Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[killer b]

Not mentioning them at all would probably work best.

 

[Combustible]

Voting no-confidence in Corbyn is utterly absurd by any reasonable measure and treacherous. I think it's important to take a step back and realise that groups just do not behave in such a way unless they are corrupted somehow.

All 172 MPs who were voted no confidence have been promised jobs? There are also a significant amount (but unlikely a majority) of Labour members councillors, particularly fulltimers or those in minor or higher up party positions who also support getting rid of Corbyn. Are they all doing it because they have been promised a reward?

It's quite clear that they are not all being bribed into turning on Corbyn, they are doing it because he is taking the party into a direction they don't want and they think they are losing control. For a long time the party has been managed so that it operates along very narrow ideological lines, essentially supporting the neoliberal consensus. Some justify it on the grounds that anything else makes them unelectable, others don't even require that justification. Either way this means they will do whatever they can to get rid of Corbyn as soon as possible.

There's an anti-Corbyn post going around facebook "debunking" a lot of the myths about Corbyn and the plot. One point they make is that it's not a Blairite plot against Corbyn because there are many Brown supporters involved as well. They kind of have a point in that the Labour establishment's opposition to Corbyn goes beyond just the committed Blairites, a wider section of the party's management also feel threatened. I do think that the 'Brownites' or so called soft left are somewhat being set up. They have done the dirty work in the coup and even if they topple Corbyn there is very little chance of winning the next election. After that the Blairites such as Dan Jarvis, Chuka Umunna can turn around and point to the repeated failure of the 'soft left', Brown, Miliband and Smith and say that the only way of winning is to push even further to the right.

 

[billy_bob]

Not mentioning them at all would probably work best.

How about 'no more than 7 or your money back'?

 

[J Ed]

I love that Labour Party people are suddenly really concerned about Owen Smith being misrepresented over this Pfizer role.

What possible cause could there be for the rise of a climate in which half truths and deliberate falsehoods are spread?

 

[billy_bob]

All 172 MPs who were voted no confidence have been promised jobs? There are also a significant amount (but unlikely a majority) of Labour members councillors, particularly fulltimers or those in minor or higher up party positions who also support getting rid of Corbyn. Are they all doing it because they have been promised a reward?

It's quite clear that they are not all being bribed into turning on Corbyn, they are doing it because he is taking the party into a direction they don't want and they think they are losing control. For a long time the party has been managed so that it operates along very narrow ideological lines, essentially supporting the neoliberal consensus. Some justify it on the grounds that anything else makes them unelectable, others don't even require that justification. Either way this means they will do whatever they can to get rid of Corbyn as soon as possible.

There's an anti-Corbyn post going around facebook "debunking" a lot of the myths about Corbyn and the plot. One point they make is that it's not a Blairite plot against Corbyn because there are many Brown supporters involved as well. They kind of have a point in that the Labour establishment's opposition to Corbyn goes beyond just the committed Blairites, a wider section of the party's management also feel threatened. I do think that the 'Brownites' or so called soft left are somewhat being set up. They have done the dirty work in the coup and even if they topple Corbyn there is very little chance of winning the next election. After that the Blairites such as Dan Jarvis, Chuka Umunna can turn around and point to the repeated failure of the 'soft left', Brown, Miliband and Smith and say that the only way of winning is to push even further to the right.

I think most people using the term 'Blairite' in this context are using it as shorthand for 'New Labour', ie everything that the party has stood for since it dropped even the rhetoric of opposing Thatcherite ideals. The idea that there's any meaningful ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.

 

[Pickman's model]

Local TUSC member proclaiming on the local "news" page on Facebook that there will be a 'huge' rally for Corbyn on the weekend - 150-200 to attend, they've been liaising with the police...
"Come along and hear over 7 Trade Union and Socialist Party speakers".
Over 7!

Same guy predicts Corbyn will win and return Labour to socialism.

a magnificent seven
but before the day's out there'll have been the return of the seven, not to mention the magnificent seven ride again
perhaps one or two would be better as you'll soon clear the square or park with seven

 

[Combustible]

The idea that there's any meaningful ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.

I broadly agree, especially when comparing Brown to Blair. I don't think the opposition to Ed Miliband from the Progress supporters was purely down to personal rivalries, they clearly wanted to push Labour into an even more pro-austerity, pro-privatisation direction. But that doesn't mean there was a massive difference between them and one of the ways to maintain a very narrow ideological conformity is to make a big deal out of any slight deviation from the orthodoxy.

 

[redsquirrel]

I think most people using the term 'Blairite' in this context are using it as shorthand for 'New Labour', ie everything that the party has stood for since it dropped even the rhetoric of opposing Thatcherite ideals. The idea that there's any meaningful ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.

But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party.

All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.

 

[nuffsaid]

So did you lot see Newsnight last night? It was suggested that if, I mean when, Corbyn wins the leadership that MPs could possibly then continue an ongoing protest of attrition by just not being willing to serve on the front bench. I would have thought that Corbyn would then just appoint MPs that are willing to serve.

However, then it really gets down to the issue they are in contention with Jeremy about. If his leadership skills are as they suggest then do these other MPs stick with him as well? If so then the current lot have totally lost and would have to split. If not then Labour is back to where it is today. ( I would have thought that it would be easy for Corbyn to obviously appoint those willing to serve no matter what, so I don't really get how this supposed act of attrition would work, but I'm just relaying what was muted on the tellybox ).

 

[J Ed]

So did you lot see Newsnight last night? It was suggested that if, I mean when, Corbyn wins the leadership that MPs could possibly then continue an ongoing protest of attrition by just not being willing to serve on the front bench. I would have thought that Corbyn would then just appoint MPs that are willing to serve.

Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.

 

[killer b]

Labour First and Luke Akehurst will have to keep the bulk of the party with them: which is unlikely, after another Corbyn victory.

 

[Pickman's model]

Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.

just in case it's never been said here before, luke akehurst is a right wing zionist shit

 

[butchersapron]

Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.

Akehurst may be getting a bit ahead of his boots there. Most MPs are MPs for a reason - and it's not to pursue the sort of far-right-labour politics he actually believes in and fights dirty for. #1 is to keep their job

 

[tangerinedream]

Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*

I think we can all stop this blairite-this and pfizer-that stuff now and just cheer on the two chaps and hope the best one wins.

 

[J Ed]

Owen Smith on Victoria Derbyshire today, arguing that Corbyn had nothing to do with fighting cuts to PIP payments and that Smith was the only person who slew the IDS dragon.

This was followed by his accusation that Corbyn has encouraged the abuse and harassment of women online. This narrative is actually more specific and more top down than the berniebro narrative the HRC campaign used in the US, at least Hillary Clinton was smart enough to have other people accuse Bernie Sanders of harassing women instead of associating herself directly with obvious lies.

 

[two sheds]

Sort of means he can't adopt the "well I know that Corbyn's an honest candidate with integrity but it's his leadership and policies I'm criticizing".

 

[billy_bob]

Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*

I think we can all stop this blairite-this and pfizer-that stuff now and just cheer on the two chaps and hope the best one wins.

I drink my tea out of a crystal champagne flute balanced on the backs of subjugated workers. What are my chances of becoming the next leader of the Labour Party?

 

[J Ed]

Sort of means he can't adopt the "well I know that Corbyn's an honest candidate with integrity but it's his leadership and policies I'm criticizing".

He's obviously to run on a platform of 'I am as left-wing as Corbyn but I don't hate Britain and I don't encourage the harassment of women'

 

[two sheds]

... but clearly a better candidate than the woman who was up against me.

 

[mauvais]

Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*

I would trust him more if he openly flouted the fact that he imbibes a heady mix of hydraulic fluid, methanol and congealed infant blood from the broken skull of a murdered monk via his manifold gleaming mouth-tentacles.

At least then he would have something about him, more than this nothing-to-see-here-officer shell of a man that would only be properly at home on the bleaker episodes of Doctor Who.

 

[ska invita]

But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party.

All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.

Could you define the difference between those three groups? I'm sure there are differences but in practice I wonder what they are

 

[killer b]

this nothing-to-see-here-officer shell of a man that would only be properly at home on the bleaker episodes of Doctor Who.

yes.

 

[maomao]

... but clearly a better candidate than the woman who was up against me.

To be fair, he is a better candidate and he seems to be running a better campaign in that he's actually discussing policies and politics unlike Aargh who just kept repeating she was a northern woman. There was never any hope of taking Corbyn from an obviously right wing position, that's why he's claiming to be left wing. He's assured the right's 'anyone but Corbyn' vote anyway so he has to try to steal as many left wing votes as possible.

 

[mauvais]

yes.

How did I get here? Why is there this puddle of family-appropriate syrup in the Prime Minister's office? Why can't I forget that man's face? Oh god, why can't I remember that man's face?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Jeremy Corbyn just won the right to fight those that want to keep him off leadership ballot

 

[Wilf]

Don't buy it. There's nothing there, it's pure speculation.

Neither do I (except point 2 - Stephen Kinnock was already using the 'I won't serve in his shadow cabinet' line on Newsnight last night). It's devoid of specifics about the when and who of the coup, whilst also being stuff that you'd guess is obviously true about plotters anyway.

 

[Wilf]

But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party.

All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.

I'm sure that's true, but the irony is even with this coalition of anti-Corbyn forces they are still very likely to lose the leadership election (even after the gerrymandering). A united minority, lol.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm sure that's true, but the irony is even with this coalition of anti-Corbyn forces they are still very likely to lose the leadership election (even after the gerrymandering). A united minority, lol.

the collective name for this united minority would be a rump. a rump of arses.

 

[killer b]

I found these two articles (the second is a response to the first) worth reading - plenty to disagree with in both, but also lots to chew on:

The Terrifying Hubris of Corbynism
The Matter of Corbynism

 

[redsquirrel]

Could you define the difference between those three groups?

The differences are as much to do with the historical traditions in the party as ideological.

Progress are the New Labour, neoliberal, "Blairites", people like Tristam Hunt, Kendall, Woodcock, Twigg etc.
The Blue Labour/Labour Right tendency is the most socially conservative grouping, in principle opposed to neoliberal economics but in practice these days their economic policies aren't a million miles from Progress.
The "soft-left" tendency are socially liberal but have a few remnants of social democratic beliefs still remaining in their political ideology, for example Ed Miliband keeping open some possible state involvement in railway services as opposed to Ball's desire for complete private ownership. Eagle, Owen Smith, Burnham are also in this section.

And here's an article (first posted by killer b) giving a quick summary of the different tendencies and looking at how they behaved in the last years leadership election

To understand the emergent situation, it’s also necessary to have some sense of the internal political topology of the Labour Party. Broadly speaking, there are four main political currents which can be identified as still active in the party: the “hard left,” the “soft left,” the old Labour right, and the Blairites. None of these have had any official institutional form, although there have been formal organisations clearly associated with specific tendencies (such as the organisation Progress, which effectively functions as a Blairite caucus and cheerleading team). These are at best casual labels for tendencies which are themselves internally differentiated, but they are useful reference points nonetheless.