HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » Thread for anyone to expl...

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 09:08 PM

 

Thread for anyone to explain why Labour would do better under Owen Smith's leadership.

What ideas does Smith have that would be more popular than Corbyn's proposals?

In what, if any ways, has Smith shown himself to have greater leadership skills?

Which voters do people think he can appeal to that Corbyn can't reach?


43 replies, 3545 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 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thread for anyone to explain why Labour would do better under Owen Smith's leadership. (Original post)
Ken Burch Aug 2016 OP
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2016 #1
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #2
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2016 #3
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #4
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2016 #6
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #9
T_i_B Aug 2016 #5
LeftishBrit Aug 2016 #8
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #10
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #11
T_i_B Aug 2016 #12
Ken Burch Aug 2016 #13
T_i_B Aug 2016 #14
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #15
T_i_B Aug 2016 #16
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #17
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #18
T_i_B Aug 2016 #37
LeftishBrit Aug 2016 #38
LeftishBrit Aug 2016 #19
Ken Burch Aug 2016 #7
T_i_B Aug 2016 #20
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #21
T_i_B Aug 2016 #22
Ken Burch Aug 2016 #23
T_i_B Aug 2016 #24
Ken Burch Aug 2016 #25
RogueTrooper Aug 2016 #26
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #27
T_i_B Aug 2016 #28
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #29
Ken Burch Aug 2016 #30
T_i_B Aug 2016 #31
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #32
T_i_B Aug 2016 #33
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #34
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #35
T_i_B Aug 2016 #36
Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #39
T_i_B Sep 2016 #40
Denzil_DC Sep 2016 #41
T_i_B Sep 2016 #42
Denzil_DC Sep 2016 #43

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 06:06 AM

1. Smith does appeal slightly more to the moderate left

http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/9861-CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-INDEPENDENT-AUG-170816.pdf

When asked "If you had to choose, who would you rather be Prime Minister?", a May-Corbyn matchup in the 'slightly left' category gets 41% Corbyn, 59% May, while with Smith it's 48% Smith, 52% May. The overall figures come out the same, largely because Corbyn wins the 'fairly left wing' category better.

Conventional political wisdom is that marginal constituencies are won with swing voters, not the turnout of voters already committed to one side. Sorry, but the "where would they go?" question is a reasonable one to ask.

The main message of that poll, though, is that both of them will find it really hard to turn things round and win the next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 11:31 AM

2. It's worth pointing out that

this poll is from May's "honeymoon period", with parliament barely having sat long enough after she took the reins to let her reshuffle the cabinet and make her PMQs debut (which was hardly stellar) before she headed off to Switzerland on her hols.

Given that all the informed gossip at the moment is that Brexit (whatever it means) is being kicked further and further into the long grass (last seen bobbing along somewhere later than spring 2017, which would bring about clashes with the German and French elections if it was enacted during that year) as the scope of the challenges and complications and very awkward political timings dawns on those who're supposed to be figuring out how to do it, her standing in the polls may not last long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 11:42 AM

3. Fieldwork was 11th-15th of August, they published it on the 16th

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:50 PM

4. Yes, therefore still in the honeymoon period. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 01:14 PM

6. OK, we better stop talking then, until you deem the honeymoon period is over.

When should I check back with you? A couple of months? Are you saying you won't post about the Tories while this honeymoon period is going on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 05:57 PM

9. Well, I have been rather quiet recently!

A bit mystified by the snippiness here, TBH. I didn't say you or anybody else couldn't talk about it, I just don't see me getting worked up about polls at least till parliament's back in session, if even then, so I offered an observation. In the usual run of events, a new PM wouldn't have taken power just before recess, so there'd have been more scope for daily exposure and scrutiny. I really can't see why it's a controversial statement to say that this has had an effect on May's perception by the public (or at least those sampled).

There are plenty of goings-on at the moment, but it's generally ground that's been covered here ad nauseam - Brexit's still a clusterfuck, and the scale of that's growing more tiresomely predictably apparent by the day (to such an extent that I've been self-censoring - started writing posts about the latest idiocy, then figured most folks here were quite depressed enough already, and just deleted them), the Labour Party's still a clusterfuck, and that will come to a head when the leadership election finally takes place, after which it will no doubt carry on being a clusterfuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 01:08 PM

5. Whilst EU withdrawal should be the greater issue....

....it's the ongoing disintegration of the Labour party that's hogging everyone's interest. Which is a very bad thing on many levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 05:50 PM

8. Yes

We have got ourselves in the most almighty mess. Sowing disunity within our country; trade restrictions; economic threats - this is what you do when you sanction an enemy; not what you do to your own country. Our leaders dragging us over a cliff, with no plan in sight, and running away. Media-run government is as bad as government-run media and has turned us into turkeys that vote for Christmas.

Sorry, I'm still in a state of shock after two months. At my own ignorance and naivety as well as everyone else's. I didn't expect that our politicians, our media, and yes, ourselves, had reached quite this point.

And it adds to the mess that the Labour Party can't get its act together and act as an opposition, and is fiddling while Rome is burning, but nonetheless the party leadership dispute is not the worst thing that's happening to the country at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 06:13 PM

10. It's certainly been hogging the media's interest.

I suspect it's gotten most of the public bored to distraction by now - apart from those who're still turning out in quite some numbers for rallies etc., of course.

Still, we won loads of gold medals, big triumphal celebrations to come, and May's going to be handing out limitless honours to athletes like post-Berlin gift bags, so all's right with the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 01:04 PM

11. And as an example of how unbelievably stupid the whole media thing's got,

I caught the headlines on BBC Radio 4's evening news programme just now. Apparently there's a scandal because somebody had filmed Corbyn walking past empty seats on that train on the way to the leadership hustings where he ended up sitting on the floor.

So I headed online, where even Twitter apparently has more investigative capacity and sense of news values than the BBC does.

Richard Branson, who obviously has no vested interest in reports of chronic train overcrowding, released some CCTV footage from the train supposedly proving there were empty seats that Corbyn walked past.

Here's Corbyn walking past "empty seats"



Note the red cards, which indicate they're reserved.

And in the end, here's the damning shot of Corbyn sitting - in a seat, shockhorrorhowdarehe!!1! - in Coach H,



where, as may happen when the rest of a train's dangerously overcrowded, a ticket inspector had shuffled people around so that groups could sit together, and directed those without First Class tickets to find more comfortable accommodation, freeing up a seat for Corbyn in Coach H.

And here's an eyewitness report - it seems the media has the resources to hunt out intemperate tweets from people, but not to find anything that blows their latest silly season story out of the water.



Now, it took up five minutes of my life to figure all that out. And the BBC just ran another two-minute report on it. Is it any wonder people are tuning out?

And to cap it all, gratifyingly, Branson appears to have fallen foul of the Streisand Effect:

Passengers dispute Virgin Trains' claims about Jeremy Corbyn 'sitting on floor' video

The row over whether Jeremy Corbyn had to sit on the floor of a Virgin train has taken a new twist after passengers on the service disputed the company’s version of events.

Earlier this month Mr Corbyn released a video of himself sitting on the floor of a Virgin East Coast train arguing that “this is a problem that many passengers face every day”.

The train company, however, has released CCTV stills showing Mr Corbyn finding a seat on the train, saying that it “clearly wasn’t the case” he could not find somewhere to sit. Though Mr Corbyn did not claim that there were no seats on the train, he said it was “ram-packed”.

Other people on the train have however come forward to say it was in fact very busy, at least at the start of the journey.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passengers-dispute-virgin-trains-version-of-jeremy-corbyn-sitting-on-floor-video-a7205631.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 01:22 PM

12. It does show Corbyn's team in a rather stupid light

I suppose we will be getting the revolutionary trainspotters league calling for Richard Branson to be nationalised and The Canary accusing Virgin Trains of being part of the great Portland Communications / Zionist / Luke Akehurst conspiracy before long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 03:40 PM

13. You're being silly...but would anyone actually object to Branson himself being nationalized?

 

He is a crowning lout of the economy.

(it would be difficult to redistribute his porn goatee, though).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 03:52 PM

14. If you nationalise Branson.....

He'll just win a majority of Labour MP's, and Corbyn fanboys will just end up looking even sillier than they did before!

No wonder all the trainspotters gave up and turned to beer ticking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 04:19 PM

15. Careful.

If you stretch any more, you'll strain something!

That post wasn't intended to pick any sort of fight with you, BTW.

I'd more or less expected an agreeable response along the lines of "Yeah, the media's stupid, and policy differences aside, this is pathetic, no wonder people get turned off by what passes for political coverage nowadays."

As it is, trying to tortuously twist it into something that "does show Corbyn's team in a rather stupid light" seems to indicate that things have deteriorated in certain quarters beyond what even my fevered imagination envisaged as possible.

Oh, and this stupid non-story was the first headline on Radio 4's hourly news at 7 p.m., with no further information included beyond that in the initial wrong report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 05:18 PM

16. This story is going to run and run....

.....well, until it gets cancelled due to engineering works!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 05:54 PM

17. Yeah.

Quite a few people will remember it for a long time.







(Last one: different date, same priorities.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 06:04 PM

18. And not to Labour the point ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to T_i_B (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 11:39 AM

38. That is quite wrong

According to people I know, who lurk on Brexiter sites so that the rest of us don't have to, it was nothing to do with Corbyn -God smote Branson with His divine wrath because he'd supported the Remain campaign!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 06:12 PM

19. And leaves on the track!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 05:12 PM

7. Thanks for that response.

 

To me, the only argument that would work would be if the polling showed that Labour would be at mid-1990's support levels under Smith, as opposed to early 1980's levels under Corbyn.

Funny that NONE of the people the "moderates" said they preferred to Corbyn was ever shown to be dramatically more popular with the wider electorate than Corbyn has been.

And there's also the dilemma that, if Corbyn were to be dumped(especially if he were dumped after the Labour Right forced repeated re-votes)how, then, would whoever was put in in Corbyn's place ever manage to unite the party for victory? How could that person hold the massive number of new people who have joined the party, people Labour cannot win without if it alienates them and drives them away, after a years-long effort based, in large measure, on the idea that these new people are the enemy and that the party needs to kick them to the kerb(did I get the UK spelling right on that last word)?

"Now that you've been taught you're lesson, reminded who your 'betters' are and put in your place, we're simply going to DEMAND your vote, because it's OUR party, not yours" isn't going to be a vote-winning appeal, yet that is clearly what the Hilary Benn/Tom Watson/Angela Eagle crowd are assuming they'll be able to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 04:45 AM

20. Here's Smith's ideas

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/owen-smith-unveils-20-new-policies-for-a-fair-play-labour-government-in-labour-leadership-election-speech_uk_5798849de4b06d7c426e0a8d
http://www.theweek.co.uk/75651/owen-smiths-policies-what-does-the-labour-mp-stand-for
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/what-are-owen-smiths-policies-in-the-labour-leadership-contest/

A lot of this stuff would have been considered unthinkably left wing for Labour prior to 2015.

However, it is clear that Corbyn supporters are not at all interested in Owen Smith's policy ideas, or even how the party is viewed by people who don't read "The Canary". The Labour leadership contest has descended into a seething mass of personal vendettas with no thought given to serving the common good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #20)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 07:35 AM

21. That's all well and good.

Sounds like Corbyn's in danger of succeeding in pulling at least some in the PLP and the wider party to the left (leaving aside the question of how "left" Smith's claim to multilateralism, support for Trident and declaration that he's willing to press the button is, and the vagueness of some of his top 20, such as "focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity".

So if, once re-elected leader, Corbyn pursues at least some of these policies in parliament, he can expect the vocal support of Smith and others in the PLP, rather than catcalls and sniping? Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 10:08 AM

22. It comes back to the same, depressing problem

Which is not socialism or ideology, but the question of Corbyn's ability (or lack thereof) to run a large, fractious organisation like the Labour party. That's the major reason why most of his shadow cabinet walked out on him.

Like I said, it's increasingly becoming a matter of personal vendettas over policy. All very depressing. Makes you glad you're not a Labour member, but it's of no comfort when you need the Tories to be challenged over many bad policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #22)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 12:51 PM

23. There are personal vendettas in play here.

 

Virtually all of which were started by the Anti-Corbynites, who have consistently treated Corbyn and his supporters as though he had no right to have won the leadership contest and THEY have no right to even be in the party(would you at least agree that it's absurd to treat the entire Corbyn phenomenon as a Trotskyist plot? Even in the Eighties, there were only 10,000 "Trots" in the whole of the UK and MOST of the Labour Left despised them).

Corbyn was always open to dialog and to suggestions from MPs. They refused to ever even try to work with him, simply refusing to accept him as leader at any point.

And if Corbyn is retained as leader(as is almost certain) and the anti-Corbynites keep trying to depose him, it will be solely the anti-Corbynites' fault if Labour loses badly in 2020. Then again, most of them don't really want Labour to win if Corbyn is leader, because that would mean having to admit that their contention that Labour can only win with a dismissive, cynical "centrist" who opposes internal party democracy MIGHT be wrong.

None will have any real right to complain if they DO get de-selected. They will have brought it on themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #23)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 01:15 PM

24. PURGE! PURGE! PUUUUUUURGE!

Firstly, the claim that Corbyn was open to dialogue from MP's has been clearly disproved. If it were true then the shadow cabinet would not have walked.

The claim that the personal vendettas are the fault of anyone but Corbyn is a blatant lie. He came into a very bad situation, but he has made the problem even worse at every turn.

Secondly, the idea that Labour can cure it's many ills by kicking out the people that some gobshite from Alaska deems "ideologically impure" is rubbish that only demonstrates even further why the Labour party is a joke. The people you consider vermin are the ones who know how to run things. You don't have a clue about what's happening on the ground. Labour party activists do, and in my experience the Corbynites tend not to be the ones who keep the show on the road and get out campaigning outside of internal shenanigans.

Your solution of a Stalin style purge will only show normal people that the Labour party is more concerned with finding traitor than winning converts. Owen Smith represents a break from this monumentally retarded path.

Also, do you even get involved with Alaskan Democrats or are they too "ideologically impure" for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #24)

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 10:59 PM

25. Not a purge. I don't personally favor kicking anyone out of your party. That's not my business.

 

Expecting MPs to have some accountability to the people(the Constituency Labour Parties)without whose efforts none of them would ever get elected is NOT a purge...it's democracy. And even the Labour Right claim that the party stands for "Democratic socialism".

It would be the people who run the constituency parties deselecting right wing MPs(and no, deselection is not a "purge"-losing a parliamentary nomination is not the equivalent of shooting people in the head and then sending the bill for the bullet to their families-thank you, though for illustrating the ridiculously paranoid attitude the Labour Right takes towards the majority of the party's members and supporters who aren't Blairite) deciding to de-select them on a constituency by constituency basis, and are you arguing that the CLP should never be able to deny renomination to an MP who has refused to work with and listen to them about their concerns?

Also, if you are going to use the word "purge", would you agree that, if it is wrong to deny sitting MPs automatic renomination for life, as the Labour Right seems to think MPs are entitled to, that its equally wrong to speak of kicking Momentum supporters and other Corbyn supporters out of the party(or denying a vote in the leadership contest to people whose only crime was joining the party recently to support Corbyn)?

I don't want anyone driven away. I just want the part to get past the reactionary and anti-democratic notion that the MPs and the leader(when it's a leader from the right wing of the party)being the ONLY people who have a say in what the party stands for and(effectively) being the only people who get to decided, as a result of control of the shortlists from above, who gets to stand as a Labour candidate. That kind of thing is no longer necessary. Labour is supposed to be a democratically-run party, reflecting the views of those who campaign hard for Labour victories and who show loyalty to the party when no one else does. When that is stopped, when control is centralized in a handful of "insiders" who see their mission in life as keeping the Labour rank-and-file powerless, the result is a party that stands for next to nothing.

It's not about wanting anyone kicked out. It's about getting the MPs to accept that they aren't the only people in the party who know how to win an election or the only people who should have a real say in what the party stands for, who leads it, and who is permitted to be a parliamentary candidate. It's the Labour Party, not the Labour MP Party. And you can't expect people to pay to join the party but be given no voice in the party's direction. Paid party membership has to mean something more than the chance to campaign for candidates someone else chose on a manifesto someone who had no obligation to listen to them devised. Why would you expect anyone to pay to be a party member and get so little for what they paid? Labour didn't lose in the Eighties because the rank-and-file had a say(with the left wing platform, with Michael Foot as leader, Labour had an eleven point lead in the last poll taken prior to the launch of the "Alliance", so the left ideas weren't THAT unpopular), it lost because a group of MPs threw a tantrum and deserted the party rather than accept that the left had won control of the party fairly and squarely according to the party rules of the day. Having a Blair-type leader and a Blair-type party structure and decision-making apparatus would have made little if any difference(and if Labour HAD won in 1983, 1987 or 1992 on those terms, it is now clear that a Labour government of that stripe would have made nearly every cut Thatcher or Major made and sold off just as much of the family silver at bargain basement prices. We know this because the Australian Labor Party did exactly that when in power in the same period).

Labour did not win in 1997 because the grassroots was kept totally out in the cold. It won because the voters were sick of everything the Tories had done, not just the Tory Party as a group of personalities. Labour's manifesto that year included a proposal that Corbyn is now being called "far left" for supporting-nationalization of the railroads(a commitment that Blair refused to implement, for no good reason whatsoever, and a commitment that would have done the country nothing but good IF implemented).

BTW, most of the current MPs represent safe Labour seats...seats that ALWAYS vote Labour no matter what. There are hardly any constituencies at all where the MP was elected because she or he treated the constituency party with contempt and dismissiveness, where the MP made a point of not caring what the CLP wants.

I was involved with the Alaska Democratic Party for most of the 33 years I lived there, and will be involved with the Democratic Party in Washington State now that I lived there. I supported a lot of people who were too right wing for my taste. Most of them lost even though they made a point of being well to the right of the grassrots, activist Democrats. And this spring, the "socialist" presidential candidate took 82% of the vote in our party's precinct caucuses.

It's not about "purity". It's about the reasonable expectation that the party you support will at the very least treat your principles with respect and be clearly moving in the direction you want it to be moving in. Is that such an intolerable combination of things to ask for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 28, 2016, 05:27 AM

26. Mediocrities who hide their inadequacies in extreemism

is my personal opinion of Corbyn and his crew.

I was happy to accept the result of last year's leadership election. My order or voting was the two women, then AB then RON. Much of the motivation behind the leadership election is the competency, or lack thereof, of Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition. This I can understand as the laundry list of fuckups is already quite long.

Ideologically, I think Labour would have a better electoral future with somebody more progressive than Owen Smith but I have come to accept the necessity of the competence argument. I shall be voting for the Welsh fella; whilst despairing that my Party seems incapable, KD up in Scotland aside, putting women into leadership positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 28, 2016, 08:41 AM

27. LOL. You wanna see a "Stalin-style purge"?

Just a very small selection of examples from a very large pool:



















(Baker is General Secretary of the Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union.)





Labour suspends member from the party after she posted about her love of the FOO FIGHTERS on Facebook

* Corbyn supporter Catherine Starr, 33, denied a vote in leadership election
* Labour refused her full membership for 'sharing inappropriate content'
* Refers to post in March when she shared clip of Dave Grohl's band and wrote: 'I f****** love the Foo Fighters'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3759906/Labour-suspends-member-party-posted-love-FOO-FIGHTERS-Facebook.html




Among those not singled out for purging:

















* Braces self to hit alert button toot sweet in anticipation of next intemperate "gobshite" jibe *

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 28, 2016, 09:13 AM

28. On the contrary

I despair at the way that Labour continues to block many members, and also note that it doesn't just apply to Corbynites, I have come across at least one Labour moderate who suspended her membership in disgust at Corbyn's leadership, attempted to rejoin to support Owen Smith and was blocked for having written a blogpost strongly critical of Corbyn's spin doctor Seamus Milne.

This was a problem at the last leadership contest and it has not gone away. And I do have concerns that the clamouring for mass deselections from many in "Momentum" will only make the problem far worse and we will end up with Labour being even more paranoid and shut off from the outside world as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 28, 2016, 10:15 AM

29. Rather than worry about what "purges" may happen in the future,

I'd worry more about what's happening right now, as it's angering many, reducing the party to even more of a laughing stock, and will rebound on the perpetrators and those who excuse their behaviour and imagine they'll benefit from it.

If the boot was on the other foot (I've no doubt you can cite some examples of Smith supporters who've been inappropriately deprived a vote - the whole debacle is panicky and scattergun, and it's expected that as many as 75% of those disenfranchised could gain back their vote if they bother to appeal, rather than walking away in disgust which seems to be what the coup plotters hope will happen), the squawking about such a concerted antidemocratic ultra-authoritarian campaign would be headline news all day every day.

And your sense of "purges" is an odd one. If you set up a system that claims to be democratic, if people choose to use that system to vote out those they feel don't represent them in favour of those they feel will do so, how is that "Stalinist"? It's the essence of our political system. The top-down purges right now, the outright war on a wide sector of the "misbehaving" party membership, fit your description much better.

Given the goings-on described above, maybe you could explain to me why it would be inappropriate to use legitimate channels to seek to remove as many of the NEC members responsible for this power-mad nonsense as possible at the earliest opportunity (bearing in mind that some who're doing the vetting, like Johanna Baxter mentioned above, have just lost their NEC seats anyway, and may be driven by something other than the party's best interests in their actions)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 07:00 PM

30. If Owen Smith were to be elected after all these exclusions

 

his victory would be tainted and illegitimate.

The sad thing is, Mr. Smith may be a perfectly decent man, but he is not running as himself. He is running to put

BTW, there's no reason to put "Momentum" in scare qutes That's the organization's name, and it has just as much right to be in the Labour Party as Progress does. Momentum is simply a group of radical democratic socialists seeking social and economic change by peaceful and honorable means. It is not a sect and it is not a cult. Nor is it run by "Trots"btw, if calling someone a "Blairite" in sociali media is enough to get you barred from voting in the Labour leadership contest, would you agree that it should also get you banned if you call someone a "Trot" in the same social media? It's not as though the former is slanderous but the second isn't, and it's absurd to act as if the only reason Corbyn won was a Trotskyist-Tory plot.

As for mass deselections...that most likely isn't going to happen. But are you really prepared to argue that it is diabolical to deny a sitting Labour MP reselection(something most of the PLP seem to think they are entitled to by divine right) if it is shown that that MP has been part of a sabotage campaign against her or his party's own leader? Even if it is clear that said campaign did irreparable damage to Labour's chances of winning the next election?

Should a sitting MP really be able to do that and face no consequences from his constituency party at all? It's not as though the MP is above the CLP, that the MP matters and the CLP don't.

The only "problem" that existed in the last leadership campaign was that the non-status quo candidate won. If the PLP had accepted the will of the vast majority of the party and rallied 'round that leader, worked with him and bolstered him rather than constantly briefed against him in the Tory press, and hadn't blamed him for a referendum result he was clearly blameless for(Remain would still have lost even if Corbyn had done what the Labour right really wanted and shared a podium with Cameron, and Corbyn made MORE speeches on behalf of Remain than any OTHER Labour figure-nothing was stopping Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Hilary Benn, Angela Eagle OR Owen Smith from hitting the hustings across the UK-yet almost none of them did a damn thing to work for a Remain victory(and Alan Johnson's constituency voted Leave while Corbyn's voted overwhelmingly Remain). There was simply nothing more at all that Corbyn could have done, and no other Labour figure made any effective arguments for the Remain case.

It's time to stop acting as if it's silly to question the idea that Corbyn MUST step down and that Corbyn's supporters must be driven out of the party. At this point, it is clear that neither of those occurrences(NOR a repudiation of Corbyn's ideas)is going to bring Labour huge numbers of additional voters, OR persuade a single person who voted Tory in 2015 to vote Labour next time.

If the PLP wanted Corbyn to step down, they should have made it clear, from the beginning, that a left candidate WOULD be allowed in the subsequent leadership vote, that Corbyn's supporters wouldn't be expelled, and that internal party democracy would be restored. From all that I've heard, they refused to commit to ANY of those things. Instead, all they offered was to give Corbyn a newly-created job as "party president"-a job we all know would have been powerless and irrelevant. It was absurd for the PLP or anyone else ever to have expected Corbyn to agree to that. They all knew that he wouldn't, and that he couldn't. Therefore, the PLP were never "negotiating" with Corbyn in good faith. They treated him as if he had no right ever to have been leader at all and they acted as if it were THEIR party and no one else's. That attitude made Corbyn's decision to stand and fight, and massive support that decision has received among the Labour rank and file, inevitable and predictable.

The MPs have got to accept the fact that the party members and workers and the LABOUR MOVEMENT ITSELF(the unions)must have just as much say in what the party stands for, who leads it, and who is nominated as prospective parliamentary candidates by it as THEY do. Otherwise, they need to do the honourable thing, rename themselves the "Professional Politician Party", and stand down and fight for their seats in byelections under that banner. They have no right at all to treat Labour as their private property and their exclusive club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #30)

Tue Aug 30, 2016, 08:19 AM

31. Peaceful is it?

Momentum has dropped a pledge to nonviolence from code of ethics, which makes your claim untrue (as per usual).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/19/momentum-drops-pledge-to-non-violence-from-code-of-ethics

Momentum is not affiliated to the Labour party like Progress, which means that all sorts of oddballs from far left groups like the SWP who Labour would never admit can (and do) join it. Any promise that it could have changed British politics for the better has long since gone. It has become entirely devoted to keeping Corbyn in office at any cost, to the point where it does very much resemble a leadership cult. And to that end it is increasingly serving no purpose other than internal Labour infighting.

So your claims about Momentum are (as per usual) actually rather false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 30, 2016, 09:06 AM

32. Being so ridiculously selective in your outrage

will only persuade those who don't bother to read beyond the headlines and your spin. From the article you link:

But the word “nonviolent” was dropped from the code after several members argued that Momentum members should have the right to defend themselves if attacked by police or fascists.

...

Mountford, who has since been kicked out of the Labour party for being associated with the AWL but remains on Momentum’s steering committee, said she and other members objected to the use of the word “nonviolent”.

“I raised a point that if we stuck with the suggested wording, and our members were arrested for defending themselves on a protest, then we would have to consider expelling them from Momentum,” she said.

“As people who are organising and protesting, we have to have a right to defend ourselves. I cited the fight against fascists in Cable Street, the right of self-defence during the miners’ strike, the suffragettes. Those struggles showed us that while the right might accuse the left of violence, we should defend the right to defend ourselves.”


So no, it doesn't indicate that Ken's claim is untrue. Take a look at the images of any number of pro-Corbyn gatherings - the vast, vast majority of those attending look like - and are - "mainstream people," like your friends and neighbours, no matter how much you try to strap ridiculous horns onto them because of political differences of opinion.

Now, I'm in favour of non-violent resistance by whatever imaginative means people can come up with.

For instance, I wish the miners had taken some leaves out of CND's book during the Miners' Strike, and sat/lain down rather than jostling physically with the police on pickets as was the traditional way, not least because it would have presented very different pictures in the media.

But then Orgreave showed that even people desperately running away from conflict having offered no conceivable threat of violence at all could be run down and have their heads stoved in by the police, so that's a rather privileged outlook that's not necessarily in step with a large swathe of the population who do believe in self-defence by whatever means the moment demands. As for fascists, the Scottish Yes movement had famous run-ins with drunken sectarian EDF/SDF Unionist thugs in George Square, Glasgow on the day after the indyref1 result. As it happened, there was no proven violence, even in self-defence or retaliation, from those on the Yes side, but if one or more of them had felt it necessary to intervene to protect themselves or others from these thugs if the police hadn't been so on the ball, I'd have a serious problem condemning them out of hand.

So I don't agree with this change of stance by Momentum, but it's a hell of a stretch to claim that this indicates that Momentum is not "peaceful."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 30, 2016, 01:18 PM

33. One man's "self defence" is another mans GBH

EDL thugs like to call their activities "self defense" for instance. It is notable that the first principle that Corbynites discard as inconvenient is that one. You could even argue that it gives Owen Smith the greater nonviolent credentials!

I'm just going to sit back and wait for somebody to use the "b-b-but the Blairites voted to bomb ISIS" argument now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 30, 2016, 04:12 PM

34. Well, good.

You seem to be at least registering the existence of a degree of hypocrisy in the wider Labour ranks.

I mean, where to start?

Labour MP Marie Rimmer charged with attacking a woman at a polling station on day of indyref

A LABOUR MP has been charged with attacking a woman at a polling station weeks after a previous trial collapsed after an apparent blunder by prosecutors.

Marie Rimmer, 68, allegedly assaulted Patricia McLeish at the entrance to Shettleston Community Centre in Glasgow’s East End last year, on the day of the independence referendum.

The MP for St Helen’s in Merseyside also faces a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner on September 18, by repeatedly approaching campaign volunteers and by pointing her finger in the face of Dennis Ashcroft.

She is alleged to have repeatedly approached Miss McLeish in an aggressive manner.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13768144.Labour_MP_Marie_Rimmer_charged_with_attacking_a_woman_at_a_polling_station_on_day_of_indyref/


Trial delayed for Labour MP Marie Rimmer over 'referendum assault' charge

Marie Rimmer, 69, the MP for St Helens South and Whiston, denies assaulting Patricia McLeish outside Shettleston Community Centre on 18 September 2014.

She also denies behaving in an abusive manner towards other Yes campaigners.

The part-heard trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court was adjourned as Ms Rimmer's solicitor advocate was not available.

...

Sheriff Kenneth Hogg adjourned Ms Rimmer's trial until November.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37213057


I dunno, these nasty, violent Corbynite thugs, eh?

Maybe I'll do this in instalments, so you have a chance to continue to get the hang of it ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 30, 2016, 04:59 PM

35. Instalment 2

Labour right thugs threaten own side
‘Get the fuck out of Brighton, right now’ activists warned

TWO left-Labour activists were told to “get the fuck out of Brighton now, scum,” by members of their own party, according to reports this weekend.

The London-based activists, who were on the south coast for a rally in support of Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday night, said they had faced “physical threats,” swearing and aggression from people purporting to be Labour members in a Brighton pub.

The verbal dust-up followed an extraordinary letter from the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove Council warning of a “takeover” of the local Labour Party by left activists.

Tottenham Constituency Labour Party secretary Seema Chandwani said two men had approached her and Michael Calderbank, who works as a trade union researcher in Parliament, at a pub where they were eating dinner after the packed rally.

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d9b4-Labour-right-thugs-threaten-own-side


Tut. Those Corbynite thugs.

Owen Smith’s biggest backer just lost it on social media, threatening violence against an MP

John McTernan, a commentator and previous strategist for the Labour Party, has threatened an SNP MP with violence on Twitter. In one fell swoop, McTernan (who strongly backs Owen Smith in the Labour leadership contest) proved himself to be the very type of abusive person that officials claim they want ejected from the party.

The threat transpired during an exchange between McTernan and SNP MP Pete Wishart over recently released figures on the state of Scotland’s finances.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/24/owen-smiths-biggest-backer-just-lost-social-media-threatening-violence-mp-tweets/


Twitter exchange in question here: https://twitter.com/johnmcternan/status/768421586701545472

Just a one-off transgression by McTernan? Well ...



Quote from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10276410/David-Camerons-No-10-isnt-a-patch-on-Tony-Blairs.html

Tut, tut. Those Corbynite thugs.

"In the end, in politics you need to be feared or respected."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 01:40 AM

36. Yawn

Yes I am aware of the existence of hypocrisy, it's just that Corbynite cultists seem to think that it's only the non-Corbyn cultists who are capable of it.

I don't know about you, but I don't think this country needs a main opposition party who think that "Animal Farm" is some sort of instruction manual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #36)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 09:24 PM

39. "Yawn"

Now you know how I feel every time I read yet another of your hyperbolic dead-ender diatribes about "Corbynite cultists" and their many, many terrible transgressions against humanity, which inexplicably give a pass to the spineless cod-Machiavellian centralizing triangulating unelectable austerity fetishists who got the party and country in this mess in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 01:30 AM

40. Wrong

Last edited Thu Sep 1, 2016, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

It's my rants about the "Northern Powerhouse", especially with regard to Sheffield City Region that are especially boring.

And even there, we really need the leader of the Labour party to intervene to resolve the significant dispute between Chesterfield Labour and the county wide party.

Politics. It isn't always about the interesting stuff.

P.S. Your posts also prove my point that the Labour leadership contest is all about personal vendetta's, not about making this country a better place to live. And you wouldn't want the SNP to head down this sort of direction would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #40)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:06 PM

41. "the Labour leadership contest is all about personal vendetta's"

I think that became only too apparent up yonder in your reply to my question, "So if, once re-elected leader, Corbyn pursues at least some of these policies in parliament, he can expect the vocal support of Smith and others in the PLP, rather than catcalls and sniping?"

You went off on (yet another) one about how horrible Corbyn is, how it's all his fault etc.

Look in the mirror, T_i_B.

The fact that the SNP, figures within it, and its supporters have been subjected to precisely this sort of unreasoning tabloid vilification (not least from you, in this very group, in the past) has quite a bit to do with my defence of those within Labour looking for a different path rather than attempting to re-steal the Tories' clothes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #41)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 01:16 AM

42. Actually I was thinking of something different about the SNP

Now I do not like what they stand for but I will concede that they get a lot of the basic stuff right where Labour don't. I cannot see an SNP voter choosing Labour over the SNP at present, due largely to the SNP's ability to run whelk stalls and organise piss ups in breweries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #42)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 04:31 AM

43. Well, Labour in Scotland's woes are manifold,

and have very little to do with Corbyn, and everything to do with residual Blairism and the hollowing out of the party at all levels over the past couple of decades, along with the tensions of trying to marry the outlooks of the Scottish and UK-wide electorate.

Corbyn doesn't understand the Scottish political scene, and seems to take his briefings via the current out-of-touch Scottish leadership, which is itself divided.

Owen Smith is even less in touch with the situation north of the border:

Labour has been accused of being in “complete chaos” in Scotland after leadership contender Owen Smith declared he would not oppose a second independence referendum – directly contradicting the position of his party north of the border.

The Pontypridd MP, who is standing against Jeremy Corbyn, also said he would happily overrule Scottish Labour on the issue of renewing the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent, describing this as the “nature of devolution”.

In what Labour’s political opponents described as a “car crash” interview this morning, Mr Smith said that while he did not think there should be another independence vote, it was ultimately “for the Scottish people” to decide whether or not they wanted one.

...

His stance directly contradicts Scottish Labour’s official view on the matter. The party’s manifesto ahead of the Scottish Parliament election earlier this year said it opposed holding another referendum in the next five years, and leader Kezia Dugdale is against a re-run of 2014’s vote. Mr Smith also reiterated his support for the renewal of Trident, which Scottish Labour has opposed since a vote at its autumn conference last year.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/owen-smith-fire-car-crash-scottish-radio-interview/


There's some excuse for this, as the Scottish leadership can't get its own ducks in a row.

Current Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale is a switherer, incompetent, and living on borrowed time, having been AWOL in America for a large part of the summer, missing the fallout from the Brexit vote. She doggedly opposes another indyref, while her deputy and a number of other leading Scottish Labour figures have expressed guarded support for it in recent times. As for Trident, a weathervane swings back and forth less than Dugdale on that issue, and she had to repent on her earlier stance on it to comply with the overwhelming sentiment within the party in Scotland (apart from the ridiculous opportunist Jackie Baillie, obviously).

Smith was gobsmacked at the Scottish hustings when his statement that Dugdale was doing a great job was met with bitter guffaws. Rather than realizing why his declaration might be considered risible, he blethered on about this being evidence of "entryism" in Scottish Labour.

Scottish Labour would wet itself in joy at the prospect of having a problem like entryism.

The irony of his condemning this lack of loyalty to a party leader while playing his own part in the attempted Corbyn coup was lost on him, but very few others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread