If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Labour's Constitution is crystal clear: the leader of the party is the ex officio leader of the PLP
The Labour constitution is not the British constitution.
But if Corbyn wins again, Labour will undoubtedly split.
If the PLP chose a "spokesman" in Parliament, I don't think that the Speaker could treat him/her as the Leader of the Opposition when the constitution says that the "leader of the party is ex officio the leader of the parliamentary labour party"
The SNP is a precedent and the British constitution is very flexible. More likely, though, is that the rebels would form a new party. If that had more MPs than Labour did then it would become the official opposition.
How do you propose that the Speaker justifies ignoring the following clause of the Labour Party Constitution? [Article 7.1(a)]
(a) There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP.
I agree that if they formally split you would have a new leader and a new LOTO.
Similarly if enough of them resigned the whip without forming a new party then you'd have an argument that the SNP should become the official opposition.
But while they are just a rebel faction within the PLP that ignores the authority of their leader then I don't see how the Speaker intervenes.
If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Labour's Constitution is crystal clear: the leader of the party is the ex officio leader of the PLP
The Labour constitution is not the British constitution.
But if Corbyn wins again, Labour will undoubtedly split.
If the PLP chose a "spokesman" in Parliament, I don't think that the Speaker could treat him/her as the Leader of the Opposition when the constitution says that the "leader of the party is ex officio the leader of the parliamentary labour party"
Sturgeon
Your point?
The Labour Party Constitution (clause 7) is absolutely clear. I haven't checked the SNP constitution, but presumably they have no issue with their leader not being an MP and doesn't require that the leader of the party is automatically the leader of the parliamentary party.
The Speaker decides who to call. It will be Corbyn.
How does whip withdrawal work re: the local parties? If Corbyn removes the the whip from the rebel PLP do they remain the local parties candidate until they also explicitly deselect them or are they also, implicitly, deselected by that act?
Is it similar for expulsion?
If Corbyn wins again, he wants to change the rules so that all MPs face mandatory reselection
If there is an early GE, though, there won't be time to do it. If it is delayed, the deselected MPs will stay in Parliament and form a new party.
If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Labour's Constitution is crystal clear: the leader of the party is the ex officio leader of the PLP
The Labour constitution is not the British constitution.
But if Corbyn wins again, Labour will undoubtedly split.
If the PLP chose a "spokesman" in Parliament, I don't think that the Speaker could treat him/her as the Leader of the Opposition when the constitution says that the "leader of the party is ex officio the leader of the parliamentary labour party"
I would agree until those MPs resign the Labour whip. At that point they are no longer bound by the Labour Party rule book.
If they form a new party, yes, but not if they are a bunch of independents. But that's a difficult judgement.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
But it's recognisable and speaks to Labour's roots as a party. Anything with Labour in it would be tricky.
Where on earth has Square Root been? Nothing like our Co-op! More importantl;y, I know it’s normally a distinction without a difference, but are all Lab-Co-op MP’s on the same side in this argument?
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
Ena Sharples. I associate Co-op with low tech little supermarkets, having a bank crisis and generally behind the times.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
Ena Sharples. I associate Co-op with low tech little supermarkets, having a bank crisis and generally behind the times.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
I thought it was all crystal meth and rent boys, these days. The youths might like it
Good morning all from a brilliantly sunny and hot Amalfi!
One question: since Dave's renegotiated deal is now dead, doesn't that mean that for the time being the UK continues to have a veto on further integrationist measures by the Eurozone? I seem to recall that giving up that veto was part of the deal.
If so - and on the assumption that the Eurozone will want to get on with integration (Italian banks have been in trouble for some time as is Germany's main bank) - does that not give the UK some leverage?
And now to breakfast and deciding what to do this glorious day.
This is why the EU will find prevarication for more than a very few months on Article 50 unacceptable. They have their own crises to deal with and cannot afford to have the EU paralysed by Brexit.
It's a terrible mess. Two factions: Progress, formed as the support movement for Blair's Third Way. Blair was a control freak and engineered the selection process to mainly select supportive MPs which explains the disconnect between the PLP and the membership as was pre-Corbyn, a disconnect far worse now Momentum, formed as a support movement for Corbyn's project. Has a similar number of committed MPs as Progress but significantly more support in the party.
Both movements have paid membership - a party within a party - which many of us in neither have warned is dangerous enough to our need banning. Progress activists tend to be heavily involved with running constituency parties and basic activism, Momentum activists still mainly feel like an insurgency. Neither are compatible with each other, seeing them as an existential threat to THEIR Labour Party.
As a member of neither I believe that neither are electable. Progress and the Third Way have utterly failed both electoral lyrics and as a movement. Their Coup de gras was Harperson leading the PLP to abstain on welfare cuts for "electability" - which translates as 'doing things we think would be attractive to Tory voters'. They believe traditional Labour voters will vote for them regardless and haven't been put off this by the SNP experience. And now we have wazzocks like Tristan Hunt still using the e-word despite 70% of his voters disagreeing with him over Europe. Momentum still feels like a protest movement. Reclaim the movement, Reclaim the party, Reclaim the country. They have new ideas buto no idea how to argue them with ANY dissent seen as latent Toryism
What happens now? No idea. The rebellion is way beyond bitterite Progress MPs it's almost all of them. Angela Eagle is apparently running but will be deselected by her CLP who passed a support motion for Corbyn and challenged her to toe the line. Tom Watson has a mandate but the rules demand a contest even if Corbyn does resign. Meanwhile out in the real party we have to prepare our local machines for an autumn election which feels inevitable whatever Boris says. Who will be the leader, what the policy platform will be, God knows.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
To labour the point, It doesn't matter what label they use - the referendum destroyed the vote for any europhile wwc party.
If you don't represent your voters eventually something will happen, the truth is revealed and the damage is done.
The damage has been done. Labour are still however iat the what on earth happened blame game point.
I don't think they will understand the actual issue until (as in Scotland) the damage has been done
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
It's a terrible mess. Two factions: Progress, formed as the support movement for Blair's Third Way. Blair was a control freak and engineered the selection process to mainly select supportive MPs which explains the disconnect between the PLP and the membership as was pre-Corbyn, a disconnect far worse now Momentum, formed as a support movement for Corbyn's project. Has a similar number of committed MPs as Progress but significantly more support in the party.
Both movements have paid membership - a party within a party - which many of us in neither have warned is dangerous enough to our need banning. Progress activists tend to be heavily involved with running constituency parties and basic activism, Momentum activists still mainly feel like an insurgency. Neither are compatible with each other, seeing them as an existential threat to THEIR Labour Party.
As a member of neither I believe that neither are electable. Progress and the Third Way have utterly failed both electoral lyrics and as a movement. Their Coup de gras was Harperson leading the PLP to abstain on welfare cuts for "electability" - which translates as 'doing things we think would be attractive to Tory voters'. They believe traditional Labour voters will vote for them regardless and haven't been put off this by the SNP experience. And now we have wazzocks like Tristan Hunt still using the e-word despite 70% of his voters disagreeing with him over Europe. Momentum still feels like a protest movement. Reclaim the movement, Reclaim the party, Reclaim the country. They have new ideas buto no idea how to argue them with ANY dissent seen as latent Toryism
What happens now? No idea. The rebellion is way beyond bitterite Progress MPs it's almost all of them. Angela Eagle is apparently running but will be deselected by her CLP who passed a support motion for Corbyn and challenged her to toe the line. Tom Watson has a mandate but the rules demand a contest even if Corbyn does resign. Meanwhile out in the real party we have to prepare our local machines for an autumn election which feels inevitable whatever Boris says. Who will be the leader, what the policy platform will be, God knows.
Very good post and I am genuinely sympathetic to your predicament. This country needs a coherent, credible centre left alternative which forces the Tory party to pay attention to the centre ground, to moderate some of their right wing fantasies and to be held to account. The people also need a choice on the way forward and someone to speak up for those that lose out as the country as a whole progresses. I am just not confident that either wing of Labour serves that function anymore.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
Good morning all from a brilliantly sunny and hot Amalfi!
One question: since Dave's renegotiated deal is now dead, doesn't that mean that for the time being the UK continues to have a veto on further integrationist measures by the Eurozone? I seem to recall that giving up that veto was part of the deal.
If so - and on the assumption that the Eurozone will want to get on with integration (Italian banks have been in trouble for some time as is Germany's main bank) - does that not give the UK some leverage?
And now to breakfast and deciding what to do this glorious day.
Another day of gloomy leaden skies for those who Remain in the UK, the sooner I Leave for the Med the better.
Hope the sea air and relaxation is benefiting your lungs.
Good morning all from a brilliantly sunny and hot Amalfi!
One question: since Dave's renegotiated deal is now dead, doesn't that mean that for the time being the UK continues to have a veto on further integrationist measures by the Eurozone? I seem to recall that giving up that veto was part of the deal.
If so - and on the assumption that the Eurozone will want to get on with integration (Italian banks have been in trouble for some time as is Germany's main bank) - does that not give the UK some leverage?
And now to breakfast and deciding what to do this glorious day.
This is why the EU will find prevarication for more than a very few months on Article 50 unacceptable. They have their own crises to deal with and cannot afford to have the EU paralysed by Brexit.
Agreed. But it also gives the UK leverage to get an acceptable post-Brexit deal - or the outlines of one in place. The veto lasts for as long as the UK is in the EU. I was just considering what effective leverage the UK has to achieve that.
I accept that something like EEA/EFTA has significant domestic issues but that's a separate issue.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
Ena Sharples. I associate Co-op with low tech little supermarkets, having a bank crisis and generally behind the times.
Coop now has the best digital outfit in the UK.
Plato is not part of the relevant demographic. Right wing Tories are not going to vote for a centre left party.
I don't think this revolt is predominantly about Europe. It was going to have to happen this summer to prevent changes to the LP constitution at conference. It was simply nessecary to get the referendum out of the way first.
or to avoid embarrassment caused by Corbyn being in control and at the despatch box when the Chilcot shit hits the fan?
(I think Blair/Campbell et al. behaved despicably, probably illegally. I also think there is no point violating what's left of the corpse of the labour party by trying to prosecute blair and so on)
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
Of course the fun then continues. GE2020 the Tories lose 20 seats to the Kippers and Labour lose 30 seats and there is no overall majority, who is going to blink first and do a deal with the kippers
If the left were thinking this thing through they'd do: * Corbyn quits and endorses McDonnell (*) * McDonnell runs and wins * McDonnell proposes a fairly centrist manifesto for the next election, since they won't have any money anyhow and everyone will be busy arguing about Brexit * Right gradually crumbles away instead of defecting, left consolidates grip on NEC and constituency parties * McDonnell does left-wing things
(*) Or some other left-winger, somebody young and feisty would be better but I can't think of anyone specific.
Problem is that while there's a strong motivation for the Labour mainstream PLP to ensure Corbyn has the nominations if he needs them - he must be seen to be defeated by the movement, not in a coup - that incentive doesn't apply to anything like the same extent to anyone else the left might want to put up. The 15% rule is there for a reason.
Good morning all from a brilliantly sunny and hot Amalfi!
One question: since Dave's renegotiated deal is now dead, doesn't that mean that for the time being the UK continues to have a veto on further integrationist measures by the Eurozone? I seem to recall that giving up that veto was part of the deal.
If so - and on the assumption that the Eurozone will want to get on with integration (Italian banks have been in trouble for some time as is Germany's main bank) - does that not give the UK some leverage?
And now to breakfast and deciding what to do this glorious day.
Another day of gloomy leaden skies for those who Remain in the UK, the sooner I Leave for the Med the better.
Hope the sea air and relaxation is benefiting your lungs.
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
UKIP may get some of it. But GEs are not binary choices. I'll be surprised if turnout at the GE is 72%.
Yep, the one thing that can save the Labour party now is an early election, so that the majority of MPs returned to the much smaller group that ends up in the new Commons is made up of those who oppose Corbyn. At that stage, not only will the glorious leader have led Labour to crushing defeat, but he will be faced with five more years of not being able to run an opposition. Even Corbyn may give up at that point and then Labour can begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding.
The alternative is that the election is not called early and the PLP effectively creates a new party that has the time to build support, develop an organisation and get some money. I suspect it will attract a fair amount of that, especially as it would become the official opposition. However, when the election does come, both official Labour and whatever the new party is called (the Co-operative party?) will be wiped out and millions of voters will have no representation at all.
Of course, if Corbyn were to stand down, all this could be prevented. A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Obviously, that is not going to happen.
Labour is finished.
What are the odds on those MP's not supporting Corbyn being deselected?
High, if other events don't intervene. Both sides, whether they realise it or not, have gone 'all in'.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
To labour the point, It doesn't matter what label they use - the referendum destroyed the vote for any europhile wwc party.
If you don't represent your voters eventually something will happen, the truth is revealed and the damage is done.
The damage has been done. Labour are still however iat the what on earth happened blame game point.
I don't think they will understand the actual issue until (as in Scotland) the damage has been done
On any subject other than the EU/immigration, Labour MPs wouldn't even attempt to ignore 2/3rds or more of their voters. Yet, I've seen a procession on the TV still paying lip-service to these concerns. They still don't get it.
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Its going to be very sad if there is effectively a straight May/Boris fight which could go straight to the membership but they had to piss around for a couple of weeks to reject the no hopers like Morgan before they can do so.
The labour 'centrists'... will be competing for the same minority of votes as the lib dems.
The only sensible option for them is to resign the whip en masse and take the libdem whip, making Farron leader of the opposition.
The LibDem brand is still fairly horrible so it's not clear that either side would be served by keeping it. But I do think both would want to immediately form either a single party or an electoral pact.
Polls over the next few weeks will be worth watching. Mr Farron seems to be pitching hard for Remain voters.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
To labour the point, It doesn't matter what label they use - the referendum destroyed the vote for any europhile wwc party.
If you don't represent your voters eventually something will happen, the truth is revealed and the damage is done.
The damage has been done. Labour are still however iat the what on earth happened blame game point.
I don't think they will understand the actual issue until (as in Scotland) the damage has been done
On any subject other than the EU/immigration, Labour MPs wouldn't even attempt to ignore 2/3rds or more of their voters. Yet, I've seen a procession on the TV still paying lip-service to these concerns. They still don't get it.
How many of the current PLP are real working class, and how many are Tristrams and Hyacinths ?
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
Ena Sharples. I associate Co-op with low tech little supermarkets, having a bank crisis and generally behind the times.
Coop now has the best digital outfit in the UK.
Plato is not part of the relevant demographic. Right wing Tories are not going to vote for a centre left party.
Dearie me.
Rather than deciding what I think or what my personal circumstances are, again - just stick to your own.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
Ena Sharples. I associate Co-op with low tech little supermarkets, having a bank crisis and generally behind the times.
Coop now has the best digital outfit in the UK.
Plato is not part of the relevant demographic. Right wing Tories are not going to vote for a centre left party.
Is she most rabid right-ring poster here? She really does come across as a bigoted fruitcake...
Sky reporting that Sturgeon will meet Junker later this week.
It's inevitable that this meeting occurs but it's constitutionally outrageous and an affront to international diplomacy.
Firstly Sturgeon should not be treating with foreign powers
Secondly a leader of a (nominally) friendly nation* shouldn't be fomenting secession of part of the UK
(* I know he isn't, but he's at that level)
The Scottish Parliament has been clear that they are not supporting any Independence ambitions of the first minister and the First Minister has been clear that independence is the last option being considered.
She is exploring reversebl Greenland at the moment.
Yep, the one thing that can save the Labour party now is an early election, so that the majority of MPs returned to the much smaller group that ends up in the new Commons is made up of those who oppose Corbyn. At that stage, not only will the glorious leader have led Labour to crushing defeat, but he will be faced with five more years of not being able to run an opposition. Even Corbyn may give up at that point and then Labour can begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding.
The alternative is that the election is not called early and the PLP effectively creates a new party that has the time to build support, develop an organisation and get some money. I suspect it will attract a fair amount of that, especially as it would become the official opposition. However, when the election does come, both official Labour and whatever the new party is called (the Co-operative party?) will be wiped out and millions of voters will have no representation at all.
Of course, if Corbyn were to stand down, all this could be prevented. A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Obviously, that is not going to happen.
Labour is finished.
What are the odds on those MP's not supporting Corbyn being deselected?
High. Which will force a split before that can happen.
A split only works if the right has big donors lined up; without cash to fight an election, they are scuppered (maybe Tony Blair can put his hand in his pocket). Perhaps they have, and this is a carefully-plotted coup, though Angela Eagle as putative LOTO suggests otherwise.
There are three things that an SDP2 would need which it doesn't currently have: money, yes, but also organisation (VI data, computer systems, local leadership structure), and activists.
All the same, if the MPs are going looking at a high chance of being booted out and also see no future for their party, then they might accept all of those short-term hits.
Meanwhile out in the real party we have to prepare our local machines for an autumn election which feels inevitable whatever Boris says. Who will be the leader, what the policy platform will be, God knows.
Why do you think an autumn election is inevitable?
1) having control of the original party is a huge institutional advantage. It has the goodwill in the name and the data, and initially at least inherits the foot soldiers. Any breakaway will be hamstrung by those disadvantages and will require an incredibly fair wind from the media to even hope to prosper.
2) betting markets need to be settled by entities, not by numbers of MPs in respective groupings. So if 170 MPs form SDP on steroids, its new leader is not the next leader of the Labour party and if it were to win most seats at the next election, the bet should settle as "any other party".
Yep, the one thing that can save the Labour party now is an early election, so that the majority of MPs returned to the much smaller group that ends up in the new Commons is made up of those who oppose Corbyn. At that stage, not only will the glorious leader have led Labour to crushing defeat, but he will be faced with five more years of not being able to run an opposition. Even Corbyn may give up at that point and then Labour can begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding.
The alternative is that the election is not called early and the PLP effectively creates a new party that has the time to build support, develop an organisation and get some money. I suspect it will attract a fair amount of that, especially as it would become the official opposition. However, when the election does come, both official Labour and whatever the new party is called (the Co-operative party?) will be wiped out and millions of voters will have no representation at all.
Of course, if Corbyn were to stand down, all this could be prevented. A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Obviously, that is not going to happen.
Labour is finished.
What are the odds on those MP's not supporting Corbyn being deselected?
High. Which will force a split before that can happen.
A split only works if the right has big donors lined up; without cash to fight an election, they are scuppered (maybe Tony Blair can put his hand in his pocket). Perhaps they have, and this is a carefully-plotted coup, though Angela Eagle as putative LOTO suggests otherwise.
There are three things that an SDP2 would need which it doesn't currently have: money, yes, but also organisation (VI data, computer systems, local leadership structure), and activists.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
Question David: do you think the Scots will vote an alternative form of oppression that requires Scotland to comply with Schengen and adopt the Euro - and, perhaps flippantly, perhaps not - vote for a paradigm shift that requires Scots to blame faceless bureaucrats in Brussels for all their nations ills, rather than the English?
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
The real problem Labour has is that the right of the party is seriously unhappy with Corbyn's inept and half hearted campaigning for EU membership. They point out, correctly, that if Labour supporters had voted for the EU the campaign would have been won. And they are genuinely and enormously upset about this result.
But if you take a very strong Labour area like Doncaster with Ed Miliband as the MP you find a 69% leave vote. Traditional Labour voters rebelled against an open door immigration plan which directly and consistently reduced their wages, threatened their employment, resulted in them obtaining poorer working conditions and benefited the class that those Labour MPs either come from or aspire to instead of them.
This is not just a problem with a leadership challenge to Corbyn. What are the chances of the New Improved Labour party winning Doncaster on an unequivocally pro-EU ticket, possibly committed to never triggering the Article 50 procedure? I think, like their initials, they are NIL.
To labour the point, It doesn't matter what label they use - the referendum destroyed the vote for any europhile wwc party.
If you don't represent your voters eventually something will happen, the truth is revealed and the damage is done.
The damage has been done. Labour are still however iat the what on earth happened blame game point.
I don't think they will understand the actual issue until (as in Scotland) the damage has been done
On any subject other than the EU/immigration, Labour MPs wouldn't even attempt to ignore 2/3rds or more of their voters. Yet, I've seen a procession on the TV still paying lip-service to these concerns. They still don't get it.
Labour and Tories both ignore their voters re the death penalty. I'm glad they do.
A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Labour members got to choose who they wanted to be in charge 9 months ago. It was JC.
Everyone isn't accepting the result and rallying around the new leader
You might have noticed, accepting results isnt a big thing on the left, crying on social media and throwing toys around much more so. See GE2015, BrExit Ref etc. Democratic mandates only count if they are for right-on causes, the proles can get stuffed. I noted with interests a whole pile of FB comments from metro lefties about how they had 'lost their country' because a load of 'chavs' came out to vote, very tolerant I am sure.
I feel rather sorry for Labour members - they made a choice, the MPs never liked it - and now they're being forced into voting again.
If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Corbyn is pretty useless, but frankly are the alternatives that much better? They've no policy platform at all - no work's been done to set an agenda. They've spent 9 months bickering and bad-mouthing rather than coming up with a credible alternative.
I can't understand their timing at all.
The timing is easy to understand: it's after the big public votes and while the window for nominations for a leadership contest at Conference is still open. Why they don't have an alternative candidate agreed upon is a different matter. Presumably it's because neither of the two obvious candidates - Watson and Benn (wasn't that a fight a few years ago?!) - were prepared to commit in advance.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
Did you see Kezia's speech yesterday? She was furious with Davidson.
A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Labour members got to choose who they wanted to be in charge 9 months ago. It was JC.
Everyone isn't accepting the result and rallying around the new leader
You might have noticed, accepting results isnt a big thing on the left, crying on social media and throwing toys around much more so. See GE2015, BrExit Ref etc. Democratic mandates only count if they are for right-on causes, the proles can get stuffed. I noted with interests a whole pile of FB comments from metro lefties about how they had 'lost their country' because a load of 'chavs' came out to vote, very tolerant I am sure.
Not big on the right either. Farage told us ahead of time that a 52:48 result the other way would be unfinished business - and you can imagine the noise from the tinfoil hatters about how MI5's rubber-outers stole the election.
Both sides have lazy, unthinking zealots, who can't be bothered to contemplate why 50% (+/- 2%) of the population disagreed with their infallible conclusion.
I must have missed all the right-wingers protesting in parliament square when Blair won in 1997/2001/2005, oh wait.. they didn't.
No they just blockaded petrol stations instead, much more democratic
If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Labour's Constitution is crystal clear: the leader of the party is the ex officio leader of the PLP
The Labour constitution is not the British constitution.
But if Corbyn wins again, Labour will undoubtedly split.
If the PLP chose a "spokesman" in Parliament, I don't think that the Speaker could treat him/her as the Leader of the Opposition when the constitution says that the "leader of the party is ex officio the leader of the parliamentary labour party"
Where does the constitution say that?
By convention, the LotO is the leader of the largest parliamentary delegation in the Commons (though that was altered during WWII when virtually every party was in government). The constitution is a flexible beast but also one that pre-dates organised political parties. Who leads a party outside Westminster ought to be of no concern to the Speaker. The LotO is the reserve PM and as such, is the one best placed to command a majority if the government were to fall. That has to depend on numbers of MPs.
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
Of course the fun then continues. GE2020 the Tories lose 20 seats to the Kippers and Labour lose 30 seats and there is no overall majority, who is going to blink first and do a deal with the kippers
Although I don't disagree with your post I don't think UKIP are positioned for the balance at the moment (although things are of course changing fast). Firstly I suspect UKIP gains from Tory would be 10 or less, from Labour you might be right but probably fewer. Secondly similar switches in the many seats UKIP cannot win will deliver some LibDem gains, mostly from the Tories, and Tory gains, mostly from Labour. I would assume the SNP keep everything. However because under FPTP there are more Tory-labour marginals than anything else, the new result of all this is a larger Tory majority, even if their vote falls. Perverse, but that's the system we have.
Bottom line is that the Tory majority is only really threatened if there is one competitive party running them close in vote share (either nationally, or very clearly in each region). The way Labour is going, you'd wonder whether this is the LibDems big chance; just a shame they start from such a weak position.
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
UKIP may get some of it. But GEs are not binary choices. I'll be surprised if turnout at the GE is 72%.
The disenfranchised knew that they had something to vote for in the referendum. UKIP (if it has any sense) will target that this time around. - They may win, they may not but they can easily say that we now have (more than) a chance here come out and vote for us, and ensure your neighbours do as well...
Yes the issue will be one of organisation and foot work but I don't think it would be that difficult for them - they can use the referendum result on a council by council basis to show directly that if you vote, they can win..
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
IDS's leader run was allegedly the same thing, to raise his profile and get a better job. Whoops!
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
I am seriously ticked off with the forthcoming beauty pageant within the Tory party. These outsiders know they have no chance of winning and are putting their future careers ahead what the country needs right now, which is some leadership in place as quickly as possible.
It seems to me now that this is just a fight over marketing/naming rights. The Labour party is split already between the Loony Labour (LL) and the Sane Labour (SL). SL have the MPs, LL have the members. This is a vital battle as everyone knows that most people vote for a party and not a person. You stick a red rose and "Labour" next to a candidate's name and they have traditionally won in lots of constituencys.
However, the SL has already lost this fight. When membership was opened up to £3 members it allowed the LL to take over. Corbyn has nothing to fear as he knows the membership will re-elect him. The only way to counteract this would be for the SL to get hundreds of thousands of new members that support them - that's not going to happen.
The destruction of the Labour party was not Iraq, it was not losing 2 general elections, it was not Brexit - it was the creation of the £3 member.
Those on the SL have to split - they have no other option. However, it will lead to electoral oblivion as they will not have "Labour" next to their name anymore.
There are three things that an SDP2 would need which it doesn't currently have: money, yes, but also organisation (VI data, computer systems, local leadership structure), and activists.
Work with the LibDems from the get-go. That'll at least get them the national stuff. Then they bring their own activists in some places, and let the LibDems take the lead in others.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
My sister has been reduced to tears by people hectoring her, calling her racist and God know what for voting Leave.
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
I am seriously ticked off with the forthcoming beauty pageant within the Tory party. These outsiders know they have no chance of winning and are putting their future careers ahead what the country needs right now, which is some leadership in place as quickly as possible.
Quite. Would be very easy for May, Johnson and Leadsom to suggest to all the others that they won't consider making appointments from those who delay the process.
Sky reporting that Sturgeon will meet Junker later this week.
It's inevitable that this meeting occurs but it's constitutionally outrageous and an affront to international diplomacy.
Firstly Sturgeon should not be treating with foreign powers
Secondly a leader of a (nominally) friendly nation* shouldn't be fomenting secession of part of the UK
(* I know he isn't, but he's at that level)
The Scottish Parliament has been clear that they are not supporting any Independence ambitions of the first minister and the First Minister has been clear that independence is the last option being considered.
She is exploring reversebl Greenland at the moment.
Fair enough.
But she still shouldn't be meeting with foreign leaders without the approval of the FCO (which may have been granted, for all I know)
The leader of the Labour Party is irrelevant until it changes its message, last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration, any party that wants to win the next GE will have to pledge to control immigration.
The leader of the Labour Party is irrelevant until it changes its message, last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration, any party that wants to win the next GE will have to pledge to control immigration.
That may be unpalatable to some but its true.
Could Leavers make up their mind if voting to leave the EU was about immigration or not. I'm getting confused at the flip flopping.
There are three things that an SDP2 would need which it doesn't currently have: money, yes, but also organisation (VI data, computer systems, local leadership structure), and activists.
Work with the LibDems from the get-go. That'll at least get them the national stuff. Then they bring their own activists in some places, and let the LibDems take the lead in others.
Which is what happened last time. The two parties divvied up the seats depending on who appeared to be strongest locally. Result was quite a lot of good second places.
The leader of the Labour Party is irrelevant until it changes its message, last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration, any party that wants to win the next GE will have to pledge to control immigration.
That may be unpalatable to some but its true.
We cannot control our borders as it is now, what hope is there with a new govt.
We have no idea who is coming in or going out, it is guestimates
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
UKIP may get some of it. But GEs are not binary choices. I'll be surprised if turnout at the GE is 72%.
The disenfranchised knew that they had something to vote for in the referendum. UKIP (if it has any sense) will target that this time around. - They may win, they may not but they can easily say that we now have (more than) a chance here come out and vote for us, and ensure your neighbours do as well...
Yes the issue will be one of organisation and foot work but I don't think it would be that difficult for them - they can use the referendum result on a council by council basis to show directly that if you vote, they can win..
They also have their canvassing data from the UKIP GrassRoots vehicle. The referendum has handed Kippers a mine of information re potential supporters.
I presume the VoteLeave data can't be used by anyone - ditto StrongerIn as they weren't funded in the same way. Happy to be corrected.
The leader of the Labour Party is irrelevant until it changes its message, last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration, any party that wants to win the next GE will have to pledge to control immigration.
That may be unpalatable to some but its true.
It is also utterly at odds with Corbyn's personal credo.
I still believe that Corbyn doesn't see himself as Labour leader, rather that post is a vehicle for his true passion in life, Stop The War.
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
I am seriously ticked off with the forthcoming beauty pageant within the Tory party. These outsiders know they have no chance of winning and are putting their future careers ahead what the country needs right now, which is some leadership in place as quickly as possible.
Agreed. It's unedifying.
Barring a disaster it looks like Boris and May will get most MP endorsements and therefore make the final round. They should be rallying round. Nikki Morgan makes me incredulous because ever since she became a Secretary of State, she seems to have some delusional desire to be party leader despite seemingly lacking all the skills, positioning and leadership required for the job.
Corbyn may be hanging on, but I think the game is up if Falconer resigns.
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Lucy Fisher of the Times reckons Morgan is angling for a Cabinet job by virtue of being in the race. That makes sense. I wouldn't bother with her myself - but apparently she 'speaks Guardian' so has a swing voter niche like Ken Clarke.
I am seriously ticked off with the forthcoming beauty pageant within the Tory party. These outsiders know they have no chance of winning and are putting their future careers ahead what the country needs right now, which is some leadership in place as quickly as possible.
Quite. Would be very easy for May, Johnson and Leadsom to suggest to all the others that they won't consider making appointments from those who delay the process.
Morgan 'speaks Guardian'? Oh yes, the thousands of teachers who read the Guardian were just delighted by her plans to academize everything. I doubt she'll get to the first ballot, never mind past it.
If they choose him again, what are the MPs going to do? Kiss and make up? Ignore him? Elect their own PLP leader?
Labour's Constitution is crystal clear: the leader of the party is the ex officio leader of the PLP
The Labour constitution is not the British constitution.
But if Corbyn wins again, Labour will undoubtedly split.
If the PLP chose a "spokesman" in Parliament, I don't think that the Speaker could treat him/her as the Leader of the Opposition when the constitution says that the "leader of the party is ex officio the leader of the parliamentary labour party"
Where does the constitution say that?
By convention, the LotO is the leader of the largest parliamentary delegation in the Commons (though that was altered during WWII when virtually every party was in government). The constitution is a flexible beast but also one that pre-dates organised political parties. Who leads a party outside Westminster ought to be of no concern to the Speaker. The LotO is the reserve PM and as such, is the one best placed to command a majority if the government were to fall. That has to depend on numbers of MPs.
I posted it further down the thread - it's Article 7(1)(a) of the Labour Party Constitution.
I agree with your analysis that LOTO is the leader of the largest opposition party (I don't have the exact text in front of me, but someone posted it a couple of days ago) - not necessarily the same as the individual best placed to command a majority.
What this means is:
If Labour is no longer the largest opposition party because of SDP2 or whip resignations then the leader of SDP2 or the SNP becomes LOTO.
While Labour is the largest opposition party then it's the leader of the PLP who is the LOTO.
And Labour's constitution is crystal clear on who is the leader of the PLP (ex officio)
"Tories at war as minister Anna Soubry is accused of being DRUNK by fellow MP as she nearly breaks down telling campaigners Brexit is 'a terrible mistake"
Neither Corbyn nor his supporters believe in representative democracy. Michael Foot did (Tony Benn tried to have his cake and eat it, which may be why he never won inner-party leadership elections). To call the 174 MPs "SDP Mark 2" is Tory grandstanding, David, & unworthy of you. I expect them to call themselves "Real Labour" - certainly to use the L-word in their title.
A new candidate on the left could stand against candidates from the centre and the right, and Labour members would get to choose who they wanted to be in charge. The very high probability is that everyone would accept the result and rally around the new leader.
Labour members got to choose who they wanted to be in charge 9 months ago. It was JC.
Everyone isn't accepting the result and rallying around the new leader
You might have noticed, accepting results isnt a big thing on the left, crying on social media and throwing toys around much more so. See GE2015, BrExit Ref etc. Democratic mandates only count if they are for right-on causes, the proles can get stuffed. I noted with interests a whole pile of FB comments from metro lefties about how they had 'lost their country' because a load of 'chavs' came out to vote, very tolerant I am sure.
Not big on the right either. Farage told us ahead of time that a 52:48 result the other way would be unfinished business - and you can imagine the noise from the tinfoil hatters about how MI5's rubber-outers stole the election.
Both sides have lazy, unthinking zealots, who can't be bothered to contemplate why 50% (+/- 2%) of the population disagreed with their infallible conclusion.
I must have missed all the right-wingers protesting in parliament square when Blair won in 1997/2001/2005, oh wait.. they didn't.
No they just blockaded petrol stations instead, much more democratic
I'm assuming you are scraping the bottom of the straw barrel here, as the Petrol Protests were mid-term...
The leader of the Labour Party is irrelevant until it changes its message, last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration, any party that wants to win the next GE will have to pledge to control immigration.
That may be unpalatable to some but its true.
It is also utterly at odds with Corbyn's personal credo.
I still believe that Corbyn doesn't see himself as Labour leader, rather that post is a vehicle for his true passion in life, Stop The War.
"Tories at war as minister Anna Soubry is accused of being DRUNK by fellow MP as she nearly breaks down telling campaigners Brexit is 'a terrible mistake"
It seems to me now that this is just a fight over marketing/naming rights. The Labour party is split already between the Loony Labour (LL) and the Sane Labour (SL). SL have the MPs, LL have the members. This is a vital battle as everyone knows that most people vote for a party and not a person. You stick a red rose and "Labour" next to a candidate's name and they have traditionally won in lots of constituencys.
However, the SL has already lost this fight. When membership was opened up to £3 members it allowed the LL to take over. Corbyn has nothing to fear as he knows the membership will re-elect him. The only way to counteract this would be for the SL to get hundreds of thousands of new members that support them - that's not going to happen.
The destruction of the Labour party was not Iraq, it was not losing 2 general elections, it was not Brexit - it was the creation of the £3 member.
Those on the SL have to split - they have no other option. However, it will lead to electoral oblivion as they will not have "Labour" next to their name anymore.
On the whole true except for the last paragraph.
The infamous Millibands have, by first stabbing each other in the back, then when Goofy Milliband changed the rules of membership, holed the labour ship below the waterline. However, a new party can still be formed using the labour name, such as Original Labour or Real Labour. The word Labour cannot be patented. (edit)
Yes the issue will be one of organisation and foot work but I don't think it would be that difficult for them - they can use the referendum result on a council by council basis to show directly that if you vote, they can win..
They should set their sights a bit lower and target 50-60 seats in which they have a good chance, where they came a reasonable second in GE2015 or where they feel they have a good chance of grabbing the WWC from Labour and concentrate on those.
I don't see how SPD Mark 2 coukd succeed, so I don't see who in labour would have the guts to do it, but I also don't see how the MPs can continue on if Corbyn doesn't change his mind and wins a new contest. Something has to give. Either Corbyn will finally bend and make way for an ally, or the tribalism of the MPs, arguing they and labour can still pretend they want the same things, will break. As stubborn as he is, I'd still go for the first.
And I see David couldn't resist an eagle pun. Too good not to use.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
My sister has been reduced to tears by people hectoring her, calling her racist and God know what for voting Leave.
Horrendous - sad to hear that.
The worst I've had is Remainers who have had issues (house moves, jobs etc) and upon my commenting that I'm sorry to hear that suggesting that 'I should have voted Remain, then'. I would never have the temerity to ask someone to change their vote to affect my personal circumstances. When I am being charitable I put it down to emotions, but otherwise despair in the friends in my generation - none of whom are remotely political active apart from sometimes voting.
It seems to me now that this is just a fight over marketing/naming rights. The Labour party is split already between the Loony Labour (LL) and the Sane Labour (SL). SL have the MPs, LL have the members. This is a vital battle as everyone knows that most people vote for a party and not a person. You stick a red rose and "Labour" next to a candidate's name and they have traditionally won in lots of constituencys.
However, the SL has already lost this fight. When membership was opened up to £3 members it allowed the LL to take over. Corbyn has nothing to fear as he knows the membership will re-elect him. The only way to counteract this would be for the SL to get hundreds of thousands of new members that support them - that's not going to happen.
The destruction of the Labour party was not Iraq, it was not losing 2 general elections, it was not Brexit - it was the creation of the £3 member.
Those on the SL have to split - they have no other option. However, it will lead to electoral oblivion as they will not have "Labour" next to their name anymore.
Surely it is also to do with campaignig infrastructure, and who owns the local parties and activists.
If a Sane Labour MP can take their CLP with them, then they must have a far better chance of winning that seat in 2020 or whenever.
There are three things that an SDP2 would need which it doesn't currently have: money, yes, but also organisation (VI data, computer systems, local leadership structure), and activists.
Work with the LibDems from the get-go. That'll at least get them the national stuff. Then they bring their own activists in some places, and let the LibDems take the lead in others.
Which is what happened last time. The two parties divvied up the seats depending on who appeared to be strongest locally. Result was quite a lot of good second places.
Right. Basically they need the Tory vote to split as well, either with UKIP or by some Tories also jumping ship to Great Progressive Pro-Business Non-Bonkers-Person Party. (I like this name better than SPDv2.)
A realignment is coming- not just in Labour. The notional majority of the government is gone because there are a number in Tory ranks who will move to the Remain party as soon as the split happens in Labour, which the liberals will join. That is why an election is certain. Socially liberal,middle of the Road and pragmatic, pro EU. One of the reasons Ukip now in a no lose situation. Tory grandees will be at the vanguard- Cameron Osborne Major.
We don't know what the new party's platform would be. We don't know how popular leaving the EU will be when the election is called. We don't know what the themes of the next GE will be. If Boris is PM and has not delivered on his promises, then that may well be the major issue. The voters may be at a point where what they want to do most of all is get rid of the Tories. That's why an early election is probably in Boris's best interests. He should get it out of the way before the scale of his betrayal becomes apparent.
The problem that the opponents of Corbyn had in the last leadership election is we never knew what they stood for either. Progressive Labour (and surely Progressive will be the name of the new party) has not recovered from the Brown calamity, the horrific consequences for the country's finances and a managerialist mindset that worked up to a point when in power but looks empty and pointless out of it. But one thing we unequivocally know is that they are pro EU, rabidly so. It is a core, arguably the core, of their identity.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I would call them pragmatic above all else. They will not campaign on a return to the EU. They will campaign against Boris's betrayal of Leave voters and to get the Tories out. It would be more effective if Labour were united and doing it. But Labour isn't.
I have been mildly astonished at the genuine and deep anger of Remainers in Scotland since the result. As a Leave supporter I have been hectored and abused by people desperate to vent their frustration and disappointment. Sturgeon is looking to harness that energy and there is little doubt that a section of the Unionist vote is very angry with the English decision and more open to her siren songs than ever before.
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
My sister has been reduced to tears by people hectoring her, calling her racist and God know what for voting Leave.
Is that much different from semi-detached SNP harrassment tactics in the Sindyref?
A Syriza/Podemos party is more likely than an SDP2. It already has a name. Momentum
More likely a new swanky name such as "NEW Labour
FPT I posted this Re Corbyn.
The Labour Party could split and the rebels would need a new name but as pointed out up thread retaining the Labour name due to its "strong branding" would be really important to retain seats.
They have already had "New Labour" hence the convention is to go one step further so how about.
"New Improved Labour"
The Co-operative party could split with Labour and that would become the new party's name. Not sure if that's possible, but it's the obvious choice if it is.
I am not sure the word Co-Op in todays world is a good idea. It summons up the idea of little old ladies with hairnets and fags hanging off their lip whilst collecting their divi stamps.
Very unappealing
It's also already taken.
Taken because AIUI it already exists as a properly constituted political party that puts up candidates in some seats, but of course they are always the same as the Labour Party chooses. So if anyone did want to break away from Labour, the co-op does offer a way to dramatically short-cut all the organisational work that would be needed to see up a brand new party from scratch. The catch, however, is that you would need to take control of it - the co-op is a reasonably democratic organisation and, even if this were possible, it would take some time. Too much time if there is a snap election.
If the Government intends to negotiate a deal which seems unlike the Leave campaign there's a legitimate argument that an election is needed to get a mandate for that approach. That may be tricky (or not) for the Conservatives, would be heartily welcomed by the Lib Dems and probably UKIP, and would make Labour (if Corbyn's there and especially if he wins in the meantime) despair.
Not that I'm suggesting a Prime Minister would let petty party political advantage determine his, or her, course. Of course.
I don't see how SPD Mark 2 coukd succeed, so I don't see who in labour would have the guts to do it, but I also don't see how the MPs can continue on if Corbyn doesn't change his mind and wins a new contest. Something has to give. Either Corbyn will finally bend and make way for an ally, or the tribalism of the MPs, arguing they and labour can still pretend they want the same things, will break. As stubborn as he is, I'd still go for the first.
And I see David couldn't resist an eagle pun. Too good not to use.
There's another factor at play though. If the MPs give up, they know that deselection is much more likely than it was before given this challenge, if the party leadership hang on. So they'll be giving up and potentially losing their jobs. At that point a new party must be a goer, as they stand a chance of continuing to build their profile in their constituency and to retain their seat.
The Labour Party has split twice and both times it’s been electorally disastrous for both sides. The “working man (and woman) in the North" surely want a) decent working conditions and b) decency and stability in public life. It’s the Methodism side of the founding fathers. It’s not unreasonable to look at the country around them and be upset by many of the changes they see. What WWC voters have to be careful of is being hoodwinked by a “defensive” ideology, overrideing their need for opportunity, as the working class Protestants in N. Ireland were by the Ulster Unionists.
Boris will help here. His betrayal of Leave voters is going to be epic and that will make many of them very keen to get rid of them by any means necessary.
Ukip will get that vote. Come the election they will attack both parties as not going far enough and keep the wwc vote, especially those who didn't vote before
Of course the fun then continues. GE2020 the Tories lose 20 seats to the Kippers and Labour lose 30 seats and there is no overall majority, who is going to blink first and do a deal with the kippers
Although I don't disagree with your post I don't think UKIP are positioned for the balance at the moment (although things are of course changing fast). Firstly I suspect UKIP gains from Tory would be 10 or less, from Labour you might be right but probably fewer. Secondly similar switches in the many seats UKIP cannot win will deliver some LibDem gains, mostly from the Tories, and Tory gains, mostly from Labour. I would assume the SNP keep everything. However because under FPTP there are more Tory-labour marginals than anything else, the new result of all this is a larger Tory majority, even if their vote falls. Perverse, but that's the system we have.
Bottom line is that the Tory majority is only really threatened if there is one competitive party running them close in vote share (either nationally, or very clearly in each region). The way Labour is going, you'd wonder whether this is the LibDems big chance; just a shame they start from such a weak position.
Yep, FPTP will deliver the Tories their biggest ever majority at the GE. All they need to do is look after pensioners and well-off home owners. Ordinary working people have done their job and can be forgotten again.
"Tories at war as minister Anna Soubry is accused of being DRUNK by fellow MP as she nearly breaks down telling campaigners Brexit is 'a terrible mistake"
A realignment is coming- not just in Labour. The notional majority of the government is gone because there are a number in Tory ranks who will move to the Remain party as soon as the split happens in Labour, which the liberals will join. That is why an election is certain. Socially liberal,middle of the Road and pragmatic, pro EU. One of the reasons Ukip now in a no lose situation. Tory grandees will be at the vanguard- Cameron Osborne Major.
last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration,
that's not what it said on the ballot
Stop playing games. There is what the ballot said, what the campaign promoted, and what the voters want, they are not even remotely the same. Even if VoteLeave was full to the eyeballs of positive Gisela Stuart types, a large chunk of the country would have seen it as an opportunity to reduce immigration, either directly, or as a necessarily first step.
A realignment is coming- not just in Labour. The notional majority of the government is gone because there are a number in Tory ranks who will move to the Remain party as soon as the split happens in Labour, which the liberals will join. That is why an election is certain. Socially liberal,middle of the Road and pragmatic, pro EU. One of the reasons Ukip now in a no lose situation. Tory grandees will be at the vanguard- Cameron Osborne Major.
And no more referendums. Ever.
No, you can already see the Tories begin to unite behind the leave vote. If May becomes the leader it will be complete, I took a straw pollof members I know over WhatsApp last night, in a May vs Boris contest May wins a fairly decent majority of votes. That's also among a group of voters in favour of leave overall. The leave members split 50/50 and the remain members were almost united in their support of Mrs May.
Hopefully other members can do the same and report on here, but if it is a final two of seriousness and gravitas vs piffle and classics, the first option will win. I think most members recognise we need a Thatcher, not a Hague.
"Tories at war as minister Anna Soubry is accused of being DRUNK by fellow MP as she nearly breaks down telling campaigners Brexit is 'a terrible mistake"
Comments
More importantl;y, I know it’s normally a distinction without a difference, but are all Lab-Co-op MP’s on the same side in this argument?
Progress, formed as the support movement for Blair's Third Way. Blair was a control freak and engineered the selection process to mainly select supportive MPs which explains the disconnect between the PLP and the membership as was pre-Corbyn, a disconnect far worse now
Momentum, formed as a support movement for Corbyn's project. Has a similar number of committed MPs as Progress but significantly more support in the party.
Both movements have paid membership - a party within a party - which many of us in neither have warned is dangerous enough to our need banning. Progress activists tend to be heavily involved with running constituency parties and basic activism, Momentum activists still mainly feel like an insurgency. Neither are compatible with each other, seeing them as an existential threat to THEIR Labour Party.
As a member of neither I believe that neither are electable.
Progress and the Third Way have utterly failed both electoral lyrics and as a movement. Their Coup de gras was Harperson leading the PLP to abstain on welfare cuts for "electability" - which translates as 'doing things we think would be attractive to Tory voters'. They believe traditional Labour voters will vote for them regardless and haven't been put off this by the SNP experience. And now we have wazzocks like Tristan Hunt still using the e-word despite 70% of his voters disagreeing with him over Europe.
Momentum still feels like a protest movement. Reclaim the movement, Reclaim the party, Reclaim the country. They have new ideas buto no idea how to argue them with ANY dissent seen as latent Toryism
What happens now? No idea. The rebellion is way beyond bitterite Progress MPs it's almost all of them. Angela Eagle is apparently running but will be deselected by her CLP who passed a support motion for Corbyn and challenged her to toe the line. Tom Watson has a mandate but the rules demand a contest even if Corbyn does resign. Meanwhile out in the real party we have to prepare our local machines for an autumn election which feels inevitable whatever Boris says. Who will be the leader, what the policy platform will be, God knows.
If you don't represent your voters eventually something will happen, the truth is revealed and the damage is done.
The damage has been done. Labour are still however iat the what on earth happened blame game point.
I don't think they will understand the actual issue until (as in Scotland) the damage has been done
Hope the sea air and relaxation is benefiting your lungs.
I accept that something like EEA/EFTA has significant domestic issues but that's a separate issue.
(I think Blair/Campbell et al. behaved despicably, probably illegally. I also think there is no point violating what's left of the corpse of the labour party by trying to prosecute blair and so on)
On the Tories - strongly hinted Nikki Morgan will run. Seriously?
Whether that will last who knows but certainly on the Scottish experience you should not underestimate how these people feel about the result of the referendum.
Rather than deciding what I think or what my personal circumstances are, again - just stick to your own.
You look silly and childish.
She is exploring reversebl Greenland at the moment.
All the same, if the MPs are going looking at a high chance of being booted out and also see no future for their party, then they might accept all of those short-term hits.
1) having control of the original party is a huge institutional advantage. It has the goodwill in the name and the data, and initially at least inherits the foot soldiers. Any breakaway will be hamstrung by those disadvantages and will require an incredibly fair wind from the media to even hope to prosper.
2) betting markets need to be settled by entities, not by numbers of MPs in respective groupings. So if 170 MPs form SDP on steroids, its new leader is not the next leader of the Labour party and if it were to win most seats at the next election, the bet should settle as "any other party".
http://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/748044570089361408
By convention, the LotO is the leader of the largest parliamentary delegation in the Commons (though that was altered during WWII when virtually every party was in government). The constitution is a flexible beast but also one that pre-dates organised political parties. Who leads a party outside Westminster ought to be of no concern to the Speaker. The LotO is the reserve PM and as such, is the one best placed to command a majority if the government were to fall. That has to depend on numbers of MPs.
Bottom line is that the Tory majority is only really threatened if there is one competitive party running them close in vote share (either nationally, or very clearly in each region). The way Labour is going, you'd wonder whether this is the LibDems big chance; just a shame they start from such a weak position.
Thanks David. Excellent article.
Yes the issue will be one of organisation and foot work but I don't think it would be that difficult for them - they can use the referendum result on a council by council basis to show directly that if you vote, they can win..
However, the SL has already lost this fight. When membership was opened up to £3 members it allowed the LL to take over. Corbyn has nothing to fear as he knows the membership will re-elect him. The only way to counteract this would be for the SL to get hundreds of thousands of new members that support them - that's not going to happen.
The destruction of the Labour party was not Iraq, it was not losing 2 general elections, it was not Brexit - it was the creation of the £3 member.
Those on the SL have to split - they have no other option. However, it will lead to electoral oblivion as they will not have "Labour" next to their name anymore.
But she still shouldn't be meeting with foreign leaders without the approval of the FCO (which may have been granted, for all I know)
That may be unpalatable to some but its true.
We have no idea who is coming in or going out, it is guestimates
I presume the VoteLeave data can't be used by anyone - ditto StrongerIn as they weren't funded in the same way. Happy to be corrected.
I still believe that Corbyn doesn't see himself as Labour leader, rather that post is a vehicle for his true passion in life, Stop The War.
Barring a disaster it looks like Boris and May will get most MP endorsements and therefore make the final round. They should be rallying round. Nikki Morgan makes me incredulous because ever since she became a Secretary of State, she seems to have some delusional desire to be party leader despite seemingly lacking all the skills, positioning and leadership required for the job.
They have cut that price to 33/1
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-cuts-top-talent-pay-after-jeremy-clarkson-departure/ar-AAhKhZp?li=AAdeCd7&ocid=spartandhp
I agree with your analysis that LOTO is the leader of the largest opposition party (I don't have the exact text in front of me, but someone posted it a couple of days ago) - not necessarily the same as the individual best placed to command a majority.
What this means is:
If Labour is no longer the largest opposition party because of SDP2 or whip resignations then the leader of SDP2 or the SNP becomes LOTO.
While Labour is the largest opposition party then it's the leader of the PLP who is the LOTO.
And Labour's constitution is crystal clear on who is the leader of the PLP (ex officio)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3664895/Thousands-anti-Brexit-protestors-join-demonstration-Parliament.html#ixzz4CwyTHYHL
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/748047629758660608
The infamous Millibands have, by first stabbing each other in the back, then when Goofy Milliband changed the rules of membership, holed the labour ship below the waterline.
However, a new party can still be formed using the labour name, such as Original Labour or Real Labour. The word Labour cannot be patented.
(edit)
And I see David couldn't resist an eagle pun. Too good not to use.
The worst I've had is Remainers who have had issues (house moves, jobs etc) and upon my commenting that I'm sorry to hear that suggesting that 'I should have voted Remain, then'. I would never have the temerity to ask someone to change their vote to affect my personal circumstances. When I am being charitable I put it down to emotions, but otherwise despair in the friends in my generation - none of whom are remotely political active apart from sometimes voting.
If a Sane Labour MP can take their CLP with them, then they must have a far better chance of winning that seat in 2020 or whenever.
And no more referendums. Ever.
When two tribes go to war...
If the Government intends to negotiate a deal which seems unlike the Leave campaign there's a legitimate argument that an election is needed to get a mandate for that approach. That may be tricky (or not) for the Conservatives, would be heartily welcomed by the Lib Dems and probably UKIP, and would make Labour (if Corbyn's there and especially if he wins in the meantime) despair.
Not that I'm suggesting a Prime Minister would let petty party political advantage determine his, or her, course. Of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120
Hopefully other members can do the same and report on here, but if it is a final two of seriousness and gravitas vs piffle and classics, the first option will win. I think most members recognise we need a Thatcher, not a Hague.