Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn v Eagle will decide whether LAB continues to be a pa
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn v Eagle will decide whether LAB continues to be a parliamentary party
The sudden end of the Tory leadership contest and Theresa May’s imminent appointment as the country’s new Prime Minister has made the Labour leadership contest – now confirmed following Angela Eagle’s collection of over 50 nominations from MPs and MEPs – even more important than it was previously.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Might be useful to compare then and now?
Ideally I'm hoping there's an article from a Labour MP close to Gordon Brown
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jun/26/gordonbrown.labour
Farron has called for an early general election, but wasn't his party responsible for the fixed term parliament act?
twitter.com/timfarron/status/752471730120171520
FWIW ... Labour is f*cked until it relearns the history of the 1980's and of 2015 - they did't lose those general elections because they weren't left wing enough.
Rinse and repeat.
Jezza is overwhelmingly popular with the membership and it would be an outrageous affront to democracy if he was kept off the ballot.
If the MP's don't agree with their members and can't live with the direction their members want to take then the MP's are going to have to LEAVE and start a party with a new membership that they do agree with.
twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/752479012371435521
May is guaranteed to be PM of a Majority Con Government for the next 4 years.
Majority of 16 is small but perfectly big enough with a split and chaotic opposition.
And what would she gain - one extra year - the difference between next GE in 2021 rather than 2020 is trivial.
And there is a risk - any election is unpredictable - at this time anything could happen. Just because Lab is in disarray doesn't mean something else unexpected might happen. Who knows - UKIP may campaign saying May will backtrack on Brexit and make massive gains - from Lab and Con - costing May her majority.
And finally - May said when she launched her campaign no GE until 2020. She is a straightforward politician and she has a huge job to do - would it really be a good start to do a massive U-turn which looks opportunistic? Which may then massively backfire.
Do we want five years of that?
Suppose instead she declares she wants an honourable victory, so she'll wait until the Labour leadership crisis is resolved, then hold an election, giving any new Labour leader enough time to settle into the role.
How would this go down with the Conservative party, and the country?
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
I will also put my X against Angela Eagle (even though I think she's a lightweight) if it's a Corbyn vs Eagle choice.
Desperate, desperate times for progressive politics in this country.
You don't really want deal-making between the final two candidates, followed by a strategic withdrawal. Nor do you want anything that looks like deal-making.
Was the nest empty?
I'm myself very torn. I pretty much hate Labour and wish it all the worst in the world - but....we do need a coherent opposition and Labour shows no sign of being anywhere close to getting their act together. Not good to let May do as she pleases for the next 10 years. My only consolation is that the Tory awkward squad (leavers) can force her hand until we get a GE.
Err ....
No, that's it.
But she could cleverly get her "mandate" before the serious negotiations start. I don't think the angry mob will like that they have been sold a puppy afterwards.
As people who've been following our discussions would expect, I disagree with the basic theme here. I don't think Clause One means that the PLP is granted a semi-autonomous leadership of the party; rather that, the purpose of the party is to organise and maintain a "Labour" party in Parliament and the country. What a "Labour" party actually is must be something that the membership decides, and if some current MPs find themselves unhappy with that, then they aren't actually representing the party. If they don't really disagree with the policies, but they don't think the leader is good enough, then putting up an alternative candidate explicitly committed to similar policies would be a reasonable act as would proposing alternative policies). But it's a mistake to think that either the system or the recent history of the party give them the right to decide.
Moreover, all parties have evolved in recent years away from the idea that MPs decide the leadership. The old electoral college that Labour had was a much-derided compromise, and the view that really only one member one vote was reasonable, not least supported by Tony Blair, prevailed.
Incidentally, the problem with coronations is not that they result in a different choice, but that they don't get the membership buying into them. Corbyn's position is stronger than Gordon's would have been against a challenge, because Corbyn has a mandate. It's possible that if May runs into difficulties, she may wish she'd had one too.
While not a Labour supporter, the country needs a functioning opposition.....
I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.
Corbyn knows but he doesn't care.
Excellent thread header @SouthamObserver but I fear you are right that Labour have yet to satisfy themselves in the masturbatory fantasy you identified last summer. There is more to come from Corbyn.
"172 Labour MP's are thrilled to announce PM May has just won the 2020 general election."
UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.
1. Wasn't it Harold Wilson who said the Labour Party is a movement or it is nothing?
2. It is not necessary to be in power to influence, sometimes decisively, events. UKIP has never been in power but it does seem to be on course to achieve its initial objective. Some people get fixated by the influence of power and forget the power of influence.
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688
They would be mad to exclude him. He'll sue and win, or simply activate Plan B.
Resign, and create a "vacancy", then requiring only 38 nominations instead of 51 to get on the ballot, making the plotters look like 'nanas.
Labour does not.
To be optimistic, maybe Labour will simply move the Overton window over time. Given May's speech today, that shift might already have started.
Does Corbyn have a continuing mandate to fail and for how long?
That could easily allow the primacy of the PLP. You can still be a moral crusader in the House of Commons or even the Lords.
It seems to me that centrists are so desperate to preserve the status quo that they are making rash decisions for short term benefit but long term pain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula-one/36765854
Some say he'll get Massa's place at Williams. I do think McLaren will go for Vandoorne.
I know it's an inconsistent position, but when has that ever stopped a politician?
Labour faces a somewhat binary choice: be a Party or be Moral Crusade. The leadership and membership choose the latter. The MPs and remaining voters choose the former. Everyone else buys popcorn.
But if my memory is correct, she will be the first HS to go directly to No.10 since Palmerston in 1855(?).
Some achievement. Asquith, Churchill and Callaghan had all been Home Secretary, but none went straight from there to the top job. Blair as Shadow HS was the next closest, and Howard is the only other recent party leader to have been Home Secretary.
Interesting to consider how Cooper (likely victor without Corbyn) would be doing now.
This is the woman who said she didn't expect sterling to fall in the event of a Leave vote!
Indeed. That would be a very interesting counterfactual Morris.
MPs are chosen by the whole electorate not just party members.
However, candidates to be MPs are chosen by party members. So watch out those MPs who don't support the leader chosen by the membership.
15 years of Blairite shortlisting means the PLP is far to the right of both members and supporters.
Well if all that's changed is that the MPs who didn't support him then are angry with him now, I would warn the Labour Party against overthrowing him for their own good. They might well lose a lot of committed support to gain a few approving nods from people that will vote Tory anyway
Gibberish.