To think the Labour Party is finished

[Flashbangandgone]

...as a credible opposition. I read earlier that MPs involved in the attempted coup have admitted failure, and that support in the party is too strong to risk a leadership contest.... So you have a party whose leader has the backing of less than 20% of its MPs, and there being no apparent way of resolving it. The party is now utterly dysfunctional and I can't see any positive way out. I'm not a Labour Party supporter, but this is surely bad for the country.

If the UK are putting boots in Poland I can't see any option but JC.

Who else is going to say no to Hilly or Trump?

Who could do the job do people think - either taking over from JC or heading up new party? I am setting my bar low: I want someone is is able to win an election, anti-racist and pro-European. Some proper Labour values would be nice but I'd settle for anyone who can beat May (or, god forbid, Leadsom) from the centre or left.

I feel very gloomy - JC supporters do not seem interested in winning an election, or in parliamentary democracy. I have seen lots of comments about how Labour MPs are there to represent party members and post-Chilcot, they assume anyone who opposes JC supported the war. I marched against the war, campaigned, only joined the party once Blair and Brown were both gone but think JC is a disaster.

I'd go for Liz Kendal. I think it is about time they elected a female leader. Even the Tories have managed it twice.

Liz Kendall, Owen Smith, Dan Jarvis, Kier Starmer all would be good candidates.

Apparently a split is inevitable and all that's stopping it is a custody battle over who gets the name 'Labour' because so many people 'just vote Labour' no matter what.

Yep. I saw Keir introduce Andy Burnham at a hustings last year and he was very impressive (unlike Andy), thoughtful and calm.

And yet Labour's record under JC isn't bad - they've won every by-election and didn't do too badly in the Council elections either.
They've also had real influence on policy.
Membership of party has increased greatly and there is real evidence of a 'grass roots' movement.

Despite best efforts of the right wing press & Blairites JC is still standing - not easy in this day and age of soundbites and makeovers.

Don't think Cameron has done himself any favours either with his belittling comments about JC - he just looks petulant and ill mannered.

Liz Kendal would be horrific. She got a paltry 4.5 percent of members votes. She would never win amongst members. Many members are skeptical of Blairite/progress MPs. The only way a Blairite will get through a leadership battle is if they are the only candidates. They aren't going to get rid of JC as he is popular with members and unions.

The problem is the PLP tends towards authoritarian and Blairism. Members are treated with disdain. Some even recently called JC supporters scumbags.

In my and many members views, Labour did badly in the last GE as they were too much like the Tories. People would say 'they are all the same' or 'red tories'. However the PLP believe that it is the Tory swing voters are where we need to go. This is why Harmon etc abstained on the welfare bill and people like Chris Leslie preferred to agree with Tory policy and undermine JC rather than oppose it.

I think a split is inevitable. The PLP coup would lose a large number of members. Maybe they could call themselves New Labour or Blair/Blue Labour?

I disagree - it's not the members the party needs to worry about but attracting votes from the stereotypical white van man, the floating voters. People who aren't heavily into politics etc. JC and his ilk will never do that, hence they will never win an election. That's fine if you just want to be a talking shop, but to change things for the better you need to be in power.

SNP appear to be the largest party who can provide credible opposition at the moment in Westminster, sad to say. Labour need to step up or split up, but it's probably going to take a General Election to force the issue.

I disagree - it's not the members the party needs to worry about but attracting votes from the stereotypical white van man, the floating voters. People who aren't heavily into politics etc. JC and his ilk will never do that, hence they will never win an election

Really? I thought the recent referendum results actually showed JC was far more in touch with that kind of voter, particularly in the North, than the Londoncentric Blairite rabidly pro EU wing of the party who just look down on them as thickos.

The bottom line, imo, is if they want to be in power they need a centrist candidate.
Just my opinion!

Some even recently called JC supporters scumbags.

Of course all JC supporters are all sweetness and light

As pp have said. It isn't just the members. 9 million people voted Labour. It is those they have to retain plus attract swing voters. Unless you want to be in continuous opposition.

JC won't do that.

Labour (as is usual for opposition parties at this point in a term) should be way ahead in voting intentions, popularity and polls.

Labour isn't and in fact is trailing in some.

Regarding PR: currently we have a 2 party system where 60% of the population's votes essentially don't count

So only 40% vote for Tories and labour combined? I know their vote share has fallen but that's just plain wrong.

Sorry, I take it you meant most people are in safe seats.

Piglet

There have been a few stories... Here's one:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/amp/?client=safari#

Exactly, Piglet, and Labour's recent internal polling showed that most JC supporters live in Labour seats surprise surprise so they won't help win more seats.
This is interesting I think

There's a good Andrew Rawnsley article from the weekend

I'm appalled by the Labour MPs who tried a coup. They should have gotten behind their leader and stuck it to the Tories big time. But instead they tried to win power for themselves, at the wrong time completely. What's most annoying is that they just don't get it. The vast swathes of labour party members are sick and tired of the posturing and media seeking politicians and just want a normal kind of guy (or gal). Opposition has to be exactly that. Not much the same wearing red instead of blue. It puts things out of kilter. The labour party may well split but the old labour under Jeremy Corbyn will always be the larger. If there are too many splits it makes the whole working of government much more difficult as any decisions and policies is done with horse trading because there is no majority. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing, just a slow one. Might actually make things more democratic.

Voluptua (great name) - what about voters though? I can see JC has attracted many more members to the party and is popular with them, but one would hope we had most of their vote anyway (and party stats suggest they don't live in the areas we need to win)? Can you point to any analysis showing JC can win enough seats from the tories? I have looked - and would like to be convinced - but cannot find any.

I don't think either side of the Labour split have behaved particularly well. I've seen bullying behaviour on both sides. I don't know what the answer is, I'm a member and certainly wouldn't want to go back to Blair style centre. I'm not sure that is where they are losing votes. They need to really examine immigration concerns amongst other things.

The labour party may well split but the old labour under Jeremy Corbyn will always be the larger.

Amongst voters it won't be.

If you are a swing, mainstream voter you aren't going to suddenly vote hard left.

It is those that have to be won over plus Tory voters.

It is this which many Corbynites don't seem to get.

Labour has been losing working class voters since Blair. They need to look hard at why that is.

Piglet, I agree (again!). Is it that people don't think winning a GE is important (ie change will happen through extra-parliamentary means, or that controlling the Labour Party is an end in itself)? Or that the electoral reality is not accepted - eg saying the May results were not bad when they were the worst opposition results for 40 years, worse than all recent leaders who have gone on to lose etc etc? or both?