Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[mikey mikey]

"lazy and stupid", that's a new one.

S'okay, s/he's saving "smelly and dirty" for later. It will be accompanied with chanting "na nee na na", shrill squeals of "got the lurgy" and frantic running around the schoolyar with arms flailing.

 

[Wilf]

Fantastic NS piece today about tactics for challengers to Corbyn - How to win the next Labour leadership election in 8 easy steps - but this is probably the best bit:

"Voters don't appreciate the real issues like centrism. We know you don't care about them, but you have to pretend to have principles. I dunno, have a simplistic rant about stuff, that's what they like."

It's interesting in terms of the calculations and pitch that a future challenger should make, though less so with regard to the way the internal party dynamics plot onto what is needed to win popular support. The points made about picking up pro-Europeans are at the heart of that contradiction.

All parties end up in a truly dire position from time to time, some actually disappear. I don't think Labour will, it still benefits from its position in a first past the post system. Stoke was important too. However if there's a further disaster in the local elections it's probably at it's lowest point since... the 30s? Real problem is there's no obvious route out of it, centre right control of the machine and MPs Vs social democratic membership and leader. No obvious way for either position to win out and put together a plausible electoral package. Maybe if the party's collective depression deepens later in the year, there's scope for a year zero candidate, talk of transforming it as an institution, moving out into the real world and all that. Trouble is Labour's roots are so shallow - and middle class - it's not obvious how it could actually achieve that.

 

[treelover]

Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc

 

[Pickman's model]

Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc

only this morning i got onto the street. i'll be back on the street in an hour. and i'll see if i can fit in some door knocking while i'm there.

 

[Mr Moose]

It could really piss people off all this door knocking. We used to do it when we were 12 then run off.

 

[Bakunin]

I hardly think the union-busting NS is fit to offer pointers toward improving society.

 

[Wilf]

It could really piss people off all this door knocking. We used to do it when we were 12 then run off.

Put dog shit in a bag, leave it on doorstep, set it on fire and knock. Houseowner opens door and stamps on bag to put fire out.... actually no, you're right, best stick to focus groups and party political broadcasts.

 

[Wilf]

Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc

I don't dismiss that, but it's only the sort of thing that has any impact if you already have roots in communities. There are all sorts of half hearted quick fix things Labour can do, such as holding their CLP and branch meetings in places, moving away from their own buildings, town centres and union offices - along with losing their anxiety about organisational purity, holding meetings with other groups etc. But in the end this is about decades of departure by Labour as an organisation, that precedes even the Blairites. If they can't overturn that, they are just another disconnected political party. In Corbyn's case they are doing a 70s social democratic tribute act, but a free floating version that thinks it can still draw on a Labourist tradition and identity that just isn't there any more. Offering that up to the voters is pitiful.

 

[belboid]

They do hold CLP meetings in community places. The problem is more with them being on Friday evenings (cos the mp can get back for them)

 

[Southlondon]

I don't dismiss that, but it's only the sort of thing that has any impact if you already have roots in communities. There are all sorts of half hearted quick fix things Labour can do, such as holding their CLP and branch meetings in places, moving away from their own buildings, town centres and union offices - along with losing their anxiety about organisational purity, holding meetings with other groups etc. But in the end this is about decades of departure by Labour as an organisation, that precedes even the Blairites. If they can't overturn that, they are just another disconnected political party. In Corbyn's case they are doing a 70s social democratic tribute act, but a free floating version that thinks it can still draw on a Labourist tradition and identity that just isn't there any more. Offering that up to the voters is pitiful.

The CLP and branch meetings I attend are all held in community centres, churches etc not Union or party buildings. Most door knocking should now involve two way dialogue with the voters, not just identifying the vote for future harvest, which was the new labour machine way, and of course, many of the members - especially those that joined post-Corbyn, are deeply involved in their local communities on tennants associations, single issue campaigns and local consultation groups etc.
The membership is far larger than the activist base, but a lot of activists energy goes into the logistics of leafletting and door knocking, as with the hostility of the media, it's one of our only ways to get a message out.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am a leftie in the party becaus I want to help elect MPs that won't attack my living standards. More council tenants and and benefit-experienced etc members in positions of power and I would hope we can refocus to protecting and enhancing our living standards

And how's that going?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

No, I agree with pickmans.

No it doesn't, and as I had the courtesy to explain, briefly at least, how I see it leading to a left wing govt, please can you explain how you see supporting a not left wing party ever leads to a left wing government, because I don't think it ever will or can so as far as I'm concerned it's you who is abandoning everyone for indefinite toryism.

(I never said anything about permanent either, whatever gains we make we'll have to fight to keep, I agree with pickmans btw, we get what we get because of action outside the ballot box, which gives us something of an actual choice when voting comes around)

But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.

In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.

ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.

Then you need to explain precisely how we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.

 

[BigTom]

But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.

In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?

Well, I would say that under new labour public services got less quickly screwed than under the previous conservative governments (although we've still not seen the full ramifications of PFI). The following conservative government had a very rare opportunity to run with that, labour in 2010 and 2015 ran on austerity platforms that would have screwed public services a bit more slowly than the tories did though. If you keep electing labour governments formed from the right of the party then how does that protect public services? They get run down a bit more slowly? Isn't that abandoning ordinary people? If you want to protect public services then you need to be supporting a party formed from the left of the labour party. The more you argue for a party from the right, which does not support social democracy, the more you solidify the idea that social democracy is radical, unthinkable. It becomes less likely to happen. Public services will die, back to the victorian age. Maybe you can delay it by a few years but you can't stop it let alone reverse it. I want a path to social democracy, not away from it.

You don't get change by voting for it. You get change by forcing capital to yield more of the outcomes of capitalism to the working class. The voting part of things happens almost as a byproduct of that. If you put enough pressure on capital then the only realistic choices available to vote for will be ones offering a better settlement, if you don't then your choice will be shit or shitter. Somewhere in between that lies ok and shit and I guess the possibility of better and shit but that's rare I think. Ultimately that pressure expresses itself through the state which means voting, but the change comes before the voting, not as a result of it.

 

[Mr Moose]

Then you need to explain precisely how we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.

A Government could fall, or be forced to act in any way the people choose as long as enough people down tools and pressure it to do so. But Pickman's isn't going to answer you on the likelihood of that.

 

[Old Spark]

I think jezza should stay.Given the 52 per cent leavers plus tory remainers he has a mountain to climb.So I can happily sacrifice him rather than a more suitable leader in 2020.Not sure any current labour mp would even stop the Tories getting a majority let alone win outright.

Registered supporters will give up on Labour and he gets the blame-whats not to like.

Some labour mps would of course lose under him that wouldnt under a more centrist figure.But heyho assuming Brexit turns sour by 2021/22 Labour has a fair chance of doing significantly better in 2024/5 .

Whether the jocks will still be involved by then who knows.And whether the uk is a gonna or a federal version rises from the ashes is equally uncertain.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes

"First catch your politicians..."

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Well, I would say that under new labour public services got less quickly screwed than under the previous conservative governments (although we've still not seen the full ramifications of PFI). The following conservative government had a very rare opportunity to run with that, labour in 2010 and 2015 ran on austerity platforms that would have screwed public services a bit more slowly than the tories did though. If you keep electing labour governments formed from the right of the party then how does that protect public services? They get run down a bit more slowly? Isn't that abandoning ordinary people? If you want to protect public services then you need to be supporting a party formed from the left of the labour party. The more you argue for a party from the right, which does not support social democracy, the more you solidify the idea that social democracy is radical, unthinkable. It becomes less likely to happen. Public services will die, back to the victorian age. Maybe you can delay it by a few years but you can't stop it let alone reverse it. I want a path to social democracy, not away from it.

You don't get change by voting for it. You get change by forcing capital to yield more of the outcomes of capitalism to the working class. The voting part of things happens almost as a byproduct of that. If you put enough pressure on capital then the only realistic choices available to vote for will be ones offering a better settlement, if you don't then your choice will be shit or shitter. Somewhere in between that lies ok and shit and I guess the possibility of better and shit but that's rare I think. Ultimately that pressure expresses itself through the state which means voting, but the change comes before the voting, not as a result of it.

Well I’m not going to keep going round in circles repeating myself. Just out of interest, would you have described Ed Miliband’s Labour Party as ‘a party of the right’?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

A Government could fall, or be forced to act in any way the people choose as long as enough people down tools and pressure it to do so. But Pickman's isn't going to answer you on the likelihood of that.

But even if a government has been pressured into submission, whether they fall or are given another chance is still down to the electorate.

 

[Mr Moose]

But even if a government has been pressured into submission, whether they fall or are given another chance is still down to the electorate.

Not exactly. If through disobedience the people made the country ungovernable the Tory Government could be told to go away and maybe even for the current players to not even consider participating again. But it's very unlikely.

Similar events took place in France in May 68 with the Government brought to the brink by strikes and actions. But also nearly a million marched for the Government.

I'm not saying such things are likely and that's why I hope we get decent Labour Government that isn't more of the same. But it's true that politics is more than just ballots.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Not exactly. If through disobedience the people made the country ungovernable the Tory Government could be told to go away and maybe even for the current players to not even consider participating again. But it's very unlikely.

Similar events took place in France in May 68 with the Government brought to the brink by strikes and actions. But also nearly a million marched for the Government.

I'm not saying such things are likely and that's why I hope we get decent Labour Government that isn't more of the same. But it's true that politics is more than just ballots.

As you say, very unlikely.

After 1968, the conservative Gaullists stayed in power until 1981. In the UK in 1974, the tories caved in to pressure from the miners and called an election which they lost. But in both cases it was the electorate who made the final decision. They are ultimately the only ones who can change a government.

 

[BigTom]

Well I’m not going to keep going round in circles repeating myself. Just out of interest, would you have described Ed Miliband’s Labour Party as ‘a party of the right’?

I mean i've asked you to explain how voting for a right labour party will get you social democracy but you haven't even tried to explain.

Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If there's a good thing about the continued failure of Labour Party to not be a useless bag of arseholes and its berserker rage on smelling even a hint of socialism, it's to emphasise that it really isn't going to save us.

I mean, for a brief period with JC there was a feeling that maybe now there was a point in getting Labour involved in political action, but it's kind of a relief to see that the party is completely committed to not going there. Despite all the stuff about "electability" they are clearly prepared to sacrifice even that to get rid of JC (constant infighting and undermining of proposals being death for electability). Back to business as usual then.

 

[Pickman's model]

But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.

In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?

Why do you act like a stupid twat? I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I didn't say change can't come by voting for it. You clueless muppet.

 

[agricola]

Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.

That was the baffling thing about that campaign. Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Why do you act like a stupid twat? I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I didn't say change can't come by voting for it. You clueless muppet.

You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.

Describe it.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I mean i've asked you to explain how voting for a right labour party will get you social democracy but you haven't even tried to explain.

Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.

If you’re always going to simply dismiss anything other than Corbyn’s Labour as being no different to the tories then there’s probably no point in arguing with you. The facts prove you wrong, public services fair better under Labour than under the tories.

Do you think that the lives wasted during endless tory cuts are worth sacrificing because they may bring ‘real change’ closer?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That was the baffling thing about that campaign. Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.

That's what you have to do to be electable. Apparently.

 

[stethoscope]

Do you think that the lives wasted during endless tory cuts are worth sacrificing because they may bring ‘real change’ closer?

Why do you keep doing this shit when you know that's not what posters like BigTom remotely think or have said?

And you still can't answer his question - how does voting for right-leaning Labour (which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation - albeit 'less hard and fast' than the Tories) actually help to protect public services, public ownership for the benefit of the working class? And how does it in anyway lead to Labour shifting leftwards in the future (at least in government?).

BigTom has been really patient and fair, and explained his positions with you, so give him some respect and stop being such a cock.

 

[Pickman's model]

You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.

Describe it.

Once you tell me who John O'Donnell is.