YC fears Labour party would split if JC is elected Leader

[Redkite2015]

Doesn't she believe in democracy in the Labour Party?

So she argues that JC would accept the results if 'any one but Corbyn' is elected; but if JC is elected then she would split.

Good riddance, many would think, if she and any one thinking like that leave Labour.

Fascinating.

Re "democracy in the Labour Party", whether a Blair 'sofa' government, the Labour policy one-size-fits-all policies for each UK country, or a Miliband Manifesto many Labour MP's said after the voters rejection 'I knew it sucked but felt the need to keep quiet' - I'd suggest Labour Leaders aren't internally really that big on 'tents' and the 'd' word.

With YC Labour would get a 'two-fer' as hubby EB would come with, and he's influence would lean towards a tax on anything above £25k, whether solid or moved - a big yay for the left.

I can remember saying a similar thing re Tory MP's up Farage's rear end, but it was only one policy, the EU, splitting the party for decades.

Labour needs both wings to co-exist as will widen your electoral appeal over numerous policies, so it is a question of balance, something the far left has never understood but bit their tongues under a Blair's Labour, never below a 120 seat Westminster majority - as that 'power' could increase the size/cost/salaries of the public sector, unchallenged.

These are clearly different times, socialism needs a near full cheque book, but the account is empty and then some, so going forward 'balance' has to be the order of the day for the Labour Party.

The last thing you want is an uncivil war. IMO

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497

Anyone supporting Corbyn must be a Tory in disguise.

Now it's Burnham turn to go mad. He must be forgetting that Corbyn has ignited dormant Labour supporters. He must also be fearing that he got no support among the new members/union affiliates as well as 'supporters'.

"Anyone supporting Corbyn must be a Tory in disguise."

I agree with you on the new support, it is real, but in true socialist political slap-stick, calling some one or party a 'tory', wh-at?

That is guaranteed to get a red mist going - he'll throw in the near 25-year old Poll Tax next - it works in Scotland at Labour and SNP 'gatherings' every time.

And Mt Burnham looks like he'd be good at slap-stick, within a silent movie.

Doesn't she believe in democracy in the Labour Party?

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's as simple as that.

If Corbyn is elected with huge support from the general Labour Party membership, that's all well and good. But while he appears to be quite popular with lots of ordinary Labour members, he commands the loyalty and support of practically no Labour MPs, many of whom think he's at best an unmanageable, unelectable serial rebel and at worst a bit of a muppet.

So if he were to try and run the Parliamentary Labour Party as Leader of the Opposition, he'd have large swathes of MPs within his own party doing everything they can to undermine him. In that situation, from a practical perspective, being the Leader of choice of ordinary Labour Party members is pretty meaningless as the people he will be leading on a day to day basis - Labour MPs - will not accept him.

It's not as simple as 'does Cooper not believe in democracy' because you have to ask which demos you're answering to here. Does the authority of a majority vote within the Labour Party membership hold sway when half of them have only just joined up and might even be Tories in disguise? Or should we give more weight to the authority of Labour MPs elected by entire UK constituencies in a general election to represent their interests in Parliament?

You can't run a functioning political party in Parliament where a party's MPs don't like, trust or take seriously the leader chosen for them by their party membership. It will be catastrophic. Something will have to give. Either the protesting MPs leave the Labour Party, prompting a wave of by-elections and possibly increasing the Tory majority yet further, or they plot to get rid of the unwanted leader and just face down the howls of protest from their rank and file membership.

You can't run a functioning political party in Parliament where a party's MPs don't like, trust or take seriously the leader chosen for them by their party membership.

Corbyn got support of some of them for nomination. What happened to that lot?

"You can't run a functioning political party in Parliament where a party's MPs don't like, trust or take seriously the leader chosen for them by their party membership. It will be catastrophic."

I agree as in 1997, by recent standards, the then financially conservative Conservatives hadn't done much wrong, but they had this EU 'thang' going on - and PM John Major contending with Tories he called 'bastards' was seen by voters to be running a 'split' party - and that IMO contributed to Blair coming in with a near 170 Westminster seat majority.

Political party civil wars are bad enough when bubbling under the surface, but when the big guns are all firing at each other in the open - there will be huge collateral damage - so Labour has to avoid it, but at the mo, I can't see how.

anti I think most of the people who nominated Corbyn did so not because they thought he was a serious candidate for Leader of the Opposition, but 'to broaden the debate'. That is to say, they wanted a token lefty on the hustings so what they imagined was a small minority of militant lefties within the party didn't feel like their views were being excluded. Not a single one of them seemed to realise how heartily sick ordinary Labour Party members not to mention the wider electorate are of the type of on-message, centrist party-bots churned out by the spadocracy and so ably represented by Cooper and Burnham.

They are still debating in their ivory towers.... the whole process was necessary to shake up the status quo in LP.

Should not the Labour MPs, who do not trust their leader, elected by the party members/affiliates/supporter, resign and trigger by-elections?

Corbyn appeal and popularity as well as his electability would be tested immediately.

"Should not the Labour MPs, who do not trust their leader, elected by the party members/affiliates/supporter, resign and trigger by-elections?"

A Labour lose-lose double, as nothing to really gain for either the MP or party, but a lot to lose if the seat changes party, making it an expensive point to try and make.

Such a Labour MP I'd suggest could sit tight or defect to a different existing or breakaway party, or wait, keep their heads down, for JC mania to implode.

Think UKIPs Carswell and Reckless, Tory MPs, went to the 'dark side', and I doubt if the local party were happy to see them stay there - but what could they do?

Agree - a split would not be about defection, but about internal resistance. A bit like the Tory rebels with a lot hiding in the middle. What would be fascinating (in a car crash sort of way) would be whether policy disagreements would lead to those MPs defying the whip openly when their principles have been about loyalty in the cause of party unity. With JC's record on defiance, will there be a 'whip' at all? Will they bow to the collective vote of (new) party members at conference or to their leaders, or to their principle? Even JC's views may be voted down in conference, like NATO membership. There could be splits among his own supporters too. Not that they will be in Parliament where votes make laws.