The next Labour leader thread

Terminal_Boy said:
I'm old enough to remember the Gang Of Four breaking away in 1981 and it looked a lot like this....
Click to expand...

Me too and I expect you're right - too much self-interest to take into consideration though. However, I doubt coming back into the fold and shaking Corbyn's hand will save them from the Momentum de-selecters.

If enough of them split they would get wealthy donors who will no longer back Labour backing the splitters.
 
Faustus said:
Me too and I expect you're right - too much self-interest to take into consideration though. However, I doubt coming back into the fold and shaking Corbyn's hand will save them from the Momentum de-selecters.

If enough of them split they would get wealthy donors who will no longer back Labour backing the splitters.
Click to expand...

Donations from wealthy individuals make up a tiny proportion of Labour's funding. Any new party would have to look elsewhere.

TBH the process of starting a new party seems utterly stupid. The ringleaders would basically be building the Lib Dems (under a different name). Makes more sense to either defect, or suck it up, especially given the timescales involved. Three and a half years until a General Election, Corbyn's likely defeat, and (possible) resignation. The problem could have blown over before a new party can get off the ground.

Were I in Labour, I'd give serious consideration to a holiday with the Liberal Democrats. Considerably less work than starting a new party, and should the Corbyn experiment collapse, switching back shouldn't be too painful. The biggest downside is funding; the Lib Dems don't have enough of it to ever be an effective opposition. I expect any new party would run in to similar problems. I have a feeling a considerable defection is possible, but hinging on a few high profile MPs making the decision to go (which will likely be dependent on Jeremy's performance and attitude over the next few months).
 
Last edited:
Well, the progressive centre plan that has surfaced now and again is a merger between the Tory left (some ex-SDP anyway!), Labour's right and the Lib Dems. Sometimes this involves the Greens, sometimes it doesn't. The chief idea is to create a governing broad church with a healthy voter base, as per Jack's info-graphic, whilst relegating the extremes of the left and right to 1-40 MPs each to duke it out on the fringes. Occasionally you hear this mentioned as a means of getting PR and nothing else.

Unless both May and Corbyn go full GaGa however, I don't see much appetite for such a big realignment, good as it would be in the long run.
 
datalol-jack said:
Well, the progressive centre plan that has surfaced now and again is a merger between the Tory left (some ex-SDP anyway!), Labour's right and the Lib Dems. Sometimes this involves the Greens, sometimes it doesn't. The chief idea is to create a governing broad church with a healthy voter base, as per Jack's info-graphic, whilst relegating the extremes of the left and right to 1-40 MPs each to duke it out on the fringes. Occasionally you hear this mentioned as a means of getting PR and nothing else.

Unless both May and Corbyn go full GaGa however, I don't see much appetite for such a big realignment, good as it would be in the long run.
Click to expand...

The huge majority of the UK electorate fit into this demographic. The party that wins usually has a small advantage over the other, usually down to mistakes by incumbents or more success in advancing their policies / manifesto. Extremes of left or right never do well electorally in this country.
 
datalol-jack said:
Well, the progressive centre plan that has surfaced now and again is a merger between the Tory left (some ex-SDP anyway!), Labour's right and the Lib Dems. Sometimes this involves the Greens, sometimes it doesn't. The chief idea is to create a governing broad church with a healthy voter base, as per Jack's info-graphic, whilst relegating the extremes of the left and right to 1-40 MPs each to duke it out on the fringes. Occasionally you hear this mentioned as a means of getting PR and nothing else.

Unless both May and Corbyn go full GaGa however, I don't see much appetite for such a big realignment, good as it would be in the long run.
Click to expand...

The problem is pr isn't popular because it takes the choice of government away from the people and puts it in the hands of politicians. Look at the attitudes towards the 2010 to 201t coalition, for example.
 
And, getting off to a great start with his cabinet after his re-election, Corbyn's crew make last moment changes to Clive Lewis's speech. Who was proper raging afterwards, reportedly.

If this is how Corbyn is treating a close ally it's hard to imagine how anyone else is going to work with him.
 
Dolph said:
The problem is pr isn't popular because it takes the choice of government away from the people and puts it in the hands of politicians.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't buy this at all. In our system the politicians narrowly define the options available to you and then ask you to pick from that list and have your vote completely ignored if you happen to live in the wrong constituency. I don't think that's less politician's choosing the government than a PR system.

Look at the attitudes towards the 2010 to 201t coalition, for example.
Click to expand...

The Lib Dems were unpopular because they did coalition very, very badly. In countries with PR, it's always pretty clear to people how it will work
 
Yes, sometimes the changing isn't actually done under Corbyn's pressure or instruction, which just makes it all more shambolic. Mason's 'I don't give a **** about Corbyn' in this light is very telling -- Jezza's a figurehead to be filled with whatever's in the background. His remaining team are something else.

Dolph said:
The problem is pr isn't popular because it takes the choice of government away from the people and puts it in the hands of politicians. Look at the attitudes towards the 2010 to 201t coalition, for example.
Click to expand...

Mixed systems are possible. The Scots, for example, seem to have no problem getting the government that they want regionally. Even though that system was explicitly designed not to give the SNP a big swing.

Also, other than the likely PM, we have little clue of who will be in government once the dust settles. Reshuffles are also common enough. With some creativity a system can be designed where either one party with a strong majority holds power as now, without obliterating the opposition or third parties entirely, or one or two ideologically interfacing parties can form a coalition without it being so forced or outlandish, without forcing them to be tied at the hip organisationally as now.

In the end, it's the argument after the country's electorate has sufficiently fragmented, which it has: do you want someone nominally local (safe seats and parachutes come to mind) or more representative of your views in power? After all, if you know that your vote isn't going in the bin should you be out of tune with your local area, you have more incentive to participate too. It's a low priority issue for the public right this instance, but if the parties continue to fracture and governments flounder, I think it'd be fair to explain the issue to the electorate and make a start on changing the system.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
The Lib Dems were unpopular because they did coalition very, very badly. In countries with PR, it's always pretty clear to people how it will work
Click to expand...

Look at it another way - the fear of a coalition involving Labour and the SNP was heavily played up in the run up to the last election. Vote Labour, get the cranky Scots in power. The concept of Miliband as Sturgeon's minion was heavily played up.

That's what PR would buy us. Constant tactical voting campaigning. Not sure it's worth the loss of the constituency link TBH.
 
I also get the point about 'actors' in the welfare system, but when you get calls like these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37427990; it's pretty serious. I feel continually trying to reform benefits by pushing the risk and responsibility for bureaucratic failings and their aftermath on to charities and private contractors is a rather poor way of getting results (the third sector may also collapse as it struggles under demand which far outstrips its growth). It's a bizarre situation when we are taxed to help those in need, amongst other things, then that is spent on a sort of roundabout punishment and money-conservation exercise for political reasons, and in effect we are taxed twice (most people contribute to charity, but the amounts mean it can never substitute for a properly functioning welfare system), having to contribute to charities on top of taxes to actually help people, since organisations like the Trussell Trust rely on donations and are not a part of the social security system, nor should they be.

McDonell is on about the living wage again, but at what level would the largest employers begin to make conditions poorer for the workers to compensate? Can we afford high minimum wages and good welfare? Possibly, but he's stacking so many things in that dream manifesto, I'm not sure anyone will believe him. :\
 
satchef1 said:
Look at it another way - the fear of a coalition involving Labour and the SNP was heavily played up in the run up to the last election. Vote Labour, get the cranky Scots in power. The concept of Miliband as Sturgeon's minion was heavily played up.

That's what PR would buy us. Constant tactical voting campaigning. Not sure it's worth the loss of the constituency link TBH.
Click to expand...

Not just labour and snp, the big thing that lost the lib dems votes in the south West was that a vote for the lib dems could have led to a labour/lib dem group, which doesn't go down well in the seats where the completion for the lib dems is the Conservatives. The coalition wasn't that unpopular down here, the problem was that voting lib dem was not a continuity vote.
 
Two days, two bloody days until they managed until the next implosion(s). Wes Streeting using the claiming anti-semitism from a fringe Labour movement and JC interfering with the shadow defence minister's speech moments before he gave it.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
And, getting off to a great start with his cabinet after his re-election, Corbyn's crew make last moment changes to Clive Lewis's speech. Who was proper raging afterwards, reportedly.

If this is how Corbyn is treating a close ally it's hard to imagine how anyone else is going to work with him.
Click to expand...

And Mr C's response

Mr Corbyn told the BBC: "We obviously discuss what is going to be said, and Clive delivered a speech on behalf of all of us."

"on behalf of us all" - cant even let the bloke deliver his own speech after agreeing it was OK. Still nice of them to leave him a sticky note on the speakers stand to let him know just as he is delivering it!
 
RDM said:
Obviously a problem with PR is fringe parties get more representation, but such is democracy.
Click to expand...

Many systems include a 5% cutoff to limit fringe representation. Personally, I think if you can get more than 5% of the vote you deserve representation. It's an utter disgrace that UKIP got only one MP in the last general election.
 
datalol-jack said:
Clive's trying to play it down.
Click to expand...

That is his job, yes, and fair play to him. But it's indicative of the wider failure of Corbyn as a leader. One occurrence like this you might write off but his leadership has been full of them.

Also, it's over Trident where Corbyn really needs to stop wasting political capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom