Jeremy Corbyn

[AstonZagato]

deadslow said:

RichB said:

The fact is that over 80% of the elected Labour Party Members of Parliament voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the party (172 vs 40).

and they have sat on their hands for months and not done their jobs, which is a disaster the country, since a decent opposition has never been needed more ungently. Irrespective of whether you support JC or not, shame on these Labour MP Clowns for selfishly letting everyone down.

Or shame on Corbyn for not realising that he is splitting the party and therefore stepping graciously out of the way so that someone more suitable can unite the party and mount a concerted opposition attack?

Only a question of perspective.

[RichB]

AstonZagato said:

deadslow said:

RichB said:

The fact is that over 80% of the elected Labour Party Members of Parliament voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the party (172 vs 40).

and they have sat on their hands for months and not done their jobs, which is a disaster the country, since a decent opposition has never been needed more ungently. Irrespective of whether you support JC or not, shame on these Labour MP Clowns for selfishly letting everyone down.

Or shame on Corbyn for not realising that he is splitting the party and therefore stepping graciously out of the way so that someone more suitable can unite the party and mount a concerted opposition attack? Only a question of perspective.

Indeed, however back to my point; what do people, especially Labour voters on this thread, think will happen once Corbyn is returned as leader?

[JawKnee]

Ganglandboss said:

They don't give a f**k about any party. Most just vote for who they think is the best of a bad bunch, previously out of a choice of Lib Dems, Labour or Tory.

Is that your final answer? Earlier you were saying the voters held a position against socialism but now you're saying "they don't give a f**k".

Which one is it?

[Ganglandboss]

JawKnee said:

Ganglandboss said:

They don't give a f**k about any party. Most just vote for who they think is the best of a bad bunch, previously out of a choice of Lib Dems, Labour or Tory.

Is that your final answer? Earlier you were saying the voters held a position against socialism but now you're saying "they don't give a f**k".

Which one is it?

Note the bit in bold; you appear to have missed it off your quote.

The utter wibble you have been typing has been unpicked by several posters, but you still do not appear to get it. I cannot be arsed discussing it with you any further.

[deadslow]

AstonZagato said:

deadslow said:

RichB said:

The fact is that over 80% of the elected Labour Party Members of Parliament voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the party (172 vs 40).

and they have sat on their hands for months and not done their jobs, which is a disaster the country, since a decent opposition has never been needed more ungently. Irrespective of whether you support JC or not, shame on these Labour MP Clowns for selfishly letting everyone down.

Or shame on Corbyn for not realising that he is splitting the party and therefore stepping graciously out of the way so that someone more suitable can unite the party and mount a concerted opposition attack?

Only a question of perspective.

No, certainly not. He is the democratically elected leader (albeit with the assistance of a few anti-democracy tory/militant cheats) and the MPs ought to do their jobs which is to provide a vigorous opposition to the governmant and represent their constituents. They can certainly challenge him to a leadership contest, but sitting dumb in Parliament is not what they were elected to do. When they don't get their own way, they don't want to play. Shame on them.

[essayer]

I'm guessing one of -
- through CLP/PLP chicanery the anti-Corbyn MPs all get deselected. More left wing candidates are fielded in 2020 and I'm guessing a larger Conservative majority is returned, or
- the anti-Corbyn MPs start and join the No Corbyns Party, becoming recognised as the Opposition. A few years of this and they build up the necessary infrastructure to run nationally in 2020, fragmenting the 'non-Tory' vote.

Interesting times.

[anonymous-user]

I really doubt a phoenix party splitting from Labour would take any more than a few short months to mobilise and be ready to fight an election. There will be plenty of donors willing to fund major infrastructure to get things moving and I'd expect a chunk of those who're members of Labour now would pay to affiliate to the new party, as well as those who've become dissolutioned with the current choices.

It would be naive to think that senior figures in the centre of the party haven't been having increasingly frequent and serious conversations with potential funders since Corbyn came to power. Chuka won't have been sat on his hands, for example.

[Johnnytheboy]

Labour is deeply in debt. New party won't be...

[schmunk]

Johnnytheboy said:

Labour is deeply in debt.

A bit less so now...

[Johnnytheboy]

schmunk said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Labour is deeply in debt.

A bit less so now...

Actually I'm entirely wrong.

According to a man interviewed in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labo...

[Derek Smith]

essayer said:

I'm guessing one of -
- through CLP/PLP chicanery the anti-Corbyn MPs all get deselected. More left wing candidates are fielded in 2020 and I'm guessing a larger Conservative majority is returned, or
- the anti-Corbyn MPs start and join the No Corbyns Party, becoming recognised as the Opposition. A few years of this and they build up the necessary infrastructure to run nationally in 2020, fragmenting the 'non-Tory' vote.

Interesting times.

The threat of deselection that Corbyn, I believe, made to those who voted against him is rather silly. It is saying to those MPs that there days as labour MPs are coming to an end regardless of their actions. That said, it is probably not a surprise to them at this stage.

I would think that some of the non-union based funding would move to any new party, and some of the union funding as well might find its way.

The SDP managed 25-30 MPs at one time but then faded. However, it hurt the labour party and benefited the liberals. Politics is weird and almost impossible to predict. But trying is fun.

[Halb]

If Jon SMith hadn't passed away, he would have been the last socialist leader, as it was, he passed away, and the Teflon DOn entered the fray, and the rest is history.

[AstonZagato]

deadslow said:

AstonZagato said:

deadslow said:

RichB said:

The fact is that over 80% of the elected Labour Party Members of Parliament voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the party (172 vs 40).

and they have sat on their hands for months and not done their jobs, which is a disaster the country, since a decent opposition has never been needed more ungently. Irrespective of whether you support JC or not, shame on these Labour MP Clowns for selfishly letting everyone down.

Or shame on Corbyn for not realising that he is splitting the party and therefore stepping graciously out of the way so that someone more suitable can unite the party and mount a concerted opposition attack?

Only a question of perspective.

No, certainly not. He is the democratically elected leader (albeit with the assistance of a few anti-democracy tory/militant cheats) and the MPs ought to do their jobs which is to provide a vigorous opposition to the governmant and represent their constituents. They can certainly challenge him to a leadership contest, but sitting dumb in Parliament is not what they were elected to do. When they don't get their own way, they don't want to play. Shame on them.

If one sees that one cannot do the job that one was appointed to do, one should step aside regardless of one's mandate. In fact, one would be honour bound to do so if it were harming the goals of the organisation that one leads.

I have no dog in this fight. I can see that the PLP are failing to represent their party too. But regardless of the actions of the PLP, Corbyn has shown time and again that he is incapable of the role that he was put there to do. Unable to hold the government to account at PMQs? Yes. Unable to manage a reshuffle? Yes. Unable to gain the confidence of his colleagues? Yes. Unable to formulate a coherent strategy on defence, on terrorism, on Europe? Yes, yes, and yes.

At some point, he needs to recognise that he isn't up to the job however much his supporters would like him to be. He won't and it will continue to tear Labour apart.

He doesn't care because he is a "useful idiot" who is being used to enable the hard left to take control of the party and the PLP. The more the PLP rail against him, the more those who pull his strings rejoice.

[technodup]

Corbyn's had a relatively easy ride so far, all the attacks have come from his own side. He didn't want to be leader, has no policies, no track record and no loyalty from his MPs. In another three years when he looks about 102, the media's done him up like a kipper and the Tories have decades worth of ammunition to fire at him how exactly is he going to win an election?

Discounting UKIP is a mistake. They might morph into something else but Banks is willing to fund something and they're already hacking away at Northern Labour majorities. He can forget getting more than a few seats in Scotland.

And even if he did win, would he have enough MPs willing to actually do the various jobs?

He's a fking joke. But I'm enjoying it all the same.

[GoodOlBoy]

If labour MP's decided to defect and form a new party, do they retain their seats or is a by-election required in each case ?

[Johnnytheboy]

GoodOlBoy said:

If labour MP's decided to defect and form a new party, do they retain their seats or is a by-election required in each case ?

They retain their seats.

Precedents I can think of: you have those Tories that became Ukip, and back in the 90s there were a couple of Tories (there's a pattern forming here) who joined Labour. Shaun Woodward was one.

[Vaud]

GoodOlBoy said:

If labour MP's decided to defect and form a new party, do they retain their seats or is a by-election required in each case ?

They retain their seats until the next election. It's an anomaly of our system in my view.

[RichB]

Vaud said:

GoodOlBoy said:

If labour MP's decided to defect and form a new party, do they retain their seats or is a by-election required in each case ?

They retain their seats until the next election. It's an anomaly of our system in my view.

Indeed, but you could argue that they have been elected by their constituents as the person to represent them. If they feel that by crossing the floor they are best positioned to do that then so be it.

[ralphrj]

Johnnytheboy said:

GoodOlBoy said:

If labour MP's decided to defect and form a new party, do they retain their seats or is a by-election required in each case ?

They retain their seats.

Precedents I can think of: you have those Tories that became Ukip, and back in the 90s there were a couple of Tories (there's a pattern forming here) who joined Labour. Shaun Woodward was one.

You're right that they retain their seats but both Carswell and Reckless called by-elections when they defected to UKIP and won them. However, they are very much the exceptions.

[gazza285]

Vaud said:

They retain their seats until the next election. It's an anomaly of our system in my view.

No it isn't. You are meant to vote for the best candidate to represent your area, not because of which gang they are in, nor because of who the top dog of the gang is. The whole thing has been subverted by politics.