HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » If Corbyn is dumped, why ...

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:24 PM

 

If Corbyn is dumped, why should anyone who cares about workers and the poor bother voting Labour?

The PLP is doing this because it doesn't want Labour to care about anything but "winning the election".

It's clear that the PLP will ONLY accept Angela Eagle or Tom Watson as a replacement, and both of them agree with the Tories on every major issue.

If Labour won with that sort of leader, it would be impossible for it to be different in power than the Tories are.

Neither is capable of trying to make life better for the poor (nothing can be done for the poor at all if Labour endorses the benefits cap).

Neither cares about people who work for a living(you can't care about workers and support Thatcher's anti-worker laws).

Neither will let it be possible to be an activist for change and stay in the party.

It simply couldn't be worth anything to elect a Labour government if Labour's leader is a right-winger.

Doing so means agreeing that Labour should have no passionate convictions on anything.

And it means losing the vote of every young person in the UK forever.

The fight to dump Corbyn is led by those who want Labour to finish Blair's project and leave Britain with two conservative parties.

22 replies, 1839 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Corbyn is dumped, why should anyone who cares about workers and the poor bother voting Labour? (Original post)
Ken Burch Jun 2016 OP
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #1
Matilda Jun 2016 #2
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #3
Matilda Jun 2016 #4
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #8
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #15
Dworkin Jun 2016 #5
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #20
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #21
LeftishBrit Jul 2016 #22
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #6
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #7
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #9
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #10
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #11
Dworkin Jun 2016 #13
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #16
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #17
Nihil Jun 2016 #19
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #12
Ironing Man Jun 2016 #14
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #18

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:32 AM

1. To preface this: I think the rebels are doing the wrong thing, and fiddling while Rome burns

This is not the time for interparty fighting.

But:

(1) Most of the rebels (at least, those who were in Corbyn's cabinet to start with) were not doing so on left-right grounds, but because they felt that he was not an effective leader against Brexit, and might thus also not be a generally effective leader against the Tories. Whether this is true or not, they are making their party still less effective against the Tories, by the infighting.

(2) There are reasons for voting Labour, even if it's imperfect, against the real right wing. There are reasons for voting for a dead rat or a block of wood against the right wing! There might have been room for arguing about whether a right-wing Labourite differed much from Cameron , though I'd say that in the vast majority of cases they did; but all Labourites, and many non-Labourites, differ significantly from the people likely to gain power now. People who are likely to lead us into economic disaster at best, encourage a form of fascism at worst. Corbynites and rebels alike need to remember that we are all up against people who are truly dangerous; who are for example not just insufficiently caring about the poor and workers, but waging active war against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:41 AM

2. Trying to understand what's going on.

Are the Labour rebels all Blairites? I know they've always hated Corbyn, so I guess that's par for the course.

But if they're not, that's a worry for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:07 AM

3. A tiny handful aren't, but the overwhelmingly majority are.

 

This is the result of Tony Blair taking iron-fisted control of the selection process for Labour candidates when he became leader in 1994, and using that control to essentially ban anyone who wasn't an unquestioning supporter of his campaign to remove all vestiges of socialism (and even most vestiges of social democracy)from Labour's electoral program from being nominated as Labour candidates in marginal seats.

Blair was convinced that Labour could only win if it abandoned all but a few trivial differences with the Tories on domestic policy and any differences at all on foreign/military policy and how to deal with crime.

This was never needed(Labour was well ahead of the Tories when Blair took over as leader)but every Labour MP first elected in 1997 feels absolutely certain that she or he ONLY won her seat because Blair treated socialism and socialists as cancers to be removed from the body of Labour(and removed without anesthetic at that).

The MPs of the 1997 generation would rather see Labour lose general elections than win them on programs that deviate even microscopically from Blairism. They showed this in 2015, when most of them did as little as possible to help Ed Miliband secure a Labour victory(they preferred Ed's brother David, who had stood against Ed for the leadership of a program of keeping the party rigifly Blairite-and they, along with David himself helped perpetuate, DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, the despicable Tory smear that Ed had "stabbed his brother in the back" by daring to seek the leadership himself).

If Labour was twenty points ahead under Corbyn's leadership, these people would still be trying to undermine Corbyn as leader, because they cannot tolerate the idea that a Labour victory could be possible under any program but Blairism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 04:22 AM

4. It's a bit surreal.

Blair is hated pretty well world-wide because of Iraq and his sell-out to Murdoch and corporate interests, yet the party doesn't seem to understand how little he's liked or respected anywhere.

I only hope that if public support put Corbyn where he is, public support can keep him there.

I believe supporters are signing petitions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:05 AM

8. No, absolutely not. The rebels are about 70% of the PLP, from across the left wing of the spectrum.

(Possibly more than 70% by now).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:29 PM

15. If they succeed, there will be no left-of-center proposals in the next Labour manifesto.

 

Last edited Sun Aug 7, 2016, 03:19 AM - Edit history (1)

There will be support for the benefits cap and the budget charter, both of which make any humane social policies impossible.

There is no such thing as a fiscally conservative compassionate government.k

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:13 AM

5. Is Corbyn a good leader?

Hi,

I'm a lifelong Labour supporter. My thought is that Mr Corbyn is without doubt an honest and principled socialist. However, that does not mean that he is a good leader, or electable by the broad spectrum of voters in the UK.

Having recently watched an in-depth documentary about Mr Corbyn's rise to power I am saddened by his struggle to adapt to the challenges of the spotlight. Comparisons with Michael Foot are obvious, but Miliband had much of the same problem with the broader electorate.

I think Blair was right to note that general elections are won or lost on the centre ground, just as Hillary Clinton is proving against the excellent and strong Bernie Sanders.

D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dworkin (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:09 AM

20. I can see where the comparison to Foot could be made

When I watch Foot I think his problem was that he was a politician from another age. He was in his element addressing meetings and large gatherings but less good when it came to television. The people around Thatcher understood television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 08:55 PM

21. And I think Corbyn and his team do understand television.

 

That's why Labour isn't in third place in the polls(as it was for much of the time that Foot was leader).

If Tony Benn had been elected leader in 1981, Labour would have done far better in the next election. Tony was always great on television and had much more personal charisma than Foot(admirable man that Foot was).

In the same sense, if Corbyn does go, John McDonnell would be the logical successor as leader. He would carry on Corbyn's transformative project in politics and internal party governance(Labour cannot be a radical government if the internal structures set up by Blair are kept in place), yet conveys far more personal energy and is better on television than Corbyn is.

Nothing could justify erasing everything Corbyn stands for and going back to what labour would be like if Yvette Cooper had been elected...a party of permanent war and permanent austerity, a party that was going to offer nothing to the Northern and Eastern English voters who switched to UKIP as much out of despair and a feeling of irrelevance as anything else(it's the leadership of UKIP that is bigoted, not so much the voters).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dworkin (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 03:02 AM

22. Not particularly IMO; but then neither is anyone likely to replace him

I don't think it's a question of being on the 'centre ground'; if elections were always won from the centre ground, Thatcher wouldn't have won three elections. It's a question of giving an appearance of being competent, whether one is or not; and of being media savvy. Our media is so powerful, and much of it is so corrupt in essence, that they can and do rule us. As I always say, government-controlled media is bad and anti-democratic, but so is media-controlled government, which to a large extent we have. Blair was outstandingly media savvy, and so got away with a great deal. Brown wasn't; nor was Miliband; nor is Corbyn; nor is anyone who might replace him.

Also: our political party system seems to give little room for anything in between party members following the leader like cloned sheep, and becoming a free-for-all brawl, which is happening in both main parties at the moment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:51 AM

6. There are many reasons why Labour imploded in Scotland.

We had a decade or so dominated by Labour leadership infighting and factionalism.

The media coverage read like a synopsis of a cheap knock-off of Game of Thrones with a cast who took themselves and their careers and grudges entirely too seriously. Policy and performance were sidelined, and part of their demise was that people got impatient and looked at a party that wasn't navel-gazing, at least focused on pressing issues even if it didn't have immediate solutions, and decided they could relate to that much better.

People had a left-of-centre-ish option that eventually displayed enough competence as it gradually accrued power to turn to. You don't have that luxury in the rest of the UK at the moment. That's chilling. In some ways, it might have been better for Labour to have split after the last election. It would be a long haul, but at least they'd have made a start.

This interminable focus on personalities, fuelled a by a drooling media, isn't gaining any votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:02 AM

7. Easy: because practically every word you've written is a black lie.

> The PLP is doing this because it doesn't want Labour to care about anything but "winning the election".

This is a lie. The PLP is doing this because they want to increase public spending and benefits, and to do that they need to win the election (I find it hilariously telling that you put scare quotes around "winning the election" - I think that's perfectly emblematic of Corbyn's attitude).

>It's clear that the PLP will ONLY accept Angela Eagle or Tom Watson as a replacement,

This is a lie. Lots of other names have been mentioned (Jarvis and Nandy are both front-runners).

>and both of them agree with the Tories on every major issue.

This is a lie - go look at their voting records (and please, don't play the "look, here is one specific vote that proves they're evil if taken in isolation" trick when so doing).

> If Labour won with that sort of leader, it would be impossible for it to be different in power than the Tories are.

This is a lie; see above.

>Neither is capable of trying to make life better for the poor (nothing can be done for the poor at all if Labour endorses the benefits cap).

Ditto.

> Neither cares about people who work for a living(you can't care about workers and support Thatcher's anti-worker laws).

This is a lie so foul and slanderous you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

> Neither will let it be possible to be an activist for change and stay in the party.

This is not just a lie twice over: firstly most of the Labour party support change, just not all the changes you want, and secondly the only side planning purges are the Corbynites.

> It simply couldn't be worth anything to elect a Labour government if Labour's leader is a right-winger.

Agreed. Thankfully, none of the likely candidates are, all of them are good, solid left-wingers.

> Doing so means agreeing that Labour should have no passionate convictions on anything.

Doing so is not going to happen.

> And it means losing the vote of every young person in the UK forever.

Nonsense. With Corbyn gone, Tory-enablers like yourself will find it harder to spread the lie that there is no difference between the two parties, the obvious massive differences will become more apparent, and Labour will be the favourites (although far from certain) to win the next election.

> The fight to dump Corbyn is led by those who want Labour to finish Blair's project and leave Britain with two conservative parties.

Again, this is not just a lie but a particularly shameful and slanderous one. The truth is that the fight to keep Corbyn is led by those who would, albeit unintentionally, leave Britain with no plausible left-wing alternative to Conservative government.


Shame on you for dishonestly slandering fellow left-wingers. Shame on you for helping keep the Tories in power. Shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:17 AM

9. Dude, shrieking "Lie!"

over and over again followed by "shame on you", fingerpointing laughably about "keeping the Tories in power" isn't going to cut it.

It didn't fucking work in Scotland, so I have a bit of precedence on my side here.

We had a gutful of it from Scottish Labour and those UK Labour apparatchiks who staggered off the trains up here for a few hours to pat us on the head and try to persuade us we were "better together" and the status quo was just dandy. And guess what - they, along with the rest of the UK establishment, fucking lied, and they've been found out in spades.

Tory-lite has lost elections in the past. Tory-lite will lose the next election. I guarantee it.

The accommodationists in the PLP may be marginally preferable to the shower of shits we have at the moment, but not enough to make people choose them, because they look like a bunch of opportunist, out-of-touch, featherbedded, timeserving wankers who still don't get the serious disaffection from the grass roots of their own party, let alone the rest of the country, and no amount of shooting the messenger is going to change that.

They haven't recovered from the framing of their last stint in power. Without clear blue water between now and then, there is nothing appealing about them other than a change of voices and faces, and that isn't going to be enough.

If you want to persuade people they're better than that, yelling and deflecting isn't going to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:24 AM

10. A few points in response.


Tory-lite has never been tried (although Harman very briefly got closer to it than I'd like in the aftermath of the last election, and Corbyn is the price we're paying), and is not on offer.

We lost Scotland to an upsurge of nationalism caused by the referendum.

In terms of winning the next election, I've been encouraged by what's happened on DU in the wake of the primary. People get caught up in the battle of the moment, but once the battle is left-vs-right rather than crazy left vs sane left, a lot of people you'd have thought would sod off and vote third party will actually become much more enthusiastic about Labour. The important thing is to get the megaphone away from Corbyn, so that attention refocuses on Labour vs Tories rather than Labour vs Corbyn.

The problem with the PLP is not the reality - there *is* clear blue water between the two parties. It's the widespread, false perception that there isn't that needs to be challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:41 AM

11. Ok, forgive the bluntness, but if he's a liar!!!!, you're a bullshitter.

I live in Scotland, I know what was behind the support for independence in the referendum. Having been a Labour Party activist and member in the past - like a lot of SNP members, probably the majority since the referendum's upsurge in SNP support, and some of our best new MPs - I think I have some insights.

Tory-liteness was precisely the spur that killed Labour up here. You can wriggle and redefine "the left" in terms of the allowable spectrum within UK Labour nowadays till the term is meaningless, but it won't help. That is the perception. Labour doesn't give any grounds to counter it because we're not stupid or blind or with the attention span of goldfish, and we got heartily tired of being treated like we were.

But, like the rest of DU when we try to talk about UK issues in the main forums, you're no doubt going to tell me you know better than somebody who lives here.

Good luck with that.

This is actually a potentially paradigm-shifting moment. On that, I couldn't agree with you more.

I lived through something similar up here in the desolation of the post-indyref resurgence that saw the SNP, far from being annihilated, energized and stuffed with a new intake of members who pay their dues and turn out to vote and talk to their neighbours and workmates, and have formed a new consensus. It's obviously not 100%, but it's firmly in the ascendant.

The worrying thing is that no amount of shifting the deckchairs at the moment is going to put Labour in a position to capitalize on that. Certainly, reverting to the situation a year ago, before Corbyn became even a candidate for the leadership, isn't going to do it. Nor is convulsing the party in yet another battle for its soul. So some other forces in our polity stand ready to benefit. Even if Scotland's out of Dodge in a few years, I don't want that as a neighbour!

Labour would have been well placed in the shitstorm that's erupted to be saying those ungratifying words, "Told you so." Not smugly, but with some air of exasperation, like, "So now you get it?"

Instead it's ranting at itself, as so often in the past, and wringing its hands and whining "Where did we go wrong?", "We must accommodate" like a bunch of chintz daleks - and seemingly unwilling to entertain some home truths about where it actually might have been going wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:14 PM

13. Spot on about perception.

Donald,

Your last paragraph is spot on. Labelling parts of the Labour party as 'Tories' just plays into the hands of the Tories. I never hear the Tories labelling part of their party as 'Labour'.

They know who their sworn enemy is.

D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:48 PM

16. Blairism was nothing but Tory-lite.

 

It was based on hatred for Labour values(among which opposition to everything Thatcher did is paramount)and hatred of internal party democracy(after Blair took over, it became pointless to purchase a party membership, because the only reason to be a dues-paying member of a British political party is to have a say in what the party stands for. No one who pays to join a political partyy should ever have to just take what the leader and her or his advisors come up with on policy. The people in Blair's inner circle cared more about driving socialists and socialism out of the party than about making life better.

The voters were never demanding that Labour repudiate EVERYTHING it stood for in the Eighties...that it move to the right of the Tories on defense and on "law and order", that it treat activists as the enemy, that it be just as dismissive of movements for social and economic justice as the Tories were.

Blair did some small good things. But he didn't have to demonize the left to get the chance to do them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:57 PM

17. Corbyn wants to win the election just as much as you do.

 

It's not as though the only way for Labour to do that is to tell the idealists and the young that they aren't welcome, to continue agreeing with the Tories on defense, and to prevent the reestablishment of internal democracy.

It's possible to win an election without watering your principles down to nothing and accepting Mideast war and the Bomb as eternal parts of life.

And I stand by my assertion that it is impossible to support the benefits cap and the Tory budget charter and still do anything at all ti help the poor. There is no such thing as "doing more with less"

And Dan Jarvis was a former Special Forces commander. No one who did that is ever capable of working for a peaceful world as prime minister. He's always going to be a warmonger and he will always prefer to spend money on weapons than on making a decent society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 05:13 AM

19. For some muppet shrieking "Lie" every paragraph, you certainly enjoy telling them ... (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:11 PM

12. OK. It's war.

Shots fired. Vote of no confidence carried.

Hell mend them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:19 PM

14. those numbers...

172 no confidence

40 confidence

4 spoilt

13 abstain

he's obviously not going to resign, this will therefore continue for months and years - the PLP obviously isn't that scared of deselection to have taken it this far - the tories will win an election whenever it happens, and the SNP will be the de facto opposition.

fucking wonderful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ironing Man (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:09 PM

18. Well ...

40's an improvement on the original 35.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread