UK Politics: A Farcical Aquatic Ceremony

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, Sophelia said:

However these resignations are of people who are regarded as respected and experienced (as opposed to Corbyn and his allies who are amateurs), does make me feel that (1) maybe they know something I don't.  I had assumed their opposition to Corbyn was because they either didn't like his views or they thought he couldn't win, which didn't sway me since I like his views and I haven't seen anyone else more popular put forward.  But I wonder if having tried working with him there is something about his personality that they know that I do not - similar to what Mormont and others were saying about leadership and (2) that they have now made it impossible for him to go on, as you can't have a leader if the majority of his colleagues won't work with him, and he is basically walking around with a massive label saying his own MPs think he is incompetent, which means the media, other parties and public will have even less regard for him.  Personally I also think it reflects extremely badly on the parliamentary labour party, that their timing and the sequence of resignations has been such as to inflict maximum damage on their own party, and that they have been using the media to get at Corbyn.  To me very unprofessional, and casts disrepute on the whole party, just at the point where otherwise so many people would have felt it was the one safe haven

I think that there was a small hardcore of the PLP who wanted him out, a larger number who wanted to give him a chance and a small number who were really keen on him. The hardcore dissenters have indeed been planning this for months, but could not proceed until he did something to alienate the PLP at large.

That seemed to come with the EU referendum. In particular, his incredibly lukewarm support for Remain. Alan Johnson was particularly livid that Corbyn refused to come to Remain meetings, refused to even talk to Labour Remain campaigners and would just go off and do his own half-hearted thing off his own back without consulting with the actual Labour Remain camp, leaving them sending off muddled messages. Those early reports that Corbyn actively campaigned against Remain seem like mild exaggerations, but he did not do the campaign any favours and undermined his party during the most crucial political decision since the Iraq War. There's also now an open feeling in the PLP that Corbyn actually, privately voted for Leave, and he refused to say which way he did vote (which is his perjorative as a private citizen but does nothing to restore confidence to the party he is supposed to be leading).

I think Corbyn's policies and ideas are generally laudable, but his leadership in this crisis has been shambolic and ineffectual, at best, counter-productive at worst.

[Hereward]

It seems to me that there are two choices. Either you want a leader who holds to ideological purity and drags the country to that position, or you want someone who can get things you want while recognising they can't convince the country of everything you want. If it's a) that person has to have the charisma, clarity and argumentative ability to make that case. If it's b ) you want someone whose heart is in the right place, but can command their party as a whole and appeal to people who no longer vote Labour, because Labour keeps losing. Neither a) nor b ) is Corbyn. That much seems evident.

[Slick Mongoose]

18 minutes ago, Sophelia said:

The welfare bill was one of the deciding points for me personally - it has to be someone who voted against it.

This is the fundamental problem facing the Labour party at the moment, and nobody is addressing it in the mainstream media. Labour MP's have been consistently voting against the views of their members on major matters - on war, on welfare, etc. Eventually there was always going to be pushback.

Labour need a fresh new face, somehow, from somewhere. I don't see it.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 28/06/2016 at 1:05 AM, Maltrouane Fellaini said:

 

Let's say Corbyn put his heart and soul into campaigning for Remain. Let's say that his efforts put Remain narrowly over the line (a massive hypothetical, but let's run with it - it's what the "blame Corbyn" crowd are basically arguing).

Such a scenario might well have led to a Scottish-style annihilation of Labour across the North of England, as UKIP harnesses the anger of the "49%" like the SNP did to the 45%. English Labour would get destroyed for the same reason Scottish Labour was - campaigning with the Tories against the wishes of its ordinary working class voters.

In short, I think there's a case for saying that Corbyn's cold feet towards Remain has saved the party a lot of grief.

Oh, and as for the nomination thing - if the party decides to prevent Corbyn being on the ballot, it will have destroyed any pretence of party democracy. If the PLP want to beat Corbyn, they have to do the democratic thing, and beat him among the rank and file. 

[Hereward]

England's Finest,

No, Labour doesn't consistently vote against their members. It votes against their supporters.

 

RBPL,

Corbyn is going to lead to a Scottish style wipeout in the North because he's a republican, internationalist pacifist, regardless of his views on the EU.

[Slick Mongoose]

5 minutes ago, Hereward said:

England's Finest,

No, Labour doesn't consistently vote against their members. It votes against their supporters.

?

As far as I am aware the Labour party membership are extremely anti-war, anti-welfare cuts etc.

[Hereward]

Yes, but its voters outside London are most definitely not.

[Slick Mongoose]

Just now, Hereward said:

Yes, but its voters outside London are most definitely not.

Right, so the Labour party consistently votes against the wishes of its members.

I feel like i'm misunderstanding something here.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Might well come to mass deselections:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-deselection-deselect-mp-rules-party-a7107556.html

[Hereward]

1 minute ago, England's Finest said:

Right, so the Labour party consistently votes against the wishes of its members.

I feel like i'm misunderstanding something here.

No, as I've said, it votes in accordance with its members, it just increasingly votes against the wishes of its core voters, working class people outside London, who are not necessarily members, or at least not active members..

[Slick Mongoose]

6 minutes ago, Hereward said:

No, as I've said, it votes in accordance with its members, it just increasingly votes against the wishes of its core voters, working class people outside London, who are not necessarily members, or at least not active members..

If you were to poll the Labour membership, I think you'll find they are extremely anti-war (for example).

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 minutes ago, Hereward said:

RBPL,

Corbyn is going to lead to a Scottish style wipeout in the North because he's a republican, internationalist pacifist, regardless of his views on the EU.

Except that there hasn't been a divisive referendum on the monarchy or pacificism. There's been a divisive referendum on the EU, and that's the issue that's going to be fresh in people's minds. Working class Leavers aren't going to go to UKIP because Corbyn is a republican, but they might well have gone to UKIP if (in cahoots with the Tories) he had forced a Remain vote on them.

I'll freely admit that Corbyn's views on social issues or international relations are at odds with those voters. His views on economics and the EU (which have so put him off side with the PLP) are, however, another story.

[Hereward]

England's Finest,

Ahhhh!!!!!!! Yes, I know. I've agreed with that a number of times. The point I am making is that is not where the party's voters are. 

[MeanMrMustard]

 

Quote

 

Posted Friday at 1:13 AM by sologdin

hurrah! three cheers for nativism, guvnah!

 

I knew the left was in a bad way.

 

I really didn't think it'd gotten to the point where even sologdin was clutching his pearls in horror at anyone daring to disagree with hedge funds and traders and corporations.

 

 

What? You have values other than global capitalism? O-M-G. Not ok! The cry of the useful idiots.

 

[Slick Mongoose]

8 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Ahhhh!!!!!!! Yes, I know. I've agreed with that a number of times. The point I am making is that is not where the party's voters are. 

Sure. And my entire original point is that as large sections of the party make pro-war and anti-welfare votes, the party membership, those who select the leader, strongly oppose this. This has inevitably led to conflict.

[Hereward]

5 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Working class Leavers aren't going to go to UKIP because Corbyn is a republican, but they might well have gone to UKIP if (in cahoots with the Tories) he had forced a Remain vote on them.

I'll freely admit that Corbyn's views on social issues or international relations are at odds with those voters. His views on economics and the EU (which have so put him off side with the PLP) are, however, another story.

Then you don't actually know enough current working class Labour voters.

[Slick Mongoose]

Something more lighthearted:

 

Downfall videos never get old.

[Morna The Maid]

If this is what I think this is....There's a video floating around somewhere, a interview with that guy who played Hitler. It may be funny for us who make and consume these things, but he took his job very seriously and has been very disturbed by the endless parodies he has inspired.

********

 

Continuing to watch from across the pond, as all this happens. I want to quit watching, but I can't. It's like a  car crash and you say you aren't attracted to this stuff--but as you pass the flaming corpse of the vehicle,  you look--like everyone else does, if only for a second.

 

It reminds me of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", a modern classic that should be required reading for anyone who cares about the future of modern human society. One of the most terrifying tomes you are ever likely to pick up, but unable to put down. Normally I don't go for the kerfuffle of the politerati, but when someone gave me this thing a couple yrs ago I was unable to put it down. And it's far from being "far out" there--the Pope is a good friend of hers, b/c of this book.

What is unfolding before our eyes is right out of her playbook, you can identify points A B C and D, and still we have very, very far to go. Europe may be a done deal for the bankster/1% crowd  terrorists, there may not be much more to loot and steal from its people, there is only so far austerity can go, and what they have left in terms of power they are now showing just how hard and dirty they are prepared to fight for the rights to keep extracting what little they can  extract. (I am not speaking of the lowly pols who do the dirty work of actually holding office; I'm talking of those above them, who control all of them....of both parties. Which is why Labour/Democrats are mostly no different than Tories/Republicans on most issues these days, or seem to be the same, except on a few social issues...they're already bought. And why people are so outraged and helpless Which i s whu folk like Rupert Murdoch and Sumner et al are so useful; with no locally or regionally owned media anymore, you can sure the shrill tide of propaganda will go on 24/8..)

They want to cling as hard as they can in the next few years to the deck of the EU/Titanic as it slowly sinks....as it also begins to dawn on them that after having sold their people out by transferring their jobs to China, that the Chinese may NOT be their friends after all. This is not going to be like the transfer of power from the European Empires to the American one in the 20th century; a lucky and orderly passing of the torch from friend to friend, with the new regime taking the interests of the old one to heart, even as it built a new world order. Friends?Yes...how hard we fought for old European colonial interests in Asia and other places after the War; and how these countries felt hoodwinked..hence ppl like Ho Chi Minh.

the banksters are beginning to slowly realize that China takes this quaint notion called "nationalism" a little bit seriously and there won't be a nice cushy address waiting in Beijing or Shanghai for the bankster traitors to flee to with all their stolen loot and watch contentedly from afar as the helpless suckas turn on each other instead in the ruins left behind. Hence the next idiot savant to come along: the "T" ster:  abomination. Shock Doctrine says he will be the next perfect bit of entertainment for the smallfolk suckas to be distracted by, as austerity is next imposed on the United States. It's been a dream for a long time and now the time is right, all the pieces are being prepared  and coming along nicely.  Could it get as bad as Greece here? Maybe not--but you'd be surprised how much they already own and how much groundwork has been done, how much has been laid out. So far, hardly a roadblock.

 

********

 

When I think of these things, I think of the words of Eddard Stark (the show's sucka and Noble Fool, acccording to Dave and Dan; but a hero for that reason, to many of us):

"Let me tell you something about wolves, child. When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. Summer is the time for squabbles. In winter, we must protect each other, share our strengths. So if you must hate...hate those who would truly do us harm."

 

Summer, not Winter, is coming for us; the Long Summer that may never end. When it is truly here--and that day is closer than we think-- much will pass; indeed is already passing. (they're not calling it the Sixth Extinction for nothing. I see the effects in my ownhome--where have all the songbirds and honeybees gone?) And cities and states and countries and continents still squabble, still talk of "polars", while Summer creeps upon us. There is not enough land or water or resources or room to support all of us--if they want to consume like we do.  "Poor" China right now already consumes nearly one-third of the global resources; hence ther desire for the S CH sea corridor...what will happen in 10-15 yrs when they are closer to their goal of American-per-capita consumption? Which they must have to keep social stability...What the Chinese do not understand is that it too late for them, too late for Empires. Oh, they may harbor the illusion of great power and glory for a while, but ultimately their very colossal size and greed will be their undoing. As it has been for us. We are hardly innocent; indeed, we showed them thee way in this. Will the banksters too realize they have been, are being, blind? Or will they take us all down with them and their unbridled lust for wealth and power?

 

I am not in despair, however; I still have hope. Against all odds, and after 8 yrs of fighting when all assumed our goal was madness and folly, we won. We took on the fossil fuel industry and won. We in New York State protected our precious land and threw out those who would have defiled and destroyed it; we kept the hydro-frackers out of our state. When 3 successive  Governors fought our efforts. The unrelenting propaganda of the industry didn't fool us, you see; we saw what radiation in the groundwater did at Love Canal. Didn't matter where from; radiation was radiation to us, and we'd had decades to witness the undeniable results.

We knew what it would have done to our landscapes, our communities, our health. We fought tooth and nail for 8 years, and in the end our savior was not Democrat, but  a hardcore/borderline *tea party Rebublican* judge in the tiny town of Ithaca who issued the court order that stayed the industry's hand, that enabled us to win. She chose her land and the people over personal political gain, a bombshell decision, nobody saw it coming.

 

OK I am poetic, this sounds naieve. But it changed my life. There is so much at stake  here. Sorry if this make me philopsophical.

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, Sophelia said:

However these resignations are of people who are regarded as respected and experienced (as opposed to Corbyn and his allies who are amateurs), does make me feel that (1) maybe they know something I don't.  I had assumed their opposition to Corbyn was because they either didn't like his views or they thought he couldn't win, which didn't sway me since I like his views and I haven't seen anyone else more popular put forward.  But I wonder if having tried working with him there is something about his personality that they know that I do not - similar to what Mormont and others were saying about leadership

This rings very familiar to me with what Australia went through with Kevin Rudd.  In 2007 he swept to power on a wave of huge popular support, he seemed like the leader the left had been waiting for and was saying all the right things.  I hadn't really started paying attention to politics yet and he seemed like a true believer, he stood up and called climate change the greatest moral challenge of our time, he apologised to the Stolen Generation and seemed like he would try usher in a new and better era.  Then his emissions trading scheme got blocked, and all of a sudden the great moral challenge was something we could shrug and say "actually that's a bit too hard right now", and the mining companies blocked his attempt to extract a more fair level of taxation from their exploitation of the country and next thing you know his colleagues had replaced him.

He stood up and cried after it happened and seemed very genuine, I felt sorry for him.  Initially it made no sense how much his party seemed to dislike him, it seemed time and again like they'd accept electoral wipe out over going back to him - they hated him that much, and at times weren't shy about saying it.  Eventually they did blink and went back to him, after he'd spent 3 years leaking every damaging titbit he could get his hands on, undermining his party, fomenting discord and all but destroying the party.  He led them to that election, presided over a huge wipe out anyway and looked incredibly happy when conceding the election - he got what he wanted, which was revenge on the party that forsook him.

His colleagues absolutely saw something in him that the population did not, they knew he was entirely self interested and seeking power and would put himself ahead of everything else.  People that had been watching internal politics closely before he got the leadership knew this already, he'd done the same thing to previous leaders in opposition, but most of the public didn't...and a lot still don't see it that way.  So yeah, when the people who actually work with him hold a radically different view than the public there are a couple of explanations, one is simply that Corbyn's politics could be wrong as far as they're concerned, but it could also easily be that they know something the public does not.

[The Anti-Targ]

Corbyn giving luke-warm support of Remain WAS Corbyn doing as much as he could possibly stomach to promote the Labout Party line. How can anyone blame him for being reticent to support a position he actually opposes. If he had been given total freedom to campaign for whatever he wanted he would have been hanging out with Farage and Johnson holding Leave parties all across the country.

I don't know why the Labour MPs are only turning on him now. I was kind of expecting remain to win, but then I read an article with many of Corbyn's horribly tepid statements pretending to support remain and I felt that Leave was probably more likely to win. 

Personally, if Corbyn was actually a strong supporter of Remain, then he would have spoken to the hearts of those Blue collar northern and Welsh Labour/Left voters who put Leave across the line and just as they voted him into Leadership of the Labour party, a few million of them would have voted for remain and we'd have a different result to be analysing.

The Leave campaign was better organised and used better analytical and propaganda tools than Remain, and yet still only managed a 52/48 victory. I think Corbyn's influence, as one man, on the election was as great as any of the leaders of the Leave campaign. He only needed to influence about 1 million people and Remain would have narrowly won. I think Corbyn did influence at least that many people, and they voted to leave based on what he said and did. And I think Corbyn is totally fine with that.

The question for Parliamentary Labour, then, is what do you do when your leader and a majority of your non-London voter base are aligned, but the vast majority of MPs are not aligned with them? Seems like there is a real crisis in Labour and possibly a parting of the ways is coming. Corbyn will lead a strongly socialists minor left wing party, and the centrists will lead another minor party. And they will have to fight over which gets to call itself Labour. 

But what's going to happen to UKIP? Now that its reason for being no longer exists where do they go? Nigel Farage can no longer wail and gnash his teeth about the tyranny of being under the yoke of EU oppressors. So what's he going to be campaigning on to win seats in the next general?

What are the implications if Scotland moves for independance and can actually achieve it? And Northern Ireland follows? Is the loss of Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland an acceptable price to pay for England and Wales to be out of the EU?

I read an article about Greenland's exit from the EU, and now that Greenland feels it's in better control of itself (and its fisheries, which was a major reason for leaving), there is talk in Greenland that rejoining the EU would be a net benefit for them.