politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn v Eagle will decide whether LAB continues to be a pa

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited July 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited July 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I've got the headline Iron Mayden lined up

    Which reminds me, a bitter lefty speaks, from a few days ago.

    @BrianReade: How apt that if you cross the last female Tory PM with the probable next one you get a thieving prostitute called Maggie May?

    I remember Eric Heffer's speech to Conference. And First, like Labour
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,808
    Does anyone have any articles from the time Gordon Brown was thinking about a snap election to get his own mandate shortly after becoming PM?

    Might be useful to compare then and now?

    Ideally I'm hoping there's an article from a Labour MP close to Gordon Brown
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,808
    Excellent piece Mr Wild, welcome to the thread header writers club, hopefully we'll see more from you.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    No. Her CV issues make that impossible.
  • grabcocque
    grabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RIP Labour. You've been writing that suicide note since the 70s, it's about time you put down the pen and pulled that trigger.
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    Superb piece that articulates the dilemma of the ordinary labour member compellingly.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Good piece, Mr. Observer.
  • pbr2013
    pbr2013 Posts: 649
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Nah, it'll be Hammond. Dull accountant type exactly what is needed there imho.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    Excellent piece by @southamobserver

  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have any articles from the time Gordon Brown was thinking about a snap election to get his own mandate shortly after becoming PM?

    Might be useful to compare then and now?

    Ideally I'm hoping there's an article from a Labour MP close to Gordon Brown

    Well there is this article - even has a quote by the culture secretary, Andy Burnham. :lol:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jun/26/gordonbrown.labour
  • Artist
    Artist Posts: 1,893
    edited July 2016
    When over 100,000 members sign up in a week specifically to vote for a candidate, it's an impossible task. In the short term whoever challenges Corbyn can weaken his mandate by reducing his big lead and getting a majority among pre GE15 members, but it'd be scant consolation.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2016
    Interesting article Mr Wild.

    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
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    If Corbyn wins again, the party will split.
  • pbr2013
    pbr2013 Posts: 649
    Good piece SO.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    Excellent contribution SO that sadly is swallowed up by "events dear boy, events".

    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.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    well done indeed - but missing the Spurs angle?
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Are you being serious ?
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Jobabob said:

    If Corbyn wins again, the party will split.

    Either way, the party is over. Momentum has triumphed.
  • GIN1138
    GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    edited July 2016
    Good piece SO.

    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.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    This was an unfortunate start to Angela Eagle's campaign:

    twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/752479012371435521
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Re an early GE:

    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.
  • grabcocque
    grabcocque Posts: 4,234
    In the interests of balance, is there anyone who *doesn't* think Labour are doomed?
  • Robert_Of_Sheffield
    Robert_Of_Sheffield Posts: 207
    edited July 2016
    If Theresa May calls a snap general election and wins, a sizeable chunk of the left are likely to call her victory illegitimate, saying she took unfair advantage of the Labour Party's woes.

    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?
  • EdgwareJoel
    EdgwareJoel Posts: 26
    I did not know the name Joff existed outside of Game of Thrones.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    Thanks, Mr SO. A very well-written piece.
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    Jobabob said:

    If Corbyn wins again, the party will split.

    Yes, that was likely from the moment the MPs put Corbyn on the ballot in the 2015 leadership election.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have any articles from the time Gordon Brown was thinking about a snap election to get his own mandate shortly after becoming PM?
    Might be useful to compare then and now?
    Ideally I'm hoping there's an article from a Labour MP close to Gordon Brown

    TSE - What an invitation!
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

    'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
  • Carolus_Rex
    Carolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    JackW said:

    Excellent contribution SO that sadly is swallowed up by "events dear boy, events".

    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.

    Or as the late Simon Hoggart described the left's position in the 1980s, people only voted for Margaret Thatcher as a roundabout way of saying they really wanted Tony Benn.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Cheers Mr Observer, that’s quite an article, glad to see it got its rightful airing today.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,814
    JosiasJessop said:

    Thanks, Mr SO. A very well-written piece.

    I do like his final conclusion :)
  • murali_s
    murali_s Posts: 3,084
    Hit the nail on the head SO. Excellent piece.

    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.
  • EdgwareJoel
    EdgwareJoel Posts: 26
    pbr2013 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Nah, it'll be Hammond. Dull accountant type exactly what is needed there imho.
    As long as we do not get Osborne as Foreign Secretary. Personally dislikeable and prone to childish games. Completely unsuited for the role.
  • MyBurningEars
    MyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    oxfordsimon said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    No. Her CV issues make that impossible.
    Also, nobody senior in the Conservative parties will want this to look like a stitch-up.

    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.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,814
    Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

    If Theresa May calls a snap general election and wins, a sizeable chunk of the left are likely to call her victory illegitimate, saying she took unfair advantage of the Labour Party's woes.

    Do we want five years of that?

    I think it may be a 'long wait' for the Labour party to sort itself out.
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited July 2016
    AndyJS said:

    This was an unfortunate start to Angela Eagle's campaign:

    twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/752479012371435521


    Was the nest empty?
  • pbr2013
    pbr2013 Posts: 649
    Can I be the first to say that if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM I will leave the country. Thank you for your attention.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    A very clear and succinct summary Joff. (Ooh - feels odd calling you by your real name!) Well done.

    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.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    grabcocque said:

    In the interests of balance, is there anyone who *doesn't* think Labour are doomed?

    Nick Palmer ... Jezza ...

    Err ....

    No, that's it.
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited July 2016
    MikeL said:

    Re an early GE:

    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.

    Which was my point.

    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.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    One question I would add to Mr Wild's piece is when will the Labour selections for the candidates take place? The first move by the NEC would be to introduce annual mandatory reselections. After that there is the timing of the boundaries. Either way, Momentum have to force out many existing MPs and force into line many of the rest. This is a fight to the death.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    grabcocque said:

    In the interests of balance, is there anyone who *doesn't* think Labour are doomed?

    Charlie Falconer?
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    edited July 2016
    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Excellent piece Mr Wild, welcome to the thread header writers club, hopefully we'll see more from you.

    Seconded!

    While not a Labour supporter, the country needs a functioning opposition.....
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    pbr2013 said:

    Can I be the first to say that if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM I will leave the country. Thank you for your attention.

    Can you remind Paul O'Grady that he promised to leave if the Conservatives were re-elected.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.
  • Tissue_Price
    Tissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    All too correct, Mr Observer. You "forgot" to include a betting tip so I will offer John McDonnell as Next (Rump) Labour Leader @ 16/1.
  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    oxfordsimon said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    No. Her CV issues make that impossible.
    She needs to put in a lot more ministerial work to get anywhere senior - more has come out on her CV today.....
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    JackW said:

    grabcocque said:

    In the interests of balance, is there anyone who *doesn't* think Labour are doomed?

    Nick Palmer ... Jezza ...

    Err ....

    No, that's it.
    I think Nick Palmer only.

    Corbyn knows but he doesn't care.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    surbiton said:

    First, like Labour

    Surbiton, you missed your career. You would have been a wonderful comedian!

    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.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    EdgwareJoel said:

    pbr2013 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Nah, it'll be Hammond. Dull accountant type exactly what is needed there imho.
    As long as we do not get Osborne as Foreign Secretary. Personally dislikeable and prone to childish games. Completely unsuited for the role.
    Mrs May needs to remove Osborne as a rival as her first act. He has the advantage of age. An EU commissioner or Ambassadorship would be a good idea.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    This is a golden opportunity to create a Minister for Families. Why not? In modern times, everyone has to have a prize.
  • GarethoftheVale2
    GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,350
    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Chief secretary to the treasury?
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    Carolus_Rex said:

    Or as the late Simon Hoggart described the left's position in the 1980s, people only voted for Margaret Thatcher as a roundabout way of saying they really wanted Tony Benn.

    Thanks, I'd forgotten that pearl of wisdom. Reborn by Nick Palmer as :

    "172 Labour MP's are thrilled to announce PM May has just won the 2020 general election."
  • MontyHall
    MontyHall Posts: 226
    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.
  • BigIan
    BigIan Posts: 198
    Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

    If Theresa May calls a snap general election and wins, a sizeable chunk of the left are likely to call her victory illegitimate, saying she took unfair advantage of the Labour Party's woes.

    Er, they're calling for one!
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    John_M said:

    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    This is a golden opportunity to create a Minister for Families. Why not? In modern times, everyone has to have a prize.
    Her very limited view of what she considers an acceptable family rules her out of that sort of role.
  • Chris
    Chris Posts: 12,059
    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Surely it can only be Minister for Children and Families?
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Interesting piece from Mr. Observer. two thoughts:

    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.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited July 2016
    FPT
    eek said:

    jonny83 said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Au revoir Labour:

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/752500320522100736

    A split now seems inevitable...
    Yep. The bit I really couldn't understand this morning as it was discussed on Today is how anyone could think that Corbyn needed to get nominations to stand. The post 2010 rules are very clear and there is little ambiguity in them
    Yep, the 2010 conference motion to amend the rules even explains its purpose in Black and White.
    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.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,814
    Tissue_Price said:

    All too correct, Mr Observer. You "forgot" to include a betting tip so I will offer John McDonnell as Next (Rump) Labour Leader @ 16/1.

    The Lewis-McDonnell battle should be a good one :)
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    grabcocque said:

    In the interests of balance, is there anyone who *doesn't* think Labour are doomed?

    Everyone. It's just that they have not had the awakening and had the true light revealed to them. Yet.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    MontyHall said:

    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.

    UKIP had a simple raison d'etre which could be achieved by abstract discussion rather than major administrative and economic changes.

    Labour does not.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    Thanks for the piece Southam, a stunning debut.

    To be optimistic, maybe Labour will simply move the Overton window over time. Given May's speech today, that shift might already have started.
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    Excellent article.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Are you being serious ?
    Yes. Leader is a step too far, but she could do a good job as a cabinet member and her expertise is in finance which could be useful in these times.
  • jonny83
    jonny83 Posts: 1,273
    CarlottaVance said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    No. Her CV issues make that impossible.
    She needs to put in a lot more ministerial work to get anywhere senior - more has come out on her CV today.....
    I was thinking Leadsom will be given a job but I am not so sure, after some deeply personal comments directed towards her will May be the bigger woman and offer her something? It won't be anything big if something is offered and if I was May I wouldn't have her as part of the brexit negotiation team. May has plenty of brexit backers that haven't insulted her and whilst they want a brexit outcome some are more moderate and balanced.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    NickPalmer said:

    Corbyn's position is stronger than Gordon's would have been against a challenge, because Corbyn has a mandate.

    The question you have to ask Nick is this :

    Does Corbyn have a continuing mandate to fail and for how long?

  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Excellent piece Mr Wild, welcome to the thread header writers club, hopefully we'll see more from you.

    Seconded.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    HurstLlama said:

    Interesting piece from Mr. Observer. two thoughts:

    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.

    Wilson pitched a little loftier: "Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing".
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    edited July 2016
    HurstLlama said:

    1. Wasn't it Harold Wilson who said the Labour Party is a movement or it is nothing

    Surely it was 'a moral crusade or it is nothing?'

    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.
  • MontyHall
    MontyHall Posts: 226
    ydoethur said:

    MontyHall said:

    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.

    UKIP had a simple raison d'etre which could be achieved by abstract discussion rather than major administrative and economic changes.

    Labour does not.
    Perhaps you are right.

    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.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    Chris said:

    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Surely it can only be Minister for Children and Families?
    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Minister for Silly Talks?
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Nah. BIS might be an option, or CSttT. Chancellor too senior a role for someone with such judgement and media problems. Can you imagine what every Budget would be like.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: Button has to wait to find out if he has a McLaren seat next year:
    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.
  • PlatoSaid
    PlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    MontyHall said:

    ydoethur said:

    MontyHall said:

    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.

    UKIP had a simple raison d'etre which could be achieved by abstract discussion rather than major administrative and economic changes.

    Labour does not.
    Perhaps you are right.

    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.
    Yup.
  • Robert_Of_Sheffield
    Robert_Of_Sheffield Posts: 207
    BigIan said:

    Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

    If Theresa May calls a snap general election and wins, a sizeable chunk of the left are likely to call her victory illegitimate, saying she took unfair advantage of the Labour Party's woes.

    Er, they're calling for one!
    Presumably, they believe they'd win, but if they lost they'd quickly try to forget they'd asked for an election.

    I know it's an inconsistent position, but when has that ever stopped a politician?
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    NickPalmer said:

    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

    Hypothetical as there was no challenge against Brown. There was a NCV against Corbyn which he lost 172-44. And he's still there. He has a mandate to remain from a tiny proportion of the electorate and a mandate to piss off from the vastly larger proportion of the Labour electorate represented by the 172.

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Surely it was 'a moral crusade or it is nothing?'

    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.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    Incidentally, May will now fall just short of Chuter Ede's record for length of tenure as HS in the age of universal suffrage (Sidmouth was longest overall at ten years).

    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.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Bob, indeed, and it's the MPs' own fault for failing to understand their own leadership rules. They never should've backed him.

    Interesting to consider how Cooper (likely victor without Corbyn) would be doing now.
  • Chris
    Chris Posts: 12,059
    Andrea Leadsom economically literate???

    This is the woman who said she didn't expect sterling to fall in the event of a Leave vote!
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    GIN1138 said:

    Good piece SO.

    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.

    That kind of thinking is, frankly, indulgent. Political parties should not aspire to be pure expressions of democracy; they should be vehicles through which democracy can work. An excessive regard for members' views misses the point of what a party is for.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    PlatoSaid said:

    MontyHall said:

    ydoethur said:

    MontyHall said:

    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.

    UKIP had a simple raison d'etre which could be achieved by abstract discussion rather than major administrative and economic changes.

    Labour does not.
    Perhaps you are right.

    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.
    Yup.
    Ideologues have been preaching for decades that what the public really wants is a government on the hard left/hard right flank, if only they were given the opportunity. In every case they are been proved demonstrably wrong, yet the hard left and hard right never, ever learn.
  • MontyHall
    MontyHall Posts: 226
    Jobabob said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

    Hypothetical as there was no challenge against Brown. There was a NCV against Corbyn which he lost 172-44. And he's still there. He has a mandate to remain from a tiny proportion of the electorate and a mandate to piss off from the vastly larger proportion of the Labour electorate represented by the 172.

    How did Labour MP's vote in the election which he won?
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    PlatoSaid said:

    MontyHall said:

    ydoethur said:

    MontyHall said:

    "Labour will only ever have the opportunity to help shape this country’s future by focusing on winning general elections."

    UKIP just achieved their Raison d'etre with only one MP. Nothing is impossible, you just have to be open minded.

    UKIP had a simple raison d'etre which could be achieved by abstract discussion rather than major administrative and economic changes.

    Labour does not.
    Perhaps you are right.

    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.
    Yup.
    You were a centrist once. Not any more.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    david_herdson said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Good piece SO.

    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.

    That kind of thinking is, frankly, indulgent. Political parties should not aspire to be pure expressions of democracy; they should be vehicles through which democracy can work. An excessive regard for members' views misses the point of what a party is for.
    That's quite right, and well put.
  • rural_voter
    rural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Patrick said:

    Surely it was 'a moral crusade or it is nothing?'

    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.

    Harold Wilson succeeded well in making it both.
  • Jobabob
    Jobabob Posts: 3,807
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Bob, indeed, and it's the MPs' own fault for failing to understand their own leadership rules. They never should've backed him.

    Interesting to consider how Cooper (likely victor without Corbyn) would be doing now.


    Indeed. That would be a very interesting counterfactual Morris.
  • David_Evershed
    David_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    A political party is its members and its leader chosen by the members.

    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.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    @ydoethur - Great factoids, keep em coming.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    MontyHall said:

    Jobabob said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

    Hypothetical as there was no challenge against Brown. There was a NCV against Corbyn which he lost 172-44. And he's still there. He has a mandate to remain from a tiny proportion of the electorate and a mandate to piss off from the vastly larger proportion of the Labour electorate represented by the 172.

    How did Labour MP's vote in the election which he won?
    Seems unlikely he got more than the 20-odd votes from his genuine nominees. But with 1M1V, we'll never know.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    NickPalmer said:

    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

    Except this morning.
  • bigjohnowls
    bigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Jobabob said:

    If Corbyn wins again, the party will split.

    That is going to happen anyway.

    15 years of Blairite shortlisting means the PLP is far to the right of both members and supporters.
  • MontyHall
    MontyHall Posts: 226
    ydoethur said:

    MontyHall said:

    Jobabob said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Good to see Southam doing a lead piece and expanding our range of intelligent lead writers - surely one of the best in the political world.

    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.

    Hypothetical as there was no challenge against Brown. There was a NCV against Corbyn which he lost 172-44. And he's still there. He has a mandate to remain from a tiny proportion of the electorate and a mandate to piss off from the vastly larger proportion of the Labour electorate represented by the 172.

    How did Labour MP's vote in the election which he won?
    Seems unlikely he got more than the 20-odd votes from his genuine nominees. But with 1M1V, we'll never know.
    Oh I didn't realise there wasn't a way of knowing.

    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
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    david_herdson said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Should we consider possibly Andrea Leadsom as next Chancellor for the betting markets? She's come out of this with some credit and the one thing everyone seems to agree is she is very financially literate and aware which could be useful for a Chancellor in these times.

    Nah. BIS might be an option, or CSttT. Chancellor too senior a role for someone with such judgement and media problems. Can you imagine what every Budget would be like.
    Sounds fair. I do think she should be given a role in the Treasury, you're right CSttT could be appropriate.
  • Mortimer
    Mortimer Posts: 14,229
    FPT:
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have any articles from the time Gordon Brown was thinking about a snap election to get his own mandate shortly after becoming PM?

    Might be useful to compare then and now?

    Ideally I'm hoping there's an article from a Labour MP close to Gordon Brown

    Someone like Sion Simon?
  • Chris
    Chris Posts: 12,059
    Chris said:

    Andrea Leadsom economically literate???

    This is the woman who said she didn't expect sterling to fall in the event of a Leave vote!

    And when it plummeted, she explained it was because the markets hadn't expected the result ...

    Gibberish.
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    Jobabob said:

    Chris said:

    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Surely it can only be Minister for Children and Families?
    MikeL said:

    Leadsom will have to be given a Cabinet job notwithstanding her huge shortcomings - she did come second in the leadership contest and has to be given credit for what she did today.

    I would have thought a middling to lower Cabinet position would be appropriate - something like Environment.

    Minister for Silly Talks?
    minister for motherhood?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    rural_voter said:

    Patrick said:

    Surely it was 'a moral crusade or it is nothing?'

    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.

    Harold Wilson succeeded well in making it both.
    But 'there is no money' now and we're leaving the EU. What is the left's big plan? What is on offer in a globalised post-welfare world? It's very tough - but the world is awfully Darwinian. A policy of sticking one's head in the sand doesn't make the competition go away. Sooner or later voters notice that their living standards are rocketing backwards relative to the competition. And then they don't vote for more. So the only way to 'secure' a lefty model is to impose it by force a la Venezuela. Labour's BIG problem is not leadership or Party / Crusade splits - it's the 'WTF is the left's fundamental philosophy in 2016' question?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories