The nightmare for the Conservatives would be a Labour split and the development of a non-socialist party of the centre or centre left. This wouldn't be because of the Labour MPs and activists who would join it or even the few Conservatives it might tempt but (as was the case with the SDP) the large number of previously inactive people who would join and support such a party.
So many of those who joined the SDP in 1981-82 weren't members of a party but considered the SDP something they wanted to be part of. Politically green as grass but not lacking in enthusiasm, they would be a far more potent threat than anything Labour, UKIP or the LDs can currently manage.
Will it happen ? It might but not now - it might take another 12 months or more as setting up a new party isn't easy especially for those who have spent decades in other parties.
The 2017 County Council elections will be most informative - the 2018 London locals arguably more so.
That appears to be quite likely as a longer term scenario, if Corbyn wins and there is no subsequent reconciliation with an increasingly independent PLP. It would require some sort of accommodation with the Lib-Dems. However, I don't think it's a serious prospect until after the next general election and the electoral disaster that beckons for Labour. Even then, I think the Conservatives' would still be favourites and so "nightmare" is overstating it. By 2025, you could well see shares of the vote roughly in the proportions of Con 35%, Centrist Coalition 30%, Labour (what's left of it) 15%, UKIP 15%, Others 5%.
For all the venom directed against Blair by Corbyn supporters, and their absurd labelling of everyone and anyone who can see through Corbyn as "Blairite", it's worth recalling that such an outcome of a powerful centre party grouping is precisely what Blair worked for but was ultimately unable to deliver. Corbyn could well deliver it, and thus really could turn out to be Blair's useful idiot, destroying in the process any remaining prospects of the left in British politics. That I think is what Owen Jones meant when he concluded that "The situation is extremely grave and unless satisfactory answers are offered, we are nothing but the accomplices of the very people we oppose."
It's the old saw. Politicians know what needs to be done, they just don't know how to be reelected once they've done it. Almost half the country takes out more than they put in. It's not sustainable. We're addicted to universal benefits (some multi-generational race memory of the horrors of '30s means testing?) that we can't afford. I could rant, but I shan't .
Rant away, dear boy, you speak more sense than nearly all of our politicians. The idea of multi-generational memory of 1930s means testing is very interesting and comes back, perhaps, to what I have been nagging on about of late - the Labour Party is time-expired. Labour's world has gone but in its policies it keeps trying to drag us back to re-fight old wars. Perhaps once it expires as an electoral force we might be able to move on and look at the problems of the 21st century and, God knows, there are enough of them
I'd seize power, but I've already deferred to @Cyclefree as the UK's next supremo .
It's just a fact of life that organisations are self-perpetuating (a tacit and immediate addendum to every new org's mission statement is 'live forever'). Labour will always find causes to address.
However, as you say, the large and important battles have broadly been won. Our lives would be the envy of the ages - we just need to figure out how to balance the books.
It's the old saw. Politicians know what needs to be done, they just don't know how to be reelected once they've done it. Almost half the country takes out more than they put in. It's not sustainable. We're addicted to universal benefits (some multi-generational race memory of the horrors of '30s means testing?) that we can't afford. I could rant, but I shan't .
Rant away, dear boy, you speak more sense than nearly all of our politicians. The idea of multi-generational memory of 1930s means testing is very interesting and comes back, perhaps, to what I have been nagging on about of late - the Labour Party is time-expired. Labour's world has gone but in its policies it keeps trying to drag us back to re-fight old wars. Perhaps once it expires as an electoral force we might be able to move on and look at the problems of the 21st century and, God knows, there are enough of them
I'd seize power, but I've already deferred to @Cyclefree as the UK's next supremo .
It's just a fact of life that organisations are self-perpetuating (a tacit and immediate addendum to every new org's mission statement is 'live forever'). Labour will always find causes to address.
However, as you say, the large and important battles have broadly been won. Our lives would be the envy of the ages - we just need to figure out how to balance the books.
I could live under Mrs Free's dictatorship. For a start I'd bet she would soon put a stop to these unseemly spats between Larry and Palmerston.
Yes of course organisations are often self-perpetuating. Take for example the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths*, founded in 1327 to do a particular task for a particular time and still going strong, but only because it has re-invented itself multiple times so that it stays relevant to the world it exists within. Labour isn't doing that, it keeps trying to drag us back to fight old battles and old wars.
Take for example an article on Corbyn's policies on this evening's Telegraph web-site. One policy is to create 2 million skilled manufacturing jobs. Leave aside questions about how HMG can create jobs, let alone skilled jobs, or where the hell these two million skilled workers are going to come from (because our education system ain't producing them), this is a policy for an era of high unemployment. Yet we have what is as near as dammit full employment, we are having to import people because anyone who is employable and wants a job has one.
Labour and its supporters keep claiming to be progressive yet they keep looking backwards. They are in effect energy vampires intent on turning the clock back..
* I used the example of the Goldsmiths because I cannot resist tweaking the tail of Mr. Charles, gent of this parish.
No his cause is hopeless, as is he which would be the inevitable conclusion of anyone watching his floundering interview on Channel 4. Basically not the Messiah just the naughty boy or a "Smithite" as he put it himself in his own untrustworthy way.
Hopeless or apocalyptic, that is Labour's choice in a nutshell
it is certainly unfortunate -- given his misogynistic language & attitudes -- that Owen’s main opponents are all women (Theresa, Leanne, Nicola).
I am not actually sure that Owen is an improvement on Jeremy, even judged on the narrow grounds of electability.
A dead parrot would be an improvement on Jeremy in terms of electability, that is how low Labour have fallen
I am not sure that is correct.
My independent (formerly LibDem) councillor has sent round a number of emails to people in the council ward very supportive of Corbyn. He argues that Jeremy has been pilloried by the media and not given a fair chance by the PLP.
I mention this, and the Councillor's background, to show that there is at least some sympathy for Jeremy from sources other than the usual suspects on the hard left..
It is not possible to lead a parliamentary party that does not want to be led. Jeremy has been dealt an impossible hand.
My own opinion is that Jeremy deserved support from the PLP for at least two years (given the strength of his mandate). They failed him. He didn’t fail them.
Is Owen better? No way.
Owen’s Parliamentary expenses (2010-2015) are £ 150,681 (excluding office costs). Jeremy’s are £ 5 618.
I don’t find Owen Smith at all likeable -- he represents the most detestable features of the South Wales Labour party. He is greedy, thuggish & misogynistic.
God help Labour.
Though the only polling evidence we have suggest Smith is preferred by Labour, Tory and UKIP voters
Woolfe also outlined some excellent policies today on new grammars for boroughs with the lowest academic attainment and a trust with public and private backing to help young people from lower income families pay fees and living costs
Woolfe also outlined some excellent policies today on new grammars for boroughs with the lowest academic attainment and a trust with public and private backing to help young people from lower income families pay fees and living costs
Which is probably why he's being kept off the ballot paper.
Clearly, Nigel is still pulling the strings. He doesn't want a successor whom he either doesn't control or who doesn't look up to him as a Demi-God or, worse, might do better than him.
This megalomania and egoism has always been the least attractive thing about him.
So why was Nigel thunderously denouncing the NEC for being a bunch of numpties?
And one wonders who gave the BBC the story about Woolfe's previous drink driving conviction, which it seems he overlooked to declare when he applied.
George W Bush had a drink driving conviction, did not stop him being elected US President
He followed this by becoming a born again Christian and teetotal. Has Woolfe?
Woolfe does not need the votes of middle-class evangelical Christians
Comments
Our first breakthrough came when three of us, including myself and Jeffrey Titford, were elected as Ukip MEPs in the European Parliament in 1999.
Who's been written out of history?
For all the venom directed against Blair by Corbyn supporters, and their absurd labelling of everyone and anyone who can see through Corbyn as "Blairite", it's worth recalling that such an outcome of a powerful centre party grouping is precisely what Blair worked for but was ultimately unable to deliver. Corbyn could well deliver it, and thus really could turn out to be Blair's useful idiot, destroying in the process any remaining prospects of the left in British politics. That I think is what Owen Jones meant when he concluded that "The situation is extremely grave and unless satisfactory answers are offered, we are nothing but the accomplices of the very people we oppose."
It's just a fact of life that organisations are self-perpetuating (a tacit and immediate addendum to every new org's mission statement is 'live forever'). Labour will always find causes to address.
However, as you say, the large and important battles have broadly been won. Our lives would be the envy of the ages - we just need to figure out how to balance the books.
http://tinyurl.com/jf782s4
Yes of course organisations are often self-perpetuating. Take for example the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths*, founded in 1327 to do a particular task for a particular time and still going strong, but only because it has re-invented itself multiple times so that it stays relevant to the world it exists within. Labour isn't doing that, it keeps trying to drag us back to fight old battles and old wars.
Take for example an article on Corbyn's policies on this evening's Telegraph web-site. One policy is to create 2 million skilled manufacturing jobs. Leave aside questions about how HMG can create jobs, let alone skilled jobs, or where the hell these two million skilled workers are going to come from (because our education system ain't producing them), this is a policy for an era of high unemployment. Yet we have what is as near as dammit full employment, we are having to import people because anyone who is employable and wants a job has one.
Labour and its supporters keep claiming to be progressive yet they keep looking backwards. They are in effect energy vampires intent on turning the clock back..
* I used the example of the Goldsmiths because I cannot resist tweaking the tail of Mr. Charles, gent of this parish.