corbyn largely has electable policies that align with middle England voters it is Corbyn himself who is the problem. He is not prepared to do the things necessary to win. Being so principled makes for an honourable backbencher but a hopeless leader.
If we had PR the Corbyn Party could be great and would likely have my vote and that of many others . But we live in the real world not the fantasy world and the real world choice is a good chance of a centrist labour government or a certain left-wing Labour opposition. Corbyn has to go unless we are implicitly voting for Boris and the Tories.
Incidentally if the Tories go for Boris then they could very well be making the same self-indulgent mistake Labour made in picking Corbyn. Forgetting the rules of the game and picking the leader you like best rather than the one that works best in the system. Corbyn’s Labour is probably the only Labour that Boris’s Tories would be certain to defeat.
Agreed
Good points. The key question is, how badly is the system broken? With massive disenchantment with the establishment, have the rules changed? Is the priority to reconnect with voters? Or it’s this all a passing fad, and is it the PLP who understand reality? Either Corbyn or the PLP is wrong. Place your bets.
I think the PLP is saying Labour cannot get to where it needs under JC
It would be great if it could
But I realise it cannot
The problem with this coup is it looks too much like the coup that was always coming. It is the PLP saying to the members I know Jeremy has a huge mandate but actually we’d prefer someone else. The charge that Corbyn ‘failed to deliver Labour’ to the Remain cause is just nonsense – Nicola Sturgeon is one of the most able leaders in British politics and the SNP Remain/Leave split was the same as Labour’s. So the success of the coup comes down to the membership surrendering to the PLPs judgement. Given that there was a lot of talk about trying to get Corbyn out of the ballot I fear that the PLP already knows the most likely outcome of a leadership challenge. I fear also that the whole conspiratorial and ‘media friendly’ nature of the coup will play badly with the membership and whoever stands will be tainted by being involved with this. Things may turn out differently but I can see it ending up with a huge rift between the PLP and the membership which can’t be good just before an election. In politics it is generally not a good idea to be doing what your opponents want you to do in their wildest dreams and Labour has an unfortunate habit of doing precisely that at key moments over the last few years.
I am unaware as to whether this was a coup
What I do know is that the concerns about JC management are justified
“In politics it is generally not a good idea to be doing what your opponents want you to do in their wildest dreams”. Labour’s done this twice now. Once when electing Ed over David, and second when electing Jeremy.
I thought it was apparent you meant in terms of implementation so I sympathise if you have been subject to raw emotion. Not excusing that at all, but perhaps it can be rationalised. Labour Left (by and large that merely means mixed economy advocates wanting a base line of state involvement and putting a lid on greed) sense this is orchestrated to close the door on everything you and them hope for. But to be clear you do not deserve to be called a Blairite and they should stop and think.
Those who resigned have a horrendous combined CV in terms of potential to implement the solutions. Major had cooled on PFI and academies but New Labour revived and expanded such things which concreted in place a UK system that Blairites want to still support. And at all odds. Corbyn replaced by McDonnell is unlikely because of nominations, but New Labour want that carrot to appear possible because it will help them bang away at a portion of Corbyn support they presume will cave in.
Corbyn presents himself as the answer but he knows the reality is that he has to do that in order to lead to what evolves to be the answer, it being irrelevant whether it’s him, but crucial he keeps open the door for you and others to be involved in positive change, and it is that which New Labour want to change because they are driven to be in control of one of the two main parties. In a commitment to preserving unchallengeable neoliberalism in the UK through its dominance in both government and opposition.
Richard, The point your critics are making is that this is not about Corbyn but an obvious fight for the future of the Labour party between a right-leaning PLP and a left-leaning membership and Unions. If it’s about Corbyn, I’m quite sure he’ll have resigned long ago. He agreed to run in the first place as a standard bearer for change and he’s fighting on solely on that basis. By calling on him to go (even after McDonnell has made it abundantly clear that he will not stand) you’re effectively siding with the right-leaning PLP who trashed your economic views during the leadership election. There is no nothing to suggest that the PLP will come round to your views if they depose Corbyn.
As for the “Blairite” jibe, I think the term is used loosely to describe the PLP side of the fight. If one remembers that there is no real difference in economic thinking between Blair and Brown then calling Brownite Blair critics like Tom Watson “Blairite” as a shorthand term for a right-leaning PLP is not such an inaccurate term.
You’re clearly not a Blairite but on the current fight for the soul of the Labour Party, you’re on the same side as Peter Mandelson rather than Len McCluskey. I’m afraid, there is no middle course for anyone that intervenes.
Of course there are middle courses
To suggest I am with Mandelson is really absurd
Richard, You were right yesterday and I applaud you for setting out your position.
I rejoined the party due to Jeremy’s election. I wanted him to succeed and to help move Labour in a different direction. However, its become clear there are two insurmountable obstacles to him remaining in post: trust and competence.
Its clear after the referendum vote – and his largely flat performance – that the PLP do not trust him to engage effectively with the electorate over a prolonged general election campaign.
Secondly there must be serious doubts about whether Jeremy is simply up to it. Is he, or can he become, a truly inclusive, competent leader? Its plain he cannot pull the PLP along with him, his performances at the despatch box barely make adequate and his media presentation skills are sorely lacking. Like the media or not – and I accept they have been relentlessly unfair and negative towards him – you have to use it effectively to get your message across.
My feeling is that Jeremy has serious flaws that make him unsuitable to the role. Its not political. I pretty much agree with him on just about everything. It’s simply now down to whether he has the ability to be an effective leader.
Thanks
Pretty much word for word my position too. I have not met anyone so far who, knowing I was a Corbyn supporter, doesn’t remark on how John McDonnell has really taken to his job but Corbyn still looks uncomfortable, resentful of press intrusion (as I’d be but I’m not leader of the opposition and claiming to have my eye on being the next PM), and generally an unconvincing speaker. On that basis I suspect McDonnell would make a far better leader and be far more acceptable to the British public – as well of course to many Labour party members. But sadly I suspect he’s too loyal to Corbyn to put himself forward as a replacement when the inevitable vote of no confidence succeeds today.
John also has personal health concerns
Steve
100% agree with you. I could have written this.
Please continue to offer your opinion, Richard. The web world is full of noise and often seems dominated by those who shout loudest and think least. I (and I am sure countless others) value your integrity and insight. We need thinkers at times like these.
I am roughly the same age as you. When I did my History A level, I think I looked back at momentous times that my parents and grandparents experienced with an assumption that I would see nothing comparable in my lifetime. I now have a sense that this was wrong, such is the enormity of the crisis facing us.
For what it is worth, I think that you and Owen Jones are correct regarding the Labour Party, despite the anger this has provoked. I went with my 17 year old son to the Corbyn Rally in Nottingham (where we heard you too!) He is what I would describe as a ‘true believer’ moving on from Russell Brand to supporting JC and becoming engaged with political thought. I have been excited by the political and economic ideas of the Corbyn project and hoped that it offered a pathway to a better country. Significantly however, my wife – Labour supporting, unilateralist, internationalist, feminist etc – has not been engaged by Corbyn and remains uninitiated in terms of what his economic ideas mean.
Reluctantly, I have come to the same conclusion as you – that Jeremy Corbyn cannot command enough support in the country. I always did suspect that – like Owen Jones, I see – he was more John the Baptist than Messiah. Sadly, I share a sense that there is no obvious way out of the mess. I am deeply suspicious of alternative candidates ideologically. Have any of them been reading ‘The Joy of Tax’? Do any of them follow this blog? We will see…………..
Of course I remain deeply worried about the alternative
But I am sure the righ one is not a free ride for the far right
Then you must see that it is premature to throw Corbyn overboard when you haven’t seen the alternative. Corbyn won a mandate to change the status quo (not to wear the nicest suits and make the best speeches). Surely, members that voted for him (and know what he stands for) have the democratic right to choose between him and the alternative but his opponents don’t have a candidate, let alone a manifesto. The argument that “Corbyn can’t win the next general election” does not mean that the people that lost the last two can.
No one has ever been elected without the support of their MPs
True and if Corbyn renews his mandate his MPs would either back him or be leave. A new election is the only democratic way out of this quagmire. If Corbyn is forced out by a coup by the PLP (that couldn’t even garner Union support) without an election Labour will definitely lose the next election.
I am deeply suspicious of alternative candidates ideologically.-so am I , non seem to grasp what, in my view is happening.
They know they at not delivering effective opposition
His support among women seems to be quite low, several I know have the same view “scruffy” “shifty-eyed” “never looks at who he’s talking to”
I like the guy!
At the end of the day, labour has few likeable and politically-acceptable persons capable of the necessary role.
Richard you should ignore idiots who don’t bother to actually read what you say or respond with emotional outbursts to reasoned arguments – it’s one thing to read something, disagree with it and then explain the nature and source of that disagreement in reasoned terms but ad hominems and rants are something else. I come from a very different position and standpoint to yourself but I do like reading what you have to say, not least because it keeps my confirmation bias in check. I agree with you about Jeremy Corbyn, it isn’t a matter of his views, I don’t see the same complaints about John McDonnel because he is a pretty effective Shadow Chancellor. If you want to see radical left policies succeed politically it makes sense to have them advocated and fronted by someone who will do so effectively.
Like many other life-long supporters of the Labour Party, I agree with most of Coebyn’s policies and particularly, his principles. However, to be a leader you have to lead. To be a leader you have to inspire. To be a leader you have to communicate. Perhaps unfortunately, in the 21st Century, you cannot lead, inspire and communicate in the quiet, retiring unforceful way Corbyn does. If you are already inclined to agree with his thoughts, in sympathy with his ideals and in agreement with his policies, you will follow him. But the throng he needs to attract are those who are not already committed to his ideals but those who need persuading to follow them. In this age you have to communicate the benefits of your approach, the downside of the alternatives, the achievability of the aims and the light at the end of the tunnel. You now have to “sell” your policies, not just put them on the table. You may not like it, I don’t, but that is our life today if you want to succeed.
I was critical of your conclusion about the necessity of Corbyn leaving in the thread last night (which I’ve not had chance to view since, so I’m about 150 comments unread!), but certainly didn’t intend imply you were in any way involved the plotting against Corbyn.
I fear you may be correct that Corbyn will not be electable, but in my view, this is more down to the way the media and the right-wing of the Labour Party have behaved towards him from the very start as opposed to anything his group has or hasn’t done themselves.
We’re truly in a no-win situation here. If he goes, I can’t see any way that the victorious right of the PLP will take on any policies other than the Tory-lite and Austerity-lite rubbish they have already pursued, as with the benefit vote abstention debacle. If he stays, a split of the party is quite probable.
Corbyn has been criticised for adopting a bunker mentality, but then who can really blame him? It’s not paranoia if they really are all out to get you!
On balance, I think I’d probably prefer Corbyn to stay and show up the PLP for what they now are, regardless of the short-term consequences.
I heard a snippet of Margaret Hodge on the radio this morning, basically arguing that the views of Labour Party members weren’t of importance and claiming all the protestors were SWP or Momentum members, both described as far-left. I wonder if she actually believes this?
Margaret has done real street fighting with the BNP
We have not seen eye to eye on all issues but she knows how to beat the right and survive left wing challenge whilst doing so
Yes she probably does believe what she says and I would not agree with her
But she is right on electoral possibility – and she knows JC guarantees she will not have a seat
Offering an honest opinion is always a good thing in my view, and should only ever be countered by offering rational and logical responses because none of us have any idea of knowing whether any of our honest opinions are right, wrong or indifferent.
Corbyn may or may not be a good leader who can win elections for Labour, only putting him to the test in a general election can prove that to be right or wrong. He has already won one election “against all the odds” – which strikes me as the first sign of a good leader who can tune in to the issues resonating with the majority of their voting audience.
I really don’t think “leadership qualities” has anything to do with the resignations and rebellion within the PLP. The political game playing going on behind the scenes is entirely a power battle for the direction of policy within the PLP, nothing else in my view.
It is just yet another facade of playing the man rather than the ball, and I have absolutely no doubt which individuals are orchestrating this from the shadows.
No one wins when there parliamentary party opposes them
That’s a fact
To which I would also say that no party wins when the public despise them.
True
But it is Labour’s job to make sure that is true of the right, surely?
There is no doubt that a coordinated power battle is going on inside the Labour party, one that even Machiavelli would have been proud of for its self centred ruthlessness (on both sides no doubt).
But as the first “sober” and level headed Labour MP I have seen so far on this subject said today on the Beeb (I missed his name), he is abstaining from the orchestrated charade of the no confidence vote this evening because the Labour party has clear and agreed rules on the process for electing a new leader which requires 51 or more MP’s to put forward and support an alternative contender.
So Corbyn should rightly follow the rules of the Labour party, stick to his current mandate, ignore all of the calls for his resignation and await the new contender to appear.
As for potential contenders, I would start by looking at the 10 or so Labour MP’s who correctly judged the mood of the British public by going against the majority view of the PLP and supporting the Leave campaigns.
If Corbyn had followed his own instinct (and Macdonnell) rather than no doubt being forced to toe the party line then Labour would have been on the “winning” side and now with a much stronger argument to be part of the Brexit negotiating team.
Just my opinion of course but perhaps the following should put their names forward (as they clearly know how to be a winning leader!):
Ronnie Campbell – Blyth Valley
John Cryer – Leyton and Wanstead
Frank Field – Birkenhead
Roger Godsiff – Birmingham Hall Green
Kate Hoey – Vauxhall
Kelvin Hopkins – Luton North
John Mann – Bassetlaw
Dennis Skinner – Bolsover
Graham Stringer – Blackley and Broughton
Gisela Stuart – Birmingham Edgbaston
Most of them are alienators
Kate Hoey – that will be the one who paraded in a boat with her mate Nigel Farage. Along the banks of her multicultural, multi-ethnic constituency. As Jo Cox passed the other way…
I can respect and even agree with many of the criticisms of the EU, from say a Frank Field and possiby others, who as far as I can see stayed well clear of the nastier end of the campaign. However Im not sure I’d trust Hoeys judgement in the slightest after her de-facto support for his appallingly racist campaign. As an example of being able to compromise your principles, that takes some beating. Im surprised her constituency party have not been asking her some tough questions
I agree with you
No one wins when there parliamentary party opposes them
Do you mean, no party has ever won a general election when the leader is not backed by the MPs? But there won’t be any MPs then – just candidates. And who would be the candidates in the case we are contemplating? Would there be large number of candidates standing who were on record as not having confidence in their leader? It seems to me there are more uncertainties here than are being taken into account. Would Corbyn being re-elected leader result in some sort of Labour party split?
Very politely, I have better things to do than read such pedantry
Mann was incredibly effective in the PAC hearings which grilled Bob Diamond. I’ll never forget him questioning Diamond about the Quaker tripartite word motto (honesty/integrity/plain dealing) that was used when the bank was founded by the Barkley family. needless to say. Diamond didn’t even know this bit of his bank’s history.
Mann looked at Diamond, giving him an intense stare and said: ‘I think those words should be engraved on your knuckles.’ This combined with the gritty Yorkshire accent was a taste of what Labour should be, in my view, I’d support him. But he’s not a suited smoothey so……..
Are you sure you have properly appraised John Mann?
T be honest: No-I’m just splashing around a bit in desperation.
“Corbyn may or may not be a good leader who can win elections for Labour, only putting him to the test in a general election can prove that to be right or wrong. ”
There have been local elections and the referendum which showed that he is not up to the job. Lacklustre campaigning in the referendum is a sackable offence. Why Corbyn supporters do not see that, is beyond me.
Here is the thing, if this Momentum organisation is so great to organise a 10k demoinstration at 24 hours notice, why has it not helped to bring about major changes in perception of Labour in local election or for the EU referendum?
Or now, Tories on the ropes, that was a pathetic performance in the House of Commons yeaterday. And that would not have been any different if not all of his shadow cabinet had resigned. It would still have been useless.
The main point is, he could not carry the rest of the MPs with him, so that broad church did not work. How he thinks he can remain, (as he now definitely some far out left wing old style socialist having lost everyone else) is beyond me.
The lacklustre campaigning was a decision
I will be more than happy if the Labour party find and elect a leader who can re-engage effectively with their core working class supporters, which the last 20 years of Labour leaders have managed to alienate so much that they came pouring out of their housing estates last week to vote for Brexit instead of following the party line (many of whom are now more convinced that UKIP or the Tory right are looking after their interests).
So let that contender step forward, be backed by more than 50 MP’s, set out their stall and take up the fight. I am waiting and really looking forward to seeing this person present their policies and campaign to the Labour party membership and then the country at large.
Believe me I would like to see nothing more than a Labour party that can win elections again, but only if they are going to do the right thing this time for the people who have suffered so long under policies which were clearly never designed to be in their interest.
If nothing else Jeremy Corbyn will hopefully have been a wake up call to those who are little more now than the Pretenders Labour Party in Westminster.
Any leader knows that they have to do this now
I do not see how the Labour Party can survive in its present configuration. Most of its MPs, including my own, Angela Smith, who spoke out well against the loss of primary steel manufacture, are living in the past. They believe that if the left keep quiet, the electorate will back them in their acceptance of neo-liberal economics with more mitigation of its harmful effects on the poor. They regard increasing inequality, privatised public services and a shrinking welfare state as unavoidable, even, in some cases desirable. Both you and I, Richard, and many who post on your site, know that this is no longer the case. This is why I voted, as an affiliated supporter, for Corbyn. He is not a perfect candidate to lead a party into a general election, but who else do we trust to deliver the complete change in economic and social policy that is now imperative if we are to forestall the rise of Farageism/fascism.
He cannot beat fascism
That is my greatest concern
‘No-one not been selected without their MP’s’ support is because the while point of change is that we want to do want no-one has done or thinks can’t he done.
One vital aspect about current events is that democratic choice cannot he undermineepd or we are weakened when making the case subsequently to follow a mandated route.
Richard I wish to add that disagreeing with you on this should not cause a rift amongst those who broadly seek the same change nor does it dilute the respect and admiration you are due for your immense efforts and sincerity, and for a great many of us you remain an inspiration and provide a great bulk of the information and insight that fuels them. I note my earlier comment is still awaiting moderation and I fully understand if you have resistance to putting it up because I can feel your sense of despair that you come to a considered conclusion and it’s been jumped on by emotive reaction.
I am trying to clear vast numbers of comments whilst supposedly concentrating on a meeting I have to speak at
For heaven’s sake give me a chance
No worries Richard, it wasn’t condemning, or even stating any expectancy it should be up, just a question cos it was still queuing while other later ones put up.
While I’m unexpectedly back, noticed comment above that says you for Mandelson if against Corbyn and of course you are not and have every right to be annoyed at suggestion.
But therein lies the members’ fear borne out of decades if not having a voice against such tight-ship party control. Especially when we bear in mind the animosity between even neoliberals Blair and Brown and that this is the third out if three Blair successors where the same prime-movers have instigated a coup.
That in itself breeds a consideration that even small compromise loses all ground gained, helps perhaps explain why Corbyn support sees holding resolutely firm and an almighty battle as only option.
But whatever views we have we should certainly be able to swap them amongst ourselves as you have sincerely done by telling us what you now arrive at.
I try to make my comments helpful and supportive but Richard is only human and I worry about overloading him. I’ll restrict my comments in future. Can I urge all to think carefully before writing? There has been a lot of emotive rubbish of very low quality in the past few days. I shudder to think of those which do not get past Richard. I’m not sure how it can be done but if there is some way the load can be shared I offer my support. Richard please feel free to PM me if you think I can be of assistance.
Thanks Sean
People will just have to wait for me
Good job I van sypurvive on 6 hours sleep and the odd cat nap if needed
Richard,
Keir Starmer looks the part, I think he is aligned with Andy Burnham? Could he work with John McDonnell as shadow chancellor? How do we push for this?
We all need to ensure that there is a bold progressive vision that is for sure!
Well done for sticking to your views.
I was appalled at some of the knee-jerk responses on the previous blog – many of whom obviously could not get past any critique of Corbyn.
It is not helpful to assume that political and personal purity are the same thing as political management skills. Are Corbyn supporters seriously arguing that these are of no importance in politics – even after the last seven days?
Such people would readily spot and criticise this kind of siege mentality politics when it appears on the right. It’s the last thing we need now.
‘Keir Starmer looks the part’
‘Looks the part’ is about it. As DPP he obsequiously and vocally supported the further criminalisation and harsh treatment of benefit claimants found doing a bit of ‘cash in hand,’ at a time that the Tories were using the unemployed as a spitoon for public anxiety rather similar to the way immigration is now used by the Leave people. I’ve already posted on this but for those that have not seen it
I’d check out this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24104743
If he had any principles of social sutice he should have chosen resignation rather than mouth the Tory propaganda. On the same web page there is a clip of Owen Jones decrying the policies presented by Starmer. The man is despicable, in my view. But if he’s media friendly and takes a good photoshoot……then….
In many ways you are absolutely right, perhaps most of all when you put policy before personality. I admire your integrity, I admire the strategy, but just now I find your tactics… wanting.
Like you, I think of myself as a pragmatic idealist, like you, I see that these months will define the future for years and, like you, I trust Jeremy Corbyn but maintain deep skepticism in his ability to lead. Where we differ is in our analysis of Corbyn’s decision not to step aside.
Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy resulted in a rush to join the Labour Party from a population that feels overwhelmingly ignored by it’s leaders. Almost overnight this turned Britain’s primary opposition party from slash-and-burn-light into a tool to be used to bring about a more sustainable, more just future for this country. Now, for the nth time since he became leader, he is under attack from a Parliamentary Labour Party that offers nothing but more of the same: Tremollo rhetoric as cover for a race to the bottom in pursuit of the phantom largesse of the Corporate class.
If we take that last paragraph to be true, or at least a reasonable approximation of the truth (if perhaps a smidge more purple than was strictly necessary), then to call on Corbyn to quit is to abandon the project of changing Labour into a parliamentary force that represents the interests of the majority of the British people. Should he quit now it would be a betrayal of the first sniff of hope for the future that I’ve inspired since I made the mistake of believing in Tony Blair. I suspect that my lungs and I would not be alone in disappointment and so I suspect that if Corbyn quit now we would see an exodus of members who would disperse to smaller parties or rejoin the great mass of the cynical unheard.
Corbyn shouldn’t quit (oh please, please don’t quit). But the PLP absolutely should field a candidate that they think can win a general election who also represents something other than the pursuit of power naked of principle. The economic, environmental and social challenges we face are enormous and require deep and well thought out changes in the institutional structures that govern our lives. The PLP needs to take these challenges seriously and thus far, outside of Corbyn and his supporters, there is simply no evidence that it does.
So I wish that, rather than joining the powerful minority that are putting pressure on Corbyn to quit, (that powerful minority that shows no signs of change, that keep telling the membership that it’s confused, it’s unrealistic, it doesn’t understand, it’s radical and destructive) you had called on the PLP to show some sign, any sign, that they have a coherent plan for the deep changes needed and a leader that can deliver.
Because right now, with no counter offer, Corbyn is the only option.
And… well I run the risk here of going off topic so I’ll keep it short. Corbyn can win. In my view the mood of those on the losing end of the status quo isn’t centrist it’s radical. Everyone I talk to believes the system promotes liars and thieves, until recently they were largely disinterested because they thought that at least they were competent. That’s changing.
“I am trying to clear vast numbers of comments whilst supposedly concentrating on a meeting I have to speak at”
Oh god, I’m sorry, it looked so much shorter in the little box…
I tried with JC
You can’t say I didn’t
I saw the weaknesses
I saw no change
And I saw some of the chaos
And the failure to communicate
Lovely man that he is, JC can’t lead
So he cannot be the only show in town
You can say he is
But you let the far right in the longer you do
Thank goodness the comments on this blog have been so much less fractious than yesterday’s!
Ultimately, I find my conclusion very much like the vote I made to remain where I decided that, presented with two distinct options, neither of which were, in my view, optimum, I could do nothing other than vote for that which I believed “least bad”.
As disloyal as it feels to abandon Corbyn, a man of honour and integrity it seems to me, finding someone with the skillset to persuade lost voters to return to the fold so that there can be effective opposition to whoever emerges from the Tory bunfight (Fox! Hunt!)has to be the priority for the good of the people of this country.
However, the PLP has to understand that, if the new leader is just another economically illiterate supporter of Tory austerity lite, the end will be nigh for the Labour Party.
Thank you for sticking your head above the parapet, being prepared to take the flak and helping me clarify my thoughts. You deserve, and should take, a couple of days off to recharge.
In the middle of a four hour interview panel
No peace for me
38 comments to moderate….
My apologies!
Hope the panel went well and you ended up with a decent candidate.
On which point, at least the scale of the PLP rebellion/coup is now clear: 172 against; 40 for him.
Regardless of whether he’s betraying the membership by standing down can anyone, honestly, believe that he can continue. And if he does, he clearly isn’t leader of the PLP. I assume they’ll have no option but to elect their own leader, effectively splitting the Party in two.
Then again, by the time you get to post this comment the situation will probably have changed again.
(ps. I you want to relax and laugh at something this evening it’s worth watching Farage’s performance in the European Parliament today).
Great candidates
Fingers crossed
If Lanpbout is not a PLP what is it?
The recipe for a disaster in the making…
Wow! So much angst and hand-wringing. I think it needs to be placed into perpective as to how the country is socio-economically divided and how best to get a progressive government into power; one that understands how to deal with the main obstacles to social justice, economic equality, environmental protection, etc.
I think the Labour Party is no longer an effective vehicle for most people with a progressive agenda. There’s no going back to the golden post-war era, when there was a clear need for a political party to represent the majority of the country to get back on its feet after such devastation. The attempt by Tony Blair et al. to somehow or other mutate into a late 20th century version of the original failed ignominiously, for reasons well documented on this site and elsewhere. It said (New) Labour on the outside of the tin but the contents were – and still are – something quite different.
66% of society has moved on. The remaining 33% (not statistically accurate but used just as a general guide) will continue to be Tory voters, albeit slightly declining due to age. Their share of the vote has remained relatively constant over the decades between 33-45%. Due to our FPTP voting system governements rarely represent more than 50% of the electorate (in 1931 the Tories got 55.5% and came close in 1955 & 1959).
Anyhow, my point is that both major parties attract a declining share because their core voter profile has changed. Increasingly the traditional right-left option does not match voter preferences. There is a significant increase in people (like myself) who have a libertarian, less authoritarian preference both on the right and left – although the right-wing libertarians have high-jacked the word! But, in the end it’s a numbers game. And the numbers are on the side of non-Conservative voters, representing a potential 50% of the electorate, allowing for the smaller right-wing parties. With the revised English consituency boundaries it probably isn’t possible for the Labour Party to win a working majority in the future.
If there is one unifying factor it should be a proper understanding of how a fiat monetary system really works and unite against the Neo-liberal Austerity economic model. Add to that the need for STV PR. Neither should represent an insurmountable challenge providing the PLP doesn’t opt for anyone who is not prepared to fight tooth and nail for these issues.
Apologies for the rambling but the PLP needs to see itself in the context of its own history. As Richard initally suggested, the only way forward for progressives is via coalition. And by virtue of its size, Labour is the party to take the initiative. The time to start building that coalition is now while the Conservatives are in such disarray. No more navel gazing. It’s a sort of 1997 moment but hopefullythe lessons of the past have been learned. So much to say …so little time in which to say it.
Richard, I understand if you don’t get around to moderating until tomorrow! Don’t worry – we’ll all still be here posting our diverse thoughts and suggestions. I just hope the Labour Party can sort itself out with reasonable haste and move FORWARDS in the knowledge that it has to change its strategy if it’s not to become an ever declining force in the nation’s political landscape. So the new leader needs not only to be forceful against the power of the Right but also a co-operator to work with the smaller parties especially the Greens, SNP (?) & Plaid Cymru. If it was me I’d go the whole way and unite everyone under a new name. The Progressive or People’s Party.
As a parting shot, Richard Branson (not one of my heros) wrote a thought-provoking and relevant piece in the Indie – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-branson-brexit-voting-age-16-second-eu-referendum-petition-a7106911.html.
Under the Blair / Brown governments:-
> the rich and super rich took an ever increasing share or national income
> the tax rates of cleaners was higher than that of Hedge Fund managers
> the use of tax havens grew apace
> the tax gap was cavernous
> PFI deals polluted the public sector
> the overdependency upon financial services grew as industry decined further
> London and the South East became ever more dominant culturally and materially
> the North was allowed to degenerate, estates left to fester
> the regulation of the finance sector became lighter and lighter of touch
> the Gini coefficient was at a record high
> Sir Philip Green was knighted
And the people who populated the front benches and the ones calling for JC to resign are virtually one and the same. They are also the ones who allowed the Tory party to propagate the myth that the 2008 crisis was one of government overspending.
Yes the population became marginally richer but against a background of increasing inequality and with some communities being allowed to die.
There is no point in having a leader who can win elections if the policies of that leader do not benefit the whole of the country.
This country has moved to the right, the centre ground is now neoliberal, the right is now isolationist and nationalist in the worst possible sense.
Corbyn may not be ideal but, blimey, how can we trust the others?
Oh come on
Shall we allow for some lessons to be learned?
The piece below comes from ‘Labour Uncut’ (http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/06/27/corbyn-must-be-beaten-in-a-contest-mps-cant-exclude-him-from-the-ballot/)
It outlines clearly the plan – and the fact that we are locked in a conflict over the soul not just of the Labour party, but of the progressive wing of UK politics.
I have just had a conversation with my 30-something step daughter. Previously apolitical, she is immensely upset by the outcome of the election. I asked what it would take for her to engage with politics in the future.
Her answer was simple: “I want a party that represents my views, that talks to me in a way I can understand.”
Labour hasn’t done that. It sure as heck isn’t doing so now.
and we do need that.
So let’s EITHER get this battle over in the best way possible. OR agree a split and then a coalition.
Because what matters, is that there is a party for the many millions of people who want to celebrate a diverse, multicultural society with a focus on sustainability, equity and decency.
Corbyn must be beaten in a leadership contest. MPs can’t exclude him from the ballot
by Atul Hatwal
The first stage of the PLP rebellion has been executed well. The scale and pace of the resignations have demonstrated the level of breach between the leader and his parliamentary troops.
Now comes the tricky bit.
Once the motion of no confidence in the leader has been passed — current predictions suggest 80%+ PLP backing — the MPs are primed to attempt something disastrous: to keep Jeremy Corbyn off the ballot.
The mechanic will be MP nominations. Once the race is on, contenders need the backing of 35 MPs, a threshold Jeremy Corbyn could not hope to cross.
However, the rules are ambiguous as to whether he, as the incumbent, would need any nominations. Jolyon Maugham QC looked at the detail and, while no fan of Corbyn, concluded that he would be on the ballot automatically as leader. Legal firm, Doughty Street Chambers have come to the same view.
Apparently there is some contradictory advice with Iain McNicol, Labour party general secretary, but regardless of the legal he-said-she-saids, MPs should abandon this plan. It’s utterly mad.
Attempting a fix, so that the name Jeremy Corbyn isn’t an option on members’ ballots, is self-harming for two reasons.
First, the party in the country will tear itself apart.
Many MPs seem to have the insouciant attitude that the sole result will be several thousand Corbynistas leaving the party in a huff.
Wrong.
There will be full blown civil war across every level of the party.
Corbynista members will fight, in some CLPs literally. MPs’ might be feeling brave at Westminster, but the summer will be consumed with a grassroots campaign to get Corbyn on the ballot. A campaign that will be fought in MPs’ home CLPs, face to face, hand to hand.
If there’s one thing that would motivate Labour’s left-wing membership to full mobilisation, it would be this sort of action by the PLP.
This would be the only issue in the whole leadership campaign.
Second, the sainted Jez would get what he wants most of all: he would be turned into a martyr. No need for difficult discussions about his incompetence or lack of impact. No need to defend his inconsistencies. He would just have to be the wronged hero.
During last year’s leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn received virtually zero scrutiny in terms of his policies or platform. The reporting was all about the process of his left-wing insurgency.
Banning Corbyn from the contest would ensure he could reclaim this billing, running against the PLP and Labour establishment to get onto the ballot.
There would be little accountability for his disastrous tenure as leader.
After a few weeks of abuse from local members and with the threat of deselection looming, how many MPs would still hold the line? How many would publicly call for him to be put onto the ballot?
What do the MPs think that the likes of Len McCluskey and the union leaders will say? Beyond the activist cadre that they command, they are Labour’s primary source of funds — without them the party is broke.
When the threats from the unions to Labour’s future income became absolutely explicit and written in banner headlines across the news websites, when the member petitions had wracked up tens of thousands of signatures, who doesn’t think the NEC would buckle and put him back on the ballot?
After such a farrago, what chance is there that he wouldn’t romp home?
If, by some miracle, Corbyn was actually kept of the ballot, the narrative of betrayal would fuel the destructive anger of the hard left for years. They wouldn’t simply slink away but redouble their attempts at taking over constituencies and deselecting offending MPs.
The unions, who are backing Corbyn, would hardly be able to glide over the anger of their activists or their own opposition to the PLP’s fix, to hand over the money Labour needs to fight the next election.
The party would be impoverished and riven with division from top to bottom.
There is only way for centrists to beat Jeremy Corbyn and strengthen the Labour party: by winning a fair fight.
He needs to be on the ballot and a centrist candidate needs to beat him.
Only then will the talk of the mandate for hard left policies, from last year, be put to rest. Only then will the notion that the hard left represent the majority of Labour members and supporters be squashed.
Only then will Labour be able to move on from these disastrous past few months.
Atul Hatwal is editor of Uncut
I think the number of £3 members may skyrocket
I understand from sources close to party admin that over 10,000 fully paid up members have joined since Friday. This isn’t £3 supporters, this is full members.
There is a movement afoot
It seems to me that the best option now is for those who hate him to resign the whip and form their own party. We can then begin the process of refashioning the Labour Party for the 21st century, free of the tribalism and petty infighting that has marred the past days. It’s inevitable now. I truly don’t think we can stop it.
This then is about failing to fight the rise of the U.K. far right
I have to agree with you, It’s ultra imperative that the labour party come together and stop the threat of a right wing Tory government. I firmly believe this country has no appetite to elect a right wing Tory party, but if labour do not offer unity and unite around an electable leader there is a real chance this could happen by default.
From reading this blog, In my opinion it could not have been an easy decision for Richard to state his position on this, but the man he is, he had to, and as much as I admire Jeremy corbyn, but for the greater good, which should apply to this situation, the UK needs saving from the threat of a right wing Tory party, let’s win this battle then get on with fighting the real war the war against neo-liberalism.
“On Tuesday Cooper had warned that Corbyn had no alternative plan for the country’s post-Brexit future, in a speech in which she said she would not rule out standing for the Labour leadership should the position fall vacant” (Grauniad)
Quelle surprise et deja vue. The recycling of Tory ‘there’s- no- money’ Lite on its way – as predictable as a Swiss Clock.
So was the comment Simon
In seriousness: when so many are commenting can you reduce to no more than five a day to give me a chance?
As a further insight into what lay behind the Brexit vote and how to formulate future policy to address the outcome, I recommend reading this blog which takes a deeper analytical look at the rationale behind voter behaviour. It’s more complex than one might initially think, with useful information for the PLP – https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/looking-behind-the-brexit-anger.
Blog that is always worth reading in my opinion
What’s clear to me is that whoever labour chooses, they have to reconnect with the working classes, immigration has to be dealt with head on, we can’t see labour adopting the same tactics, those that would see them squirming whenever the topic came up. I truly believe if we had a leader that was seen to tackle immigration, had policies of investment, that’s real tangible investment in people and our infrastructure and could create a narrative around these issues it could possibly trump the rights argument of balancing the books. then I could see labour having a real chance of winning the next election.
I will ‘abandon’ Corbyn (to use the lovely terms of his friendlier detractors) when I honestly see another candidate with progressive, left-wing ideals, one who is a more powerful and dynamic leader than Corbyn, but who hold fast to same fundamental principles of democratic, libertarian socialism.
Corbyn has, due to his commitment to honour the beliefs and positions of other elected members of the PLP, given space and position to centre-right labour politicians in his government. He had to really, it’s part of his professed respected for democratic difference and voice. But now, things have changed. The PLP has deliberately tried to undermine and oust him; they’re made no attempt to work with him, and they blame him now for their failures to marshal a successful Remain campaign (seriously Benn and Johnson, what did you do?!) If Corbyn has achieved little it is because he has been denied every ounce of enabling political support, every modicum of unity needed to advance a leadership vision. And Corbyn being Corbyn has been disinclined to engage in an aggressive campaign against his enemies – so here he is.
So Corbyn may decide to step down or he may not. I certainly don’t believe that your arguments for the future of Labour’s election chances are worth anyone giving up their principles and voting for a ‘moderate’ candidate who will probably just re-enact the mistakes and persona of Miliband – and led to that Boris victory that you dread so much.
The point is, the centrist, middle England courting Labour the PLP fetishises so much was no more capable of winning than the imagined failure of a Corbyn election bid.
Essentially, there seems to me no sense in voting for a new leader without socialist principles in the hope that they may let in progressive ideas somewhere down the line – they wont. It’ll just be more anti-immigration mugs and vague statements about the legitimacy of welfare ‘reform’.
Personally, I’d rather see Labour schism into two new parties: one centrist and the other one radical (and inclined to work with other progressive political factions in a Podemos/Syriza style united front). And then it’s down to survival of the fittest. But I admit, that it might be possible for someone like McDonnell to take the reigns and avert this last eventuality.
PS thanks for taking the time to read and moderate my comment, Richard.
I think any candidate will be a compromise
The perfect one does not exist
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-manufactured-exclusive/
Have you read this per chance? People like Will Straw, Angela Eagle, Margaret Hodge are all acting in a thoroughly anti democratic manner and what’s more are also blatant and Shameless liars. Why are you acting as their cheerleader?
I am no in’s cheer leader
I have said – and I M right – that JC cannot win without his parliamentary party
Since that is glaringly obviously true stop eating my time
Yes. But the implication of the Canary piece is that it’s effectively Blair vs Corbyn.
Don’t get me wrong. I supported Blair (except on the wars on Iraq and Terror). His government rescued the NHS and did more for the people of this country than any other in my lifetime.
But his successors threw it all away when they wanted off into an internal orgy of an election and let the Tories shape the narrative for the next decade. Which they are doing again.
If it really is Blair vs Corbyn, why should the man with the current mandate be the one to blink?
I really think you overstate any influence for Blair
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate you and your impact. I have read all the comments (that you have had to moderate!) and just wanted to add that the struggle in the LP is no longer just about Jeremy Corbyn but is unfortunately also about LP democracy.
I understand your position and would agree that a compromise in order to fight the Tories is highly to be desired. However, I do not see any compromise being offered by those hostile to Corbyn. The offer is capitulation and it will trigger a mass exodus from the LP membership. Possibly, that is for the greater good. However, it is not easy to accept and I simply do not think that opposition from the ‘shadow shadow cabinet’ will be adequate.
I regret that you have been put to so much effort but delighted that you offer this forum for so much informed discussion.
I am sincerely hoping a compromise candidate will make very clear that Jeremy and John will have senior shadow cabinet posts as will many of those who served them
John as Shadow Chancellor would make a lot of sense still
Richard,
The problem as I see it is this-are the PLP and the Labour Party capable of change? In Scotland where I live, the majority have already giving up on Labour, seeing it as a Party that offers no new vision. I didn’t share that view. I have a real dilemma now. Nationalism and Xenophobia is taking grip both sides of the border. But the political norm in England is swinging to the extreme right. SNP who a very good political players, seem like the voice of reason. Whether they are sincere in their version of left wing politics I don’t know. But I’m beginning to think they offer a more realistic option. If the Tories win the next General election, I think we can kiss goodbye to the UK and Labour will have even less chance of getting into Westminster.
Can the Labour Party change to a more progressive party?
I’m not sure if I think they can
Sorry for being so pessimistic
Michael Clews
Labour may not be able to change
I have to live in hope
WHat I know is it cannot stay where it is
I was criticising the anti democratic actions of the people mentioned in the article not the in campaign. Polly Toynbee’s vitriolic articles have also no doubt played an influential role in this. She is and always will be a cheerleader for Blair who holds Labour’s traditional voters in contempt. The problem’s with Labour started when they ditched any traces of socialism or even social democracy and adopt full blown neoliberalism.
How much of Polly Toynbee’s work have you read?
Not a lot, I’d guess
I have read a lot of Articles that she has written for the Guardian. Her actions in this episode have crossed the line between legitimate debate and personal abuse. She is not alone as other columnists in that newspaper and its editor are equally to blame.
I have also questioned the behaviour of a lot of PLP members who have acted in both a childish and petulant manner.
I have the greatest respect for you and your position on Jeremy Corbyn made me think. However, I come to the conclusion that Corbyn should stay. If a political party abandons its own democracy and a small number use their position to undermine it, then what is it? It’s an oligarchy. In power it may moderate the behaviour of a right wing government but in terms of reform and reaching out to those disengaged from politics it is nothing. It makes things worse. One conclusion about the EU referendum vote is that many are fed up with ruling elites, bypassing party democracy sends out a message that the Labour Party is the same: remote and aloof. In order to establish the tax reforms you propose, in my opinion, will not be achieved just by changing the views of people in Westminster, it will only be achieved through an effective democracy. That means helping people understand economics and empowering them to believe that they can change things. I don’t know what’s going to happen, I am very concerned about what is happening in the UK, but we should not lose sight of fundamental principles. Jeremy Corbyn has shown courage and determination in this respect – and though the margin call is fine – I support him.
The MPs were selected by local parties in the main
And elected by 9.3 million people
Which democracy is paramount?
There is no answer to that
The answer is judgement has to be used. You cannot claim one view trumps another. That is just not possible
So go with the reality: the elected represntaticves say Corbyn has to go. If you believe in democracy you believe them
Richard, you say that “The MPs were selected by local parties in the main” and that if someone believes in democracy they should follow these MPs’ view that Corbyn should go. But local parties were only allowed to select from Blair’s list of approved candidates.
In the comments of one of your blogs a few months ago Syzygysue said “Former MP Alan Simpson adds his own experience of the Blair years in a review of Minkin’s book in Red Pepper http://www.redpepper.org.uk/inside-new-labours-rolling-coup-the-blair-supremacy/
He tells of how the Socialist Campaign Group was entombed, and of rigorous selection of new parliamentary candidates to ensure that they would be on-message and the parachuting-in of such, into winnable seats.” (To which you replied “Great article by my old friend Alan Simpson”.)
In the article Simpson says “Minkin details how ‘the Blair coup’ set out to turn the parliamentary left into ‘a sealed tomb’: one that would not be re opened by new, dissenting, Labour MPs entering parliament. Under the guise of ‘improving the quality of candidates’, Blair’s machine filleted the panel of those approved for selection by ‘eliminating candidates who “appeared not to have a pragmatic line on policy disagreements”’. ”
Syzygysue then went on that this vetting “was certainly in full swing, well before the ’97 election, with ‘minders’ appointed for those PPCs (like Kelvin Hopkins) who were suspect. I also know personally, a fair few individuals who were rejected as unsuitable candidates. Christine Shawcroft was a more high-profile example. I believe that John McDonnell and Kelvin Hopkins were able to slip through the net because they were extremely well known in their constituencies. It would have been explosive to try and exclude them from the selection procedure. It may well have been the same for Clive Efford and Gordon Marsden. But in any event, it was well known that they each needed to keep their noses clean, and offer no excuse to the party machine to deselect them.. at least, until after they were successfully elected.”
You say we should follow the mutineers because democracy gives their views more weight, but they are only in place because Blair went against the democratic wishes of his own party, so I would say it is the members whose democracy has been suppressed by Blair and that following the MPs over the members is therefore going against democracy because of how they got their positions.
You are correct that 9.3m people voted for them, but I would say that if the mutineers had stood as independents at the last election with their preferred policies against a Labour candidate with Corbynite views then in the vast majority of cases the Labour candidate would have come out ahead (for simplicity’s sake, ignoring the effect of splitting the vote for this hypothetical), because on the whole (with some exceptions) people vote for the party and not the candidate, so, in my view, the mandate of those 9.3m votes goes more to the party than to the individual MPs, and as, in my view, the party has the mandate of these 9.3m votes more than the individual MPs, there is more democratic weight behind the party (i.e. the members who back Corbyn) than the mutineers.
So my opinion is the opposite of yours – instead of saying if you believe in democracy we should go with the wishes of the elected individuals who say Corbyn should go, I would say if you believe in democracy you should go with the wishes of the party that got 9.3m votes for those individuals and so Corbyn has to stay.
I think I have said all I need to on this issue
Richard wrong email given on previous post
They are never published
No blogs today, Richard, so I assume you’re taking a well-earned rest. Just like to add that as a long term reader and occasional contributor, this is by far the most considered and thought-provoking forum I have come across on the internet. The links provided by contributors are particularly useful. I hope you feel able to continue without compromising your other occupations and your health. It would help if contributors limited themselves to two posts per topic. Thank you for giving up so much of your time to this project.
Blogs now delivered
I was simply on my way to and from Cambridge to talk ion the radio when I would usually be plugging the keyboard
But I did take myself out to breakfast to blog as my idea of a break…
Americano on board I am now fired up for a day of writing…
I think your plea to posters is fair.
I have the greatest respect for Richard and he was surely entitled to give a view which is about how to implement policies with which I largely agree. However, I think he got this wrong because what is happening with the parliamentary Labour party is not about the detail of policy but about the purpose of the Labour party itself. Labour should be the party that represents workers who live by selling their Labour in a capitalist society – geeze that sounds old but all of the statement is true. It was created to be in parliament in order to make sure that legal constraints were not placed on trade unions’ capacity to organize workers so that their interests could be defended by industrial action. It then got into social reform, and – briefly – the socialization of the economy. Blair got rid of all of this and Brown was no better. At least Blair was in it for the money. Brown was just dim – the plutocracy bought one and got one free. Most Labour MPs are now members of what Oborne rightly identified as a permanent political class disconnected from real material interests other than those of a super rich elite, few of whom now are even productive industrial capitalists. In the Blair years the old Labour Left almost died – Paul Foot made that point well SWP hack that he was. What we saw with Corbyn’s election was the Labour Left coming back. It has real problems in a post-industrial society but it needs to be there and it needs to sort out the people who purport to represent workers. We have a real crisis on hand – political and economic. It will not be resolved by tinkering and by the way Labour will never govern again in the UK – if that continues – without a deal with the SNP since Scotland is now on a very different trajectory. It is not about Corbyn and Westminster – it is about the whole nature of politics.
David
As you know, I respect your views too
I do not think that Labour could rule without coalition
So coalition has to be possible
It’s that or pass power to the right for good
Richard
This particular blog started on the subject of policy options though the discussion has tended to be more about personalities. Both matter. I’m hearing lots of assumptions about what people’s policies might be, usually with generic assertions of Blairites, Red Tory, neoliberal and so on on the one hand or proper socialist on the other. Bit like listening to the referendum arguments at times…
We are in a very different situation now and certainly in future and that’s going to require some different policies. I had hoped that with the powerful team of advisors that were lined up we’d be starting to see them come through. It’s very telling that the team has taken a step back, and not encouraging. Some indications that they felt they were wasting their time and not being listened to. I’m suspecting that Corbyn is still wedded to the kind of policies that sank a divided Labour Party in the 80s, alienating the electorate and letting Thatcher loose. We face just the same risk now – or worse
So I’d like to know what are the policies that are going to be so attractive to the wider electorate, about which we’ve heard not a lot. Not just how to spend the money, the easier bit, but how to generate it as well and create real jobs. Preferably being able to point to places where they have worked. Because if they are not convincing and appealing to a wider electorate, they are just an intellectual exercise, leaving the country wide open to the far right government that is easing itself into power. Regardless of who the leader is
Agreed
Breaking news !!! Bojo to challenge Corbyn for Labour party leadership.
I’m sorry to hear that you’ve received some insult for what you wrote in the Guardian. Even so, I must admit, I was disappointed with what you said (though I respect your honesty).
I understand that you try to be apolitical, but I doubt very much that anyone can be purely neutral, especially when it comes to politics. There are no brute facts. Every fact requires interpretation by a human mind, therefore we have bias. Always.
My fear is that if we loose the ideological battle with Corbyn, then the left will be isolated from politics for generations as the right in the PLP take back control. Then progressive economic views will never gain a fair hearing in Parliament.
The ideological battle must be won with Corbyn to ensure that those on the right in the PLP step down, then the many talented young progressives in the membership can step up to become Labour MPs and even lead the party.
The behaviour of the Parliamentary Labour Party since the referendum has been utterly disgraceful in my opinion. At the opportune moment of putting forward strong opposition to a divided Tory Party, those on the right in the PLP seek to sabotage their democratically elected leader.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected with the largest mandate from the grassroots of any political leader in the history of British politics. This coup clearly demonstrates that the majority of Labour MPs are contemptuous of the democratic process within the Labour Party.
I had hoped that Labour would be able to work in political collaboration with other progressive parties in Westminster such as Plaid Cymru and the Greens to oppose the Conservatives, but this disgraceful coup against the leader of the opposition has made it very clear that those on the right in the PLP are completely out of touch with ordinary people in the Labour heartlands.
I fear that the behaviour of these dissenting MPs has done irreparable damage to the Labour Party.