Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Should Labour move swiftly to depose Corbyn?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Should Labour move swiftly to depose Corbyn?
Trading as short as 1/6, let us assume that Jeremy Corbyn wins. Let us also assume that the electoral cause of Labour will be better served by getting rid of him. Elections are won on the centre ground, and Stephen Bush has pretty conclusively shown that non-voters are not, collectively, an alternative viable route to victory.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Turning back to yesterday's events, we are only a few days away from Corbyn being responsible for giving the official response to news that the government blasted a bunch of terrorists to bits. Just think what his response would have been yesterday if he were at the Dispatch Box opposite the PM.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/640998724467052544
Clearly a drone strike on X Factor should also be considered ....
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly"
..........What's done cannot be undone.
We are about to have a Labour leader elected with the closest thing to a democratic mandate that a Labour leader has ever had. What right does anyone in the party have to challenge him? Why would that not be treating the membership with contempt (possibly deserved contempt but that is another matter)?
When Corbyn wins that is the settled view of the Labour membership. If the moderate section of the Labour party does not like it they can sod off somewhere else. That is the way democracy works. It's a bitch.
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
a) there's no precedent
b) Corbyn may be superficially popular with the public for a few months or years
c) the Conservatives will face mid-term blues probably starting this winter or maybe spring and maybe a recession and a lost vote on Europe
d) the mandate thing.
So on the whole, I'd think that Corbyn will be there for most if not all of this Parliament.
There is no mechanism.
There is no credible candidate.
There is no appetite for the gorefest that would be unleashed.
I suspect an ad campaign to run in Saudi for these amazing British drones that can find two wayward Brummies driving through the desert pretending to be Saladin
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222908/Grave-doubts-claims-key-witnesses-VIP-sex-abuse-inquiry.html
If there were a single alternative then they should have stood. Labour have made their bed and will have to lie in it. Corbyn and Watson need to be seen to fail before they are defenestrated. We will see soon enough whether the Labour right have any backbone.
As for Watson himself: he's had to resign from front line positions twice. If he was made deputy, I'd say it's very likely that it would become three. The guy tries to be Mandelson, but is just incompetent.
The problems are that this process will make Labour look completely unelectable (which of course they will be) and that Corbyn will want to hand over to someone of his ilk rather than a moderate. Good quality candidates of either stripe are not yet thick on the ground but Labour can only hope they evolve whilst this shambles is going on.
I'll take you in as a refugee. :-)
Firstly, getting rid of a Labour leader is bloody difficult. The formal mechanism for doing it is so convoluted as to be designed to be unusable in all but the most extreme of circumstances. So it would have to come down to 'pressure' from the PLP: MPs refusing to serve on the front bench, disdainful acts of rebellion, open contempt for Corbyn and so on: actions designed to make the party ungovernable. But such actions have a cost both in public perception and in legacy: who is to say that having got a taste for acting independently, those MPs would come back under the whip afterwards. And of course there is the question of reselections that TP raises. How would such behaviour be viewed by the CLPs?
Secondly, Corbyn does need to be given enough rope. Certainly there are dangers in doing so, as TP rightly identifies, but they're smaller than the dangers in not doing so. If Corbyn isn't seen to fail then it would be a mighty slap in the face for the engaged public from the Westminster elite. I remember being at the Conservative conference when reform of the leadership rules was under discussion, at a time when the parliamentary party was unpopular for their perceived misbehaviour between 1992-7. The suggestion made from the podium that the MPs take the lion's share of any electoral college was shouted down in a pretty unprecedented act of rebellion. I can't imagine Labour would take it any better were an actual election to be effectively overruled. Were Corbyn to be deposed without having been given a chance, there would be a constant question of 'what would Jeremy have done'. He may well be happy to give a running commentary.
Some of the points TP makes are valid but not that related to the leadership. Would delay allow the left to take control of the party? I'm unconvinced. True, a Corbyn-led party would be more attractive to the far left, may push out some on the right and the leadership would obviously be far less willing to act against infiltrators. On the other hand, the PLP mounting a coup against the membership might galvanise the left to fight back, having the same effect. Either way, it's not going to happen overnight. Likewise, to what extent can the NEC elections be affected by a right-/left-leaning leadership?
All in all, Labour cannot move against Corbyn until his credibility is utterly shot, not just with the public at large but also with enough of the likes of Nick Palmer - mainstream members who voted for him as being worth a throw of the dice - to prevent the risk of any member of the far left from getting near the leadership again. There will be a cost to that but there's going to be a cost to whatever route Labour takes.
"Though I'm not keen on these extra judicial killings ..."
You may not be, but electorally, this is like the Falklands. Especially if Jezza stands up to defend "our brave lads" and picks the wrong set.
But nonetheless it is a significant step outside previous actions. Parliament voted against these bombings. What price democracy and law in our dirty war against the terrorists?
"I'll take you in as a refugee. :-)"
Sounds good to me.
From what I hear I'll enjoy the fleshpots of Ludlow.
"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
Read the stuff about Paul Gambachinii in the Mail. Justice in Britain.. Paaah.
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons ...
Full text here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.htm
Parliament didn't vote against targeted strikes on individual terrorists.
"You may not be, but electorally, this is like the Falklands. Especially if Jezza stands up to defend "our brave lads" and picks the wrong set"
That's funny but these bullshit stories have a way of unravelling. It starts off being picked up by cranks like Corbyn but then takes on a life of its own.
(Or to keep TP's theme going 'Things sweet.....prove in digestion sour'.)
I think David Herdson has this absolutely right. At some stage, fundamentally decent, but totally misguided Labour members will come to realise that having as leader an anti-western, anti-capitalist apologist for terrorism who has spent 40 years sharing platforms with people who wish nothing but ill on the UK and its allies is not only politically stupid but also morally indefensible. At this stage, blinded by the grief and shock of Labour's defeat in may they are not yet ready to admit this. To move against Corbyn before they are is not feasible. Just how long it takes them to snap out of their current state of mind is harder to tell. I suspect there is some way to go yet, but that a defeat in the London mayoral election may act as something of a wake up call.
I am sure that the govt would be happy to bring forward another vote about bombing the Daesh terrorists should they view one as necessary. Not that I expect the govt to play politics with something so serious, but it would also be a useful test of support for Mr Corbyn in his new role.
I recall a guest lecture at uni saying that Saladin was not as well known or reverted in the Muslim world until western historians focused on him for their own reasons - the noble opponent eye - as other leaders of the period were more pious or more successful. Interesting if true.
</ sarcasm >
Anyone going to IS should be under no illusion that they face the risk of death, a high risk I hope.
Of course, some of the criticism - certainly from Stop the War - is based on the fact that they don't want any sort of bombing of IS at all.
Good piece, Mr. Price. I'd guess the decision's already been taken. Or, it should've been. A coup needs to strike swiftly and without warning. Ringing people up after the decision will be too late, I suspect.
But then, I doubt Umunna has the intelligent ruthlessness of Septimius Severus.
Watched ITV News at Ten last night. Baffled by the bleating [well, except that from wet blanket fool Tim Farron] about killing off terrorists seeking to commit regicide.
No one will give a monkey's toss about the legality. As far as they are concerned, it will be "About time." and "Bloody good riddance."
During the Falklands debate, Michael Foot had the sense to see this. And to be fair, he was a patriot. Is Jezza?
The idea Cameron should've asked 600 odd people their opinion instead of taking out a threat to the nation is ridiculous.
Totally wrong, of course, but a good read nonetheless.
Two problems: (i) the PLP doesn't have the bottle to pull the trigger (ii) the members of the PLP are scheming little toerags who will be looking out for personal advantage which militates against any concerted action
Faute de mieux - and this is Labour's shame and problem - Corbyn has had the best song. There needs to be some hard thinking on the part of the moderate Left before anything else not this casting around looking for possible saviours.
As a quick strike against Leader Corbyn requires an ability to plan and co-ordinate and keep a secret.. why does anyone think there is any MP capable of carrying out such a plan?
After all, they cannot even think their way about how to run a Leadership campaign effectively....Jarvis could - but as he has no following .. very unlikely.
It also requires MPs to stand up and make themselves personal targets by the lefty loons who support Corbyn.. I don't fancy having my car vandalised or worse. Given the names they called Kendall, anything is possible.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Sun to report yesterday's news in the way it did. But it is equally reasonable to report that following such unprecedented action the government and David Cameron will face questions about the decision that was taken. They will and they should. That is how a democracy works.
All they need is an active mobile phone (switched on) and found within 10 meters..
Remember, the average Peebie regards emotional maturity as a form of insult. As does JC, or any other power-hungry politician - it stands between them and what they want.
Tricky things, these 7 degrees of separation......
And it's royal Wooten bassett now, I believe it's customary to refer to places by their current name even if about events in the past unless one doing a historical piece.
But my gut feeling is I'm glad we did it
First I've heard of it... lol
You're right that a retaliation might occur. The answer's to hit ISIS as hard and often as possible.
In a war, people die. If those people are murderous terrorist scum, then huzzah.
Podemos and IU (the renamed Communist Party) have agreed to run a merged list at Spanish elections later this year.
IU has been polling 3-4% in the polls, while Podemos is on about 16%.
There are two ways this could play out: One, it could result in the combined party up around the 20% mark - still in third, and 10% behind the PP, but scoring much better in seat numbers than previously. Two, given Podemos's historic criticisms of the Communists, and their claim to "not be like other political parties" is could cause some of their more moderate members to drift in the direction of PSOE and Citizen's.
A wild guess would be that Podemos will take 2% of the IU vote, with the other 1.5% splitting between PSOE and Citizen's.
The best bet, currently, would be that the PP gets around 30% of the vote and 40% of the seats, and is able to govern in coalition with Citizen's.
The wildcard is Catalonia, where the various nationalist groupings have created a single "independence" platform, which is polling around 40-44% in the region. (Citizen's in a strong second in Catalonia.) There have been suggestions that if the nationalists score 50+% then they will go for UDI. (I would be surprised if they did this, but hey...)
But we have now bombed a country at which we are not at war, and it at least mandates a bit of discussion on the legal niceties of a "dirty war".
But I have no patience with those who seem to ignore the Government's primary duty, which is to keep us safe and protect us from our enemies which include these terrorist loons, and some of whom give the impression that they are more concerned with polishing their own moral halo or attacking the U.S. (as some woman on the Today programme was a few minutes ago) than preventing harm and stopping evil-doers.
"f the public mood were the only thing to go by paediatricians would have been hanging from lampposts a few years back."
A little unfair. I've no doubt you could find the odd loon as you describe, but it would be difficult to find any sympathy at all from the great mass of the public for the Cardiff duo.
A tragedy for the family but some good can come from it.
I remember being surprised by one of the 9/11 hijackers leaving a will specifying that his body not be handled by females. As if flying into a steel structure at hundreds of miles an hour while sitting on a thousand gallons of aviation fuel would leave more than a sooty speck behind.
They have a romantic view of their possible death, not being blown to bits without warning from the skies. A bit of realism might just discourage the odd one from going.
Mr. G, killing terrorists who sought to kill us is no bad thing. I'm quite surprised by your stance on this.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
Why doesn't the Government try harder to get an international convention to deal with this unprecedented situation? Because it wants to sell arms to Saudi, and Saudi (or bits of it) fund Da'esh.
I still don't think they'll declare UDI without a referendum. And I think - even if independence were won - it would be a negotiated departure from Spain.
UDI would certainly mean no EU; what currency would they use? How would the government borrow? What asset's would be Catalonia's rather than the Spanish government's.
The latest opinion polls have support for independence on 44%, and support has been falling since mid 2012 (when it was briefly above 50%). I think support for "disorganised" independence would be much lower.