Labour / Tory Party meltdown Referendum fallout

The perfect fumble said:
David Wearing: A battle of two vision

Putting aside the legal merits of today’s high court judgment, what does this episode tell us about what’s really happening in the Labour party?

Two fundamentally opposing visions are in conflict. The first seeks to market the parliamentary Labour party to majority public opinion, the press and big business as competent managers of the status quo. Here, the role of party members is to pay their fees, act as the doorstep infantry at election time, ratify predetermined policy decisions, and occasionally select a new party leader from a list pre-vetted by their elders and betters.

The second vision is one that sets the party a harder task: to win power in order to substantively change the country (as it did after world war two). This involves turning Labour into a social movement, with a mass membership playing an active day-to-day role in communities across the country, winning the battle for hearts and minds on the ground, countering the inevitable attacks from those with a vested interest in the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron settlement, and shaping party policy from the bottom up.

The Labour establishment, horrified by this second approach, is determined to strangle it in its crib. Hence this week’s retreat into “red scare” conspiracy theories and witch-hunts. Hence raising the registered supporters’ fee from £3 to £25, which will disproportionately affect Corbyn supporters, who are more likely to be working class. Hence the shameless disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of fee-paying members, which a high court judge upheld this afternoon.

While this has been going on, Owen Smith – the parliamentary Labour party’s candidate for leader – has been telling members that he shares their values and priorities and seeks only to pursue them more effectively. Would Smith stay committed to such an agenda if he won the leadership, or shift back rightwards once the vote was out of the way? A strong clue lies in the open contempt for members now on display from the party old guard standing behind him.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rship-election-decision-nec-corbyn-owen-smith
Click to expand...

He's absolutely right that there are two fundamentally opposing visions. That's very unlikely to change. The current leadership election seems almost irrelevant. The sooner the centreists form their own party the better.
 
law74 said:
Just means Corbyn will win with about 65% of the vote rather than 75%.
Portmanteau Communications spent 10 months plotting and planning how to oust Corbyn & this is the best they can do.
Smith is talking to groups of 20 & 30, Corbyn is addressing rallys of thousands.
Be interesting after the vote to see how many come back begging to be forgiven
Click to expand...
That deserves a good BBC or Channel 4 investigative piece. I'm not holding my breath though.
 
cibaman said:
He's absolutely right that there are two fundamentally opposing visions. That's very unlikely to change. The current leadership election seems almost irrelevant. The sooner the centreists form their own party the better.
Click to expand...
but who are the centreists? they will have to be a 3 way split if honest

As McDonnell, Cobyn, Abbot, Long-Bailey, Burgon, Lewis, Skinner, Smith etc and some older back benchers are all left and socialist. While Chukka, kendal, hunt, eagles, del piero, benn, etc and some of the other new labour bods are progress/right side of the party. Neither of them respesent the centre ground so the likes of cooper, miliband, and even to extent watson would if they believe what they say back niether.

A 3 way split left/right/centre
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:


I didn't know the gutter ran this deep.
Click to expand...


I seen a post online yesterday implying that the Labour right are applying a "scorched earth" policy within the party, if they cant lead it to power then they will try and ensure that no one else can.
When you remember Blair's comments about rather losing an election than winning with a left leaning mandate, makes you think
 
law74 said:
I seen a post online yesterday implying that the Labour right are applying a "scorched earth" policy within the party, if they cant lead it to power then they will try and ensure that no one else can.
When you remember Blair's comments about rather losing an election than winning with a left leaning mandate, makes you think
Click to expand...

It does indeed, I knew it was going to be rough, but this constant onslaught day after day after day plumbing depths that make "The man who hated Britain" look like a piece of fluff, is astonishing in its vitriol.

It shines a light on the universally accepted "fact" that Corbyn is a loser. If he's doomed to failure then why don't his enemies just let him get on with losing, then they can pick up the pieces afterwards with a kindly "I told you so".

I think we both know the answer to that one.
 
The perfect fumble said:
It does indeed, I knew it was going to be rough, but this constant onslaught day after day after day plumbing depths that make "The man who hated Britain" look like a piece of fluff, is astonishing in its vitriol.

It shines a light on the universally accepted "fact" that Corbyn is a loser. If he's doomed to failure then why don't his enemies just let him get on with losing, then they can pick up the pieces afterwards with a kindly "I told you so".

I think we both know the answer to that one.
Click to expand...

In practical terms, what does letting him get on with losing actually mean? Should the rebel MPs vote in line with the whip, or simply ignore it as he used to?

When he produces the Labour manifesto before the election what do they do? Support it, even if they disagree with it? On what basis are they meant to campaign?
 
law74 said:
Many would say that the party is just regaining its core principles and returning to what made it great in the past and will again in the not to distant future
Click to expand...
What made it great was winning elections and implementing policies that helped peoplle, what it's members are doing now is betraying those that would benefit from a Labour government by making Labour unelectable for their own selfish reasons.
 
blueparrot said:
What made it great was winning elections and implementing policies that helped peoplle, what it's members are doing now is betraying those that would benefit from a Labour government by making Labour unelectable for their own selfish reasons.
Click to expand...

So not public private partnerships or privately funded initiatives, not the continued selling off of social housing, causing rental prices and the cost of buying a property to rocket?
When the true "entryists" of "progress" leave (either by choice or otherwise) then the party can unite and rebuild an alternative to "austerity for the poor, bonuses for the wealthy" & rebuild our once great country and the SOCIETIES within it.
 
law74 said:
So not public private partnerships or privately funded initiatives, not the continued selling off of social housing, causing rental prices and the cost of buying a property to rocket?
When the true "entryists" of "progress" leave (either by choice or otherwise) then the party can unite and rebuild an alternative to "austerity for the poor, bonuses for the wealthy" & rebuild our once great country and the SOCIETIES within it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you've not put much a convincing argument about winning there, mate.
 
law74 said:
So not public private partnerships or privately funded initiatives, not the continued selling off of social housing, causing rental prices and the cost of buying a property to rocket?
When the true "entryists" of "progress" leave (either by choice or otherwise) then the party can unite and rebuild an alternative to "austerity for the poor, bonuses for the wealthy" & rebuild our once great country and the SOCIETIES within it.
Click to expand...
Sounds great means nothing, politics that sound clever in a debating club but forgets if you don't win an.election and get the votes of ordinary people you can't do the job of helping people.
No party wins an election and pleases all its supporters, it's not even the governments job to govern for its supporters, they are there to compromise and help all parts of society whoch means implementing some policies it's supporters don't like. You can only vote for a party that on balance has more policies you support. If you want a government that only has policies you want, your living in a fantasy it will never happen.
 
cibaman said:
In practical terms, what does letting him get on with losing actually mean? Should the rebel MPs vote in line with the whip, or simply ignore it as he used to?

When he produces the Labour manifesto before the election what do they do? Support it, even if they disagree with it? On what basis are they meant to campaign?
Click to expand...

If Corbyn wins with the NEC onside, the PLP have three options, work with the Party (because its the Party they're fighting), leave, be de-selected. The Party has had enough of them, if anything Corbyn has held the constituency parties back, he genuinely wants to work with the PLP, there's many a constituency party that wants their MP gone.

If the Blairites don't like it and they point to their mandate from electorate, great, stand as an independent, they've been squatting in Labour's house for too long.
 
law74 said:
So not public private partnerships or privately funded initiatives, not the continued selling off of social housing, causing rental prices and the cost of buying a property to rocket?
When the true "entryists" of "progress" leave (either by choice or otherwise) then the party can unite and rebuild an alternative to "austerity for the poor, bonuses for the wealthy" & rebuild our once great country and the SOCIETIES within it.
Click to expand...

All that is great but a party has to appeal to an electorate , not just pander to a socialist agenda. So that's the rich, poor, southerners, northerners, hard working people. People on benefits people not on benefits.

It can't help poor people if it doesn't get elected its that simple.
 
The Tories, under Thatcher in particular, have done a great job in dividing the middle and working class communities. The sense of the selfish 'I'm better than them' rhetoric and looking down on your neighbours has manifested into real hate and division.
The ones that have 'done well' look down on those who still in the same old neighbourhoods. The ones that stayed there look down on 'chavs' and then everyone looks down on immigrants, no matter if they work or don't.
Wake up and smell the coffee, because the Tories don't give a shit about any of us. They exist simply to maintain their grip on the established way of things and anything else is mere pandering to the greed in the rest.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
All that is great but a party has to appeal to an electorate , not just pander to a socialist agenda. So that's the rich, poor, southerners, northerners, hard working people. People on benefits people not on benefits.

It can't help poor people if it doesn't get elected its that simple.
Click to expand...

No it isn't and repeating that mantra does not make it true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top