Labour resignations

[robbin]

I think that would be such a shame if it does. This country needs a credible opposition. It would not be good for the governing party never to be challenged or held to account.

The idea that Corbyn and his followers could ever form some sort of a party that could be elected, seems to me to be so far into cloud cuckoo land as to have disappeared over the horizon.

[Loz]

How can this man lead the country? He can't even lead his own party.

All his followers keep saying he is a man of honour - well, now is the time to honourably resign, else he is going to be the epicentre of the biggest split in Labour in its history. This will make 1981 and the Gang of Four look like a minor disagreement.

All at a time the country desperately needs a strong opposition. Jezza will never be that person. They need a Ruth Davidson, but sadly she's not eligible.

Jezza should resign and join the Greens, his more natural home.

[*Bob*]

Jeremy's supporters have an undeniable zeal but at the end of the day they don't get an extra vote for enthusiasm. And for every one of them shouting on the street there are at least two sitting quietly at home who will never give him their vote.

I don't even think he, or even a great many of his supporters care if he can win or not. They're the latest in the long tradition of that uncompromising element of Labour left for whom 'the glorious failure' is enough of a victory.

[Sue]

Why should he resign?

He was elected with a massive mandate.

He can't lead his own party because a load of MPs have staged a coup which apparently had been being planned for weeks, nothing to do with the referendum result.

Yes the country needs a strong opposition, not bloody Tory Lite MPs who have moved way way away from what Labour is supposed to stand for.

They have demonstrated - more than once - that they cannot win an election. Yet Corbyn has to go because he's "unelectable"?

Shomething wrong shomewhere shurely.

Anyway I'm off now, it's bad enough keeping up with discussions on Facebook :)) :)) :))

[Loz]

Have you seen Corbyn at the dispatch box?? His performances (and I use that word generously) bring to mind Maggie's comment, "like being savaged by a dead sheep". And that was when did have the party, however grudgingly, behind him.

The country needs Labour to be something that someone like me (as a centrist) can vote for. That's the only way they will get in power and drag this country back from the precipice.

We don't need some ideological hand-wringer.

[Jules-and-Boo]

well, the latest movements are a kick in the teeth to traditional politics - so you may yet be surprised at the outcome regarding Corbyn.

I know of people who have (very) recently joined the LP purely to show their support for him.

I can't get my head round his role in the Remain campaign - have yet to draw a conclusion on his reticence to get on board.

[Otta]

I voted for him.

I strongly regret that now (not that me voting for someone else would have made a difference).

He and the fuckwits of Momentum are almost enough to turn me right wing.

[robbin]

"Mandate, mandate, mandate..."

What good is a 'mandate' if its just a mandate from a tiny selection of your overall 'target market' and the vast majority would want nothing to do with you?!! It's just a word.

If you just want to meet with your friends in your little club in the village hall and to agree with each other about what could be better in the world, then that's fine - no problem. But if your club wants to have some actual influence outside the village hall it's an insanely blinkered response just to say a few people like me and gave me a 'mandate'.

Its like creating a club and making a rule that just your mum and your friends are allowed to decide who the leader is. You might get to be leader, but that doesn't mean the rest of the country might choose you and your club to lead them. Your mum and your friends' views might not represent the views of the wider public, no matter how nice or great your mum thinks you are.

[*Bob*]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't get my head round his role in the Remain

> campaign - have yet to draw a conclusion on his

> reticence to get on board.

I think there can only be one conclusion. He was unable to reconcile his own personal conflicts on the matter and come out effectively on one side and LEAD - for a greater good. A greater good that - bizarrely - his most vocal supporters are now 'devastastated' (Facebook language) about.

That's what being a leader is - showing leadership - when it actually matters.

Instead, he put a lampshade on his head and stood in the corner until it all went away.

[Jules-and-Boo]

These people are supposed to be professionals, but are really showing their colours.

I am just gobsmacked (no better word, sorry) by the timing, the fighting... what on Earth was going on in these upper echelons?

Such shockingly disappointing behavior. So egocentric. Does no one have ANY values? Leadership would be a good start, honour, credibility, determination, Team work, tolerance, trustworthiness, usefulness, vision.............

Having a clear out of such 'odds and sods' cannot be a bad thing... but we MUST be able to find decent replacements, surely. Could we actually apply for the job, as we would CEO? Maybe the pool of resources is quite limited in the first place and we should widen the scope.

It seems like the 'people' have a voice, and that has scared the scheisse out of the so called leaders.

[Otta]

And regarding those that didn't vote against the Welfare bill..

1. They didn't vote FOR it.

2. The party had just been smashed in a GE, and there was no leader (Harman was filling in at the time).

3. The country had just voted for austerity, like it or not, that what they wanted. Abstaining was seen as the best way to try and get the bill changed. Had they voted against it, it still would have gone through, and although they'd have all been able to congratulate themselves on being ever so principled, it would have changed nothing.

The meme attached to the OP is basically everything that is wrong with politics today. Social media rabble raising bullshit.

[JoeLeg]

""Mandate, mandate, mandate..."

What good is a 'mandate' if its just a mandate from a tiny selection of your overall 'target market' and the vast majority would want nothing to do with you?!! It's just a word. "

This. Exactly this.

Corbyn is used to dealing with groups who share his opinions and agree with him on issues. He's had comparatively little experience in deal-making, compromising and going into a room full of people who disagree with you and having to find and way to work with them.

He'd be a terrible PM.

[Jules-and-Boo]

did he actually lie about anything? if so, what?

[Otta]

I was saying to a friend yesterday that any Labour leader has to appeal to a much wider demographic than their Tory counterparts to stand any chance of beating them. They need to somehow appeal to slightly left of centre, an across the left (stopping before the mental ones at the far end).

This is a bloody hard job, which is why Labour leaders only become PM when the Tories are totally screwed (see Blair in '97). Right now the Tories are pretty screwed, but there is no way Labour are going to take advantage.

[JoeLeg]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> did he actually lie about anything? if so, what?

You mean Corbyn? In regards to what? To be fair, I don't think he's lied about anything, it's not something he'd do. But I ask myself if pulling back during the campaign (let's be honest, he wants out of Europe) amounts to the same thing? A kind of sin of omission?

Another example of where his personal beliefs sat very much at odds with his responsibility as a leader, and something I think Momentum should be asking more about, rather than blindly following.

[Otta]

He should have done a lot more to discourage the more unpleasant online warriors of his support.

[DaveR]

There isn't any real doubt about who or what Corbyn is - as has been observed many times, his views haven't changed since the 1970s. They have been out of step with the majority of the British electorate for the same period. I guess it's possible that that has all changed, and that Britain is ready for a true socialist government, but the PLP don't think so, and the evidence is on their side - the last time they were asked, the electorate gave Cameron et al a majority. So it is a pretty stark question for Labour Party members - do you want principles that make you feel good and the opportunity in due course to be upset/disgusted when the British people reject you, or do you want even a sniff of real political power?

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There isn't any real doubt about who or what Corbyn is

Actually, DaveR - I disagree. I have absolutely no idea what exactly Corbyn believes in. A lot of people project their beliefs onto him, but he says little himself. I haven't heard a peep of policy from him in the last nine months, apart from him wanting politics to be 'nicer'. Oh, and his weird ideas about an unarmed Trident. But little else.

[Otta]

Agreed. If he set out an actual plan and vision (not now, it's too late) people could have got on board or not based on the policies and not what the press said about his jumpers. But he has never done that.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Interesting that there's so much focus on the shadow party.

Have we (used loosely) given up on the Tories? About as reliable as our football team.....and probably share the same motivations

[Lordship 516]

JC has shown true grit & integrity - traits that is in short supply among politicians in this parliament. Labour under him fared well in by-elections but the PLP seem to want a cartoon character just like the Tories have. They are the ones who have whipped up all the negatives in the public arena. There is a process and they could have gone in that direction but instead they want JC to resign on their say so without recourse to the whole party membership. JC has shown that it is he that is in touch with ordinary members & they now have painted themselves into a corner.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I concur

[JoeLeg]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JC has shown that it

> is he that is in touch with ordinary members &

> they now have painted themselves into a corner.

Well, I see your point, but is he in touch with the wider electorate? As has been pointed out, you can have a massive mandate from those who voted for you in the party, but that means nothing if the nation as a whole doesn't want you.

I'm about as left wing as they come on most issues, and I've got no intention of voting for him. I know others who think the same; maybe we're a minority, but I suspect not.

I want to see a Labour Party that is more than just protesters shouting futilely on the wind, unable to gain power. I don't want a return to the 80's when they fought between themselves and the Tories did what they wanted.

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JC has shown that it is he that is in touch with ordinary members &

> they now have painted themselves into a corner.

But what are his policies?

[DaveR]

"I have absolutely no idea what exactly Corbyn believes in"

Really?

Economic beliefs = the old clause 4 - public ownership, essentially. He has back-pedalled from reinstating clause 4 itself and been persuaded to tone down his statement about renationalisation, but there's no real doubt about what he believes.

Foreign policy - united Ireland good, Israel bad/Palestine good, US bad/anyone who opposes US good, NATO bad, anyone called 'revolutionary' good.

Domestic policy - pro trade unions, welfare state, human rights, animal rights, public sector, environmentalism, anti monarchy, big business (maybe any business), EU, free trade