UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[Maltaran]

And two news pieces to start us off. The big one - Cameron has officially set out his goals for EU reform and what he wants in order to support a Yes vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34770875

Nothing really new there, the main sticking point would be the restriction of benefits to EU migrants.

The other thing I wanted to post is this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34775466 - an ex-Para has been arrested over Bloody Sunday.

[polishgenius]

In other David Cameron news... he genuinely doesn't know.

[Werthead]

In other David Cameron news... he genuinely doesn't know.

The guy is a total, clueless moron.

[Chaircat Meow]

Does anyone have any views on the current travails of the labour party? Obviously I hope Jez hangs on as long as possible and runs the party into the ground, but I'm getting worried the knives are coming out and the PLP might just send a big fuck you to the members sooner rather than later.

Should Jez go in all guns blazing on Monday and try for a whipped vote. He won't be much of a leader if he can't ultimately compel the PLP to go his way on something he feels so strongly about. Is his time already up, and will labour bring in Jarvis or Benn to try and save the situation?

 

[jet199]

I'm just amazed that seeing as the bombing of Syria is the most important foreign policy questions at the moment that labour have managed to make it all about them.

[Werthead]

This is a pretty important issue and given Cameron's utter failure to answer the question of why 8 UK Tornados are going to be any more successful than hundreds of American, French, Syrian and Russian aircraft in helping topple ISIS, not to mention growing signs that allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia are being more hindrance than help in this situation, it is clear that the vote should be against the UK joining military action in Syria. Corbyn should slam his authority down and get a consensus vote along those lines from the PLP. Allowing a free vote could weaken his leadership further.

In fact, given recent successes on the ground in Iraq, there is a very strong argument that we should keep our focus there. If other NATO forces can bring more firepower to bear on ISIS in Syria and if they can get some ground momentum there going, great, but spreading our meagre forces over two countries (they're not getting any more, our forces currently attacking targets in Iraq are simply going to be spread more thinly than they are now) isn't really going to help anyone.

[Maltaran]

Corbyn should slam his authority down and get a consensus vote along those lines from the PLP. Allowing a free vote could weaken his leadership further.

OTOH, whipping the vote will likely result in Shadow Cabinet resignations which could also weaken his leadership (although I think the only one who's actually answered that question so far is Hilary Benn who said he wouldn't resign).

[Liffguard]

Honestly, I think Corbyn's position is pretty untenable. I don't really see a way out of it. Even if he navigates through this crisis, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that he is completely at odds with a huge number of the PLP, who are themselves at odds with the actual party membership. I'm honestly just frustrated with the PLP rebels at the moment. If they want to be conservatives then just defect and be done with it so at least we'll know where everyone stands.

[mormont]

Should Jez go in all guns blazing on Monday and try for a whipped vote. He won't be much of a leader if he can't ultimately compel the PLP to go his way on something he feels so strongly about.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Corbyn is trying to do and how he sees not only his leadership, but how parties should work. Rightly or wrongly, he's simply not a believer in the idea that the leader must compel every MP to support him in his every judgement call, or be labelled 'weak'. So he's unlikely to see the issue in the terms above, and unlikely to behave accordingly. He's really not about the 'cult of personality' leadership style.

That may yet turn out to be the root of his demise, of course.

On the broader issue, I've yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why this is necessary. What I have heard is some really quite personal invective from Labour members (both rank-and-file folks that I know, and backbench MPs) who are talking about a reluctance to bomb people being proof that Corbyn is 'unfit to lead the party'. So clearly, this is a touchstone issue for many Corbyn opponents.

[Werthead]

I think it's more the case that the PLP's position, or the position of those who still think in terms of New Labour, is untenable. The leader was elected by the popular wish of the party, so the PLP MPs now have to choose to reflect those wishes or not, and if the answer is not, risk de-selection or resigning. A weakness of New Labour was that it changed its position to allow a whole bunch of wannbe-lightweight Tories into the party, but now the party has moved away from a situation where that is sustainable. Like it or not, the party has moved to the left and its members have to move with it or make the argument that moving to the left was a bad idea. They had the chance to do the latter during the leadership election and were soundly defeated.

[Chaircat Meow]

I think it's more the case that the PLP's position, or the position of those who still think in terms of New Labour, is untenable. The leader was elected by the popular wish of the party, so the PLP MPs now have to choose to reflect those wishes or not, and if the answer is not, risk de-selection or resigning. A weakness of New Labour was that it changed its position to allow a whole bunch of wannbe-lightweight Tories into the party, but now the party has moved away from a situation where that is sustainable. Like it or not, the party has moved to the left and its members have to move with it or make the argument that moving to the left was a bad idea. They had the chance to do the latter during the leadership election and were soundly defeated.

The strength in their position, in my view, will be Corbyn's miserable performance in the polls. If labour's vote tanks (and it looks like it has already started doing so) then the PLP might be able to the force the party to swallow the removal of Corbyn. Lots of new members will leave when that happens but labour might survive as a credible governing party that way.

 

[Mathis]

 A weakness of New Labour was that it changed its position to allow a whole bunch of wannbe-lightweight Tories into the party...

The strength IMO, seeing as it played a large part in Labour actually getting, you know, elected and stuff (not that they really are/were wannabe Tories, but nevermind).

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done more to advance left wing issues than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell ever have or will.

[SeanF]

Does anyone have any views on the current travails of the labour party? Obviously I hope Jez hangs on as long as possible and runs the party into the ground, but I'm getting worried the knives are coming out and the PLP might just send a big fuck you to the members sooner rather than later.

Should Jez go in all guns blazing on Monday and try for a whipped vote. He won't be much of a leader if he can't ultimately compel the PLP to go his way on something he feels so strongly about. Is his time already up, and will labour bring in Jarvis or Benn to try and save the situation?

The past week should have been terrible for the Conservatives. The Autumn Statement was a shambles, and the unfolding scandal involving Mark Clarke shows the party in a poor light.

But, everything is overshadowed by the turmoil in the Labour Party, and the ineptitude of it's leadership

[Werthead]

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done more to advance left wing issues than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell ever have or will.

Only if by "advancing" you mean "abandoning", sure.

New Labour was "left of the Tories", not a left-wing party. New New Labour has been trying to figure itself out, and based on the leadership election the membership wants to actually get back more to their actual left-wing roots. A lot of the MPs are in denial about this and still trying to carry on like it's the Blair heyday (presumably why so many of them want to start bombing civilians for no militarily explicable reason). There's certainly a tension there which needs to be addressed, and sooner rather than later.

Whether a left-wing Labour Party can win an election is a different question, and will depend a lot on to what degree the Tories have successfully sold off the country by 2020.

[Chaircat Meow]

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Corbyn is trying to do and how he sees not only his leadership, but how parties should work. Rightly or wrongly, he's simply not a believer in the idea that the leader must compel every MP to support him in his every judgement call, or be labelled 'weak'. So he's unlikely to see the issue in the terms above, and unlikely to behave accordingly. He's really not about the 'cult of personality' leadership style.

That may yet turn out to be the root of his demise, of course.

On the broader issue, I've yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why this is necessary. What I have heard is some really quite personal invective from Labour members (both rank-and-file folks that I know, and backbench MPs) who are talking about a reluctance to bomb people being proof that Corbyn is 'unfit to lead the party'. So clearly, this is a touchstone issue for many Corbyn opponents.

We're not talking about Corbyn getting every mp to toe the line though. Lots of mps defied the Blair creature over Iraq and I wouldn't call him weak for it. No, the concern here is that the shadow cabinet is so opposed to Jez. He has only four members of it (one of them an ex-girlfriend) supporting him, and only 50% of the mps at large. Whatever you or Jez may think, this level of opposition undermines his credibility as a leader. So, either he eventually goes, having become a lame duck leader, or momentum gets to works and the PLP comes to reflect his preferences.

 

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

The Telegraph has been reporting that Jez will actually try to whip his mps. It is apparently the case the SC has the final say over what the whips do, so Jez may have to sack much of the SC if he really wants to whip. 

Mcdonnell was bobbing around earlier saying he wants a free vote.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The strength IMO, seeing as it played a large part in Labour actually getting, you know, elected and stuff (not that they really are/were wannabe Tories, but nevermind).

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done more to advance left wing issues than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell ever have or will.

I'd put 1997 and 2001 down to extreme Conservative weakness (and left-wing tactical voting), and 2005 down to an accidental pro-Labour gerrymander. Tony Blair managed fewer votes in 1997 than John Major in 1992.

Tony Blair, of course, wouldn't recognise a left-wing issue if he tripped over one.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think it's more the case that the PLP's position, or the position of those who still think in terms of New Labour, is untenable. The leader was elected by the popular wish of the party, so the PLP MPs now have to choose to reflect those wishes or not, and if the answer is not, risk de-selection or resigning. A weakness of New Labour was that it changed its position to allow a whole bunch of wannbe-lightweight Tories into the party, but now the party has moved away from a situation where that is sustainable. Like it or not, the party has moved to the left and its members have to move with it or make the argument that moving to the left was a bad idea. They had the chance to do the latter during the leadership election and were soundly defeated.

Corbyn is actually doing OK in the polls (not great, but no worse than Milliband once the polling methodology has been corrected for), is still strongly approved of by the party rank and file, and has presided over a massive surge in party membership - in addition to the re-affiliation of certain unions who left under Blair. On paper, he's actually doing fine.

Problem is that the PLP not only are hell bent on ignoring the membership, but they've got the ear of the press too. This means that those who don't like Corbyn have a bigger microphone than those who do. The Guardian, for one, doesn't seem to realise the irony when it accuses Corbyn of "leaving Britain to the Tories." 

[SeanF]

Corbyn is actually doing OK in the polls (not great, but no worse than Milliband once the polling methodology has been corrected for), is still strongly approved of by the party rank and file, and has presided over a massive surge in party membership - in addition to the re-affiliation of certain unions who left under Blair. On paper, he's actually doing fine.

Problem is that the PLP not only are hell bent on ignoring the membership, but they've got the ear of the press too. This means that those who don't like Corbyn have a bigger microphone than those who do. The Guardian, for one, doesn't seem to realise the irony when it accuses Corbyn of "leaving Britain to the Tories."

I think Labour's problem is that while there's enthusiasm for Corbyn's brand of politics among a third or so of the voters in England Wales (which is where the outcome will be determined) there's real hostility towards him among another 55% or so. And, the enthusiasm is concentrated in places that Labour already holds, while the hostility prevails in marginal seats.

[mormont]

We're not talking about Corbyn getting every mp to toe the line though. Lots of mps defied the Blair creature over Iraq and I wouldn't call him weak for it. No, the concern here is that the shadow cabinet is so opposed to Jez. He has only four members of it (one of them an ex-girlfriend) supporting him, and only 50% of the mps at large. Whatever you or Jez may think, this level of opposition undermines his credibility as a leader. So, either he eventually goes, having become a lame duck leader, or momentum gets to works and the PLP comes to reflect his preferences.

Again, my point is that this isn't necessarily the way Corbyn sees the world of politics. (My own view is irrelevant.) More than that, in fact: he appears to be trying to change, or at least ignore, this idea that the cabinet must always vote the way the leader tells them. A big chunk of the reaction so far has been built on the same assumption you're making - that if he's said he's personally against bombing, that's a signal that everyone's going to be three-line whipped into submission. That may turn out to be his approach. But it may not.

Of course, the rest of the reaction is explained by those who have always been angry that he won.

Whatever one's views on the substantive issue, or on Corbyn as a leader, I think it's pretty sad that the hill on which his opponents have chosen to make a stand is for the right to drop bombs on people.