Well done Labour NEC - Corbyn can stand

Hells Bells! Let's lay down and die. Let's give up and drown ourselves in the short sighted masses.

Again understanding the operations of our goevrning structures would help you

Mandatory reselection would not stop your 172 being MP's - it would mean that they could not stand under a Labour banner at the next election. If JC wins they will split anyway so it is moot

Where are your new candidates coming from? The middle class degree educated momentum members? Sure they are down with the peeps. I suspect Momentum is creating a war chest to set up their new party - Peoples front of Juddeah or some such - so you will have a new party (along with Arron Banks' new one or maybe it will be the same one!) to rave about very soon

As UKIP would then likely be the second party in England.

Claig

So how will he win an election - who will be his MP's. When the candidates are discredited how will that happen? When the vote is split how will that happen? When most voters are far more moderate than Corbyn how will that happen. Unless you are suggesting the RedUKIP approach?

Oh and btw I have met a number of momentum activists with Oxbridge degrees - fathom me that

LazyCake - there is something worse than going on as we have been, far from ideal though it has been. And that is not going on at all.

If Corbyn wins, the Labour Party will be finished as an electoral force. Over a century of a left-wing opposition and sometimes government party at an end. Because it will split the party. And there will be no return from that.

Smith is no great shakes as a candidate, but equally, I don't think he's intended to be. He's standing because there needs to be someone to stand against Corbyn and none of the more serious candidates want to risk their political careers and worse, given the extreme bullying of those seen as opposing Corbyn. If he wins, they'll come forward.

If Corbyn goes, we have a hope of rescuing the left. If he stays, we don't. Expect lots of focus on gesture politics. And enjoy living in a one-party state. I don't want to tell my children that I was responsible for the fact there is no alternative to the Tories in Eng;land - except for UKIP.

Ignore claig btw - s/he's a UKIP supporter so of course Corbyn's success would be like a dream come true for him/her.

Claig understanding how our parliamentary system works may help you. Ignoring populist posturing politics that shout into the echo chambers of the already converted is essential.

We require an operating opposition. JC is unable to do this. If he wins the party will not function - there is nothing to say they have to support him. The reality is there will probably be a split. If not collectively to a new party or retaiingt the labour banner then many defections to other parties. What is your solution to this? Corbyn continues to stand on his soapbox and demand a loyalty he himself has never bothered to extend to any leader he has had - it won't happen will it

Corbyn win an election - don't make me laugh - do you look at his ratings? I know labour party supporters who would rather vote tactically (lid dem or green) for the first time ever than let that happen

Oh and wait for the new Momentum candidates if they manage deselection for the next election- that will be fun- the dailyfail will have a freaking field day

'The establishment' it appears is so many things. Is it the same as the 'elite' Who are the 'stooges' Claig? The 'rebels'? It is simplistic to suggest reining in the stooges will give us s new type of politics. The Labour party has to split - the cracks run from top to bottom and JC can not lead and doesn't want to fix it

Corbyn couldn't run a sweet shop (but doesn't mind using a sweatshop by all accounts) . Where is the money that momentum raises going to? No published accounts yet and no visibility

In my area from what I can see boundary changes will mean the Lib Dems could very well sweep in at the next election. A unified LP could have held it - but with the grass roots destroyed there is very little hope of that. The LP isn't just the MP's or Momentum there is a huge moderate membership that will either leave or will no longer actively work for any JC controlled party or could possibly leave and join the Lib Dems. The attack on the party is on all sides - JC will only fix it by stepping down - but he would rather destroy it. That is the kind of person you see as principled and visionary - mind you you think Nigel and Le Pen are amazing too

But Corbyn has had nigh on a year to do that and his has signally failed to do so. John's first para is spot on. Most people don't dispute a lot of what JC says he is about. They dispute his ability to lead the party and lead the opposition. And they're pretty bloody important if your job is to do both those things. And he's prived himself to be as arrogant and as much of a hypocrite as any other politician, only those who have built this personality cult around him simply can't, or won't, see it. And that cult is dangerous.

To quote the great James Robertson Justice in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 'had your chance, muffed it'. And JC's chance has been a lot longer than Mr Potts' was.

Oh, toooomuch, I'm an ardent Corbynista but starting to feel a bit disconcerted by some of your arguments...

Agreed with much of what said about concerns re: gesture politics. I was disappointed when last week Corbyn named his priorities as 'inequality, prejudice and discrimination.' It sounded to me a bit like same-old identity politics, when what I'd really like to see is the kind of economic reforms John described in his post.

I shall read the Richard Murphy article, but in the meantime, I return to my previous point: who else in Labour is promising change? We can't go on as we have been, so I am prepared to get behind Corbyn.

Read that link - it is damning in the extreme, by someone who worked closely with Corbyn and McDonnell to help them formulate their strategy.

Here are two more comments from him on Labour's current front bench:

"What I do know is that Jeremy et al are hopeless managers at almost any level. I genuinely wish it was otherwise . I am deeply disappointed by what has happened

But I remain committed to the ideas and do want a government committed to a mixed economy and much more than nationalisation of the natural monopolies

That is why IO will tell you that you’re making a mistake backing Corbyn because he will never deliver it"

and

"I want real opposition in this country – not a kindergarten variety, at best – and I’m not now sure JC could even do that

Have you even seen how pathetic his launch statement for re-election is? It’s worse than student politics standard "

From the comments here:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/22/what-happens-to-labour-now/

Corbyn talks the talk but I see no evidence at all he walks the walk.

See here this very damning post from Richard Murphy, Corbyn's former tax adviser, on how Corbyn and McDonnell have sold the whole left-wing ethos up the river.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/21/john-mcdonnell-is-right-we-do-disagree-on-macroeconomic-policy/

What Corbyn really cares about is not helping the poor or over-turning the neolliberal consensus. What really gets him going is the pointless gesture politics that is manna to the right-wing press and loses voters hand over fist - he wants an end to the monarchy (cf not singing the national anthem), he wants to give Falklands back to Argentina in opposition to the wishes of the people who actually live there, he wants to foment violence in the Middle East (cf Stop the War's approval of violent attacks on Israeli civilians), he is best mates with Putin and Iran, he is a fan of the IRA, etc etc etc.

His foreign politics is electoral poison, all of it, and whilst his domestic agenda is sounder than the PLPs in recent years, his mad foreign policies risk the association in the minds of the voters of all left-wing domestic policies with frankly barking foreign policy objectives. In this way, he risks Labour being out of power for good even if he does stand down after losing an election.

I agree with a lot of what you say JohnJ80. Many in Scotland, including myself, regard the SNP as well to the right of where "traditional Labour values" are. They vote for them because they are well to the Left of the PLP. Labour started off in control of the Scottish Parliament and lost because it did not break away from the Westminster consensus in Holyrood. There was an alternative Left of centre Party in the SNP. (In the context of the 100 seats you mention the last GE saw Labour lose circa 50 Westminster seats to the SNP).

I read some analysis looking at the voting profile of Labour marginal seats and correlating it with Brexit. For Labour the safe seats are in Remain areas but the marginal seats which win general elections are in heavily Brexit areas. Owen Smith and others in the PLP still fighting the Remain battle looks politically naive at best or just plain stupid.

I also disagree with Blunkett and his desire to build alliances with the super rich. In London the oppressed masses will vote Labour and their capitalistic masters will vote Conservative. Continued success for the Masters dictates that the few exploit the many and so there will naturally be more Left wing voters = safe Labour seats.

The capitalist model has not been working out so well for the non-London part of the UK for quite some time.

Excellent and very informative post from JohnJ80.

I don't think Corbyn's perfect, but right now he's the only one who is offering the change that is so desperately needed. And who've Labour got who would do better in a General Election? Angela Eagle? Owen Smith, fgs...?

I partly concur toomuch. Corbyn is an egotistic demagogue with poor leadership skills and a tendency to make what can be most charitably described as naive associations with antisemitic thugs. His Brexit performance was reprehensible. But at the same time there is no reflection on the part of the PLP as to why their politics has been so pointedly rejected by their membership and the young more generally.

Neither do they offer an alternative beyond technocratic continuity.

In the Observer today David Blunkett writes:

"The truth is that to reduce inequality and tackle discrimination, we need to create a broad alliance for those who are not “disadvantaged and discriminated against” and who, in their desire for a better life, have to be persuaded that this involves changing the lives of others for the better. In other words, mutuality and reciprocity, not the politics of envy and victimhood."

I don't know what this means.

Such people say they believe in social justice and reducing inequality. But how? What do they propose to do about it? They and all of Corbyn's opponents expect people to take it on nothing but faith that they are social democrats. Given the complicity of many of them in the events of 2008, why should we? None of them delineate even the most vague policy programme for addressing structural inequality. None. Or at least Smith does but he's clearly trying to lie his corporate lobbying arse into power.

If they did advance an alternative to Corbyn's politics then I'm listening. Genuinely. I like many people agree with some of what Corbyn says doesn't think he has all the answers. We are open to alternative perspectives. If they were talking about stakeholder capitalism (workers co-owning companies), or ordoliberal capitalism/market socialism (the state ensuring markets don't become oligopolistic and function democratically), or any of the other European alternatives to neoliberal capitalism then that would be different. But they are not. And this quite reasonably leads people to suspect that what they really believe in is an Anglo-American shareholder capitalism that rewards the rich at the expense of everyone else; and by the 'people who are not disadvantaged and discriminated against' they mean filthy rich financiers and CEO's; and when they say they merely have to be 'persuaded' to have 'empathy' they mean they should be left alone to carry on; and when they say the 'politics of envy and victimhood' they mean social democracy.

So therefore, people will not listen to them. Because all Blunkett indicates, obliquely, is that he believes in more of the same oligopolistic, corrupt, neo-feudal capitalism with a few virtue signalling, sticking plaster policies thrown in. Of course no one should expect anyone to overturn a global economic system overnight, but what even incremental moves towards a more socially just distribution of wealth would a 'centerist' be prepared to make? Eff all. And neither can they even reasonably offer power anymore. Over a 100 seats on the back of this hollow cynicism? Don't make me laugh.

If these people really did believe in democratic capitalism then they would pledge to slash rates for small businesses, limit the power of multinationals, increase corporation tax and abolish exploitative employment practices like zero hour contracts. And they certainly would not, when in government, have introduced market mechanisms into what are supposed to be democratically accountable state services. They don't believe in aspirational free enterprise; they believe in neoliberal capitalism. Because neoliberal capitalists is what they are.

The leader was Tony Blair - Corbyn had a moral duty to oppose him. If only more MPs had followed his example.

Funnily enough Blair wasn't leader for 30 years.

Corbyn also was behind Benn challenging Kinnock as leader and funnily enough was insistent that Kinnock got the correct number of MPs backing to get on the ballot. (Which he did). Something he wasn't prepared to do himself.

I respect him for his track record

Would that be the track record of being a serial rebel and serially disloyal to the party and every leader for the last 33 years? - 537 times I think it is? (Corbyn, the do as I say, not as I do candidate)

Or would that be the track record of calling Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' - which he has only this month apologised for (only took him a few years...)

Or would that be the track record of a guy who takes money to appear on Iranian state TV? Or maybe the track record of a guy who gave money to a well-known Holocaust denier (conveniently, he apparently doesn't bother to check out who he gives money to before doing so - wish we all that loaded)?

Or the track record of the guy whose 'policies' inclide giving back the Falklands to Argentina, in contravention of the very clearly expressed wishes of the people who actually live there?

Or the track record of the guy who has repeatedly failed to lead on agreed Labour Party policies and even worked against them, eg on Brexit, on Trident etc?

Or the track record of the guy who has spent a huge amount of time this year attending JC4PM rallies (events not cheap - £25 a head - where's that money going??) in preference to actually carrying out government business? Who doesn't have time to meet his own MPs or tell a shadow minister with cancer that she's been fired - but can find time for a week's holiday 3 weeks before the referendum and can find time to attend Stop the War events and personal rallies by his fan club?

He is NOT a 'nice, decent' guy. He is anything but. He is a vain, stupid, egotist with no leadership skills, no management skills, no people skills and no interest in representing ordinary working people. And why should he care? - born in a manor house, attended private school, never done a proper job outside politics in his life, huge, cushy pension guaranteed - you couldn't get someone who is more a member of the elite. Just like Farage and his phony 'man of the people' shtick.

The sooner he goes the better. He turns my stomach. And yes, I'm a long-term Labour voter.

It wasn't just Blair though, was it?

It was also Kinnock, Brown, and John Smith. I wonder if he'll still be proposing that a new leader be elected every year as he did in 2003 in the Morning Star?