'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
I'm no great fan of Cameron, but if I lived in a marginal seat, Cameron v Milliband or Corbyn would be a very easy choice to make.
Shrinking the State, reducing economic inactivity, free schools, are all good things that the government has done which Labour wouldn't have done.
Not long until we see the result. I wonder if a red win would prove Pyrrhic, especially if they lose a shedload of WWC voters to UKIP. If they win, Corbyn and Mao will continue as before, but if they lose maybe even PLP jellyfish will realise they've got to act.
Maybe.
Let us hope for a narrow Labour win. It is entirely for the long term good of the country that Corbyn survives to keep destroying the Labour Party right up until 2020. May 2020 is the time for trebuchets and space cannons - not now.
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week. It's possible he'll lead something - a wider movement under the Momentum banner - but Jezza is going to part company with the parliamentary Labour leadership fairly quickly now, and most likely because they will leave him. How do I know? A hunch only. We have a political system that requires a parliamentary opposition and there hasn't been one these three months. The vacuum cannot go on. Even if Corbyn gets through this week, there are too many other massive hurdles for him, such as Trident, Europe, economic policy. We don't know the Labour position on anything any more.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
Where have I cheered the Tories copying Blair's policies ?
There's a fundamental/massive difference between Blairite labour and Tory policies. Labour increased the size of the state once they stopped following Ken Clarke's plans. The Cameroon agenda is to try and shrink the state.
So having found £27bn down the back of the sofa, did Osborne use it to help pay off the national debt, or did he use it to avoid cutting things that are bloated and inefficient (the Police) and to throw around gobs of new spending money to his friends ?
Not long until we see the result. I wonder if a red win would prove Pyrrhic, especially if they lose a shedload of WWC voters to UKIP. If they win, Corbyn and Mao will continue as before, but if they lose maybe even PLP jellyfish will realise they've got to act.
Maybe.
Let us hope for a narrow Labour win. It is entirely for the long term good of the country that Corbyn survives to keep destroying the Labour Party right up until 2020. May 2020 is the time for trebuchets and space cannons - not now.
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week. It's possible he'll lead something - a wider movement under the Momentum banner - but Jezza is going to part company with the parliamentary Labour leadership fairly quickly now, and most likely because they will leave him. How do I know? A hunch only. We have a political system that requires a parliamentary opposition and there hasn't been one these three months. The vacuum cannot go on. Even if Corbyn gets through this week, there are too many other massive hurdles for him, such as Trident, Europe, economic policy. We don't know the Labour position on anything any more.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome from another newbie.
The difficulty with Jexit (or rather Jexplusion) is that there's no mechanism to force him out.
I would not say that losing the vote would be curtains for Dave. If he thought that was the case he wouldn't hold it. It's not essential for him.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
There is a natural floor to Lab support who, if you were to re-write the Lab manifesto in blue ink and stick "Conservative Party Manifesto" on the front of it, would still not vote Cons.
How many is that? 7m finger in the air. What % is that?
Quite so. They can only fall so far, as especially now there is no alternative. Corbyn will either prove as inexplicably popular as he is with members or find that floor, but in terms of percentage if not seats they might still look healthy.
I think Labour will survive but become a Momentum/Stop The War/Respect type hard lefty rabble with little electoral support. And the left will re-split as the sensibles realise the Labour brand is lost to them and create something new.
I think that underestimates the passion with which a lot of sensible, moderate people identify with "Labour". They will never abandon its cultural heritage. On the other hand, the Labour Party contains many strands, and some of those (particularly the career politicians) may be tempted to do something rash by the prospect of being out of power for a generation (the generation in which they expect to see their careers prosper).
A lot of the wishful thinking on PB comments about new moderate-left parties is not incentive-compatible. Everyone is well aware that whatever the perils of Corbyn, splitting the left is a cast-iron way to stay out of power for a generation.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
There is a natural floor to Lab support who, if you were to re-write the Lab manifesto in blue ink and stick "Conservative Party Manifesto" on the front of it, would still not vote Cons.
How many is that? 7m finger in the air. What % is that?
Labour's floor is not defined by the disinclination of (one-time) Labour voters to vote Tory; it is defined by the willingness of Labour supporters to vote for their party come what may.
'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
Where have I cheered the Tories copying Blair's policies ?
There's a fundamental/massive difference between Blairite labour and Tory policies. Labour increased the size of the state once they stopped following Ken Clarke's plans. The Cameroon agenda is to try and shrink the state.
So having found £27bn down the back of the sofa, did Osborne use it to help pay off the national debt, or did he use it to avoid cutting things that are bloated and inefficient (the Police) and to throw around gobs of new spending money to his friends ?
A bit harsh - or potentially missing the whole point about Osborne. The unwavering end state of the Cameron / Osborne journey is a smaller and affordable state. The bits of the state they really think are most bloated are getting a major major haircut. Other bits are not. And these tend to be the politically harder ones. Ozzy WANTED to cut tax credits, for example, but found it politically expedient or necessary not to. He strikes me as an uber-pragmatist. We'll get to a much smaller state - but done so in a way that recognises the political demands of the day. That's not vacuous. That's sensible. Vacuous is sticking rigidly and inflexibly to dogma no matter how damaging that may be (and who might that be a good political description of these days I wonder?).
Not long until we see the result. I wonder if a red win would prove Pyrrhic, especially if they lose a shedload of WWC voters to UKIP. If they win, Corbyn and Mao will continue as before, but if they lose maybe even PLP jellyfish will realise they've got to act.
Maybe.
Let us hope for a narrow Labour win. It is entirely for the long term good of the country that Corbyn survives to keep destroying the Labour Party right up until 2020. May 2020 is the time for trebuchets and space cannons - not now.
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week. It's possible he'll lead something - a wider movement under the Momentum banner - but Jezza is going to part company with the parliamentary Labour leadership fairly quickly now, and most likely because they will leave him. How do I know? A hunch only. We have a political system that requires a parliamentary opposition and there hasn't been one these three months. The vacuum cannot go on. Even if Corbyn gets through this week, there are too many other massive hurdles for him, such as Trident, Europe, economic policy. We don't know the Labour position on anything any more.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome!
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
I think Labour will survive but become a Momentum/Stop The War/Respect type hard lefty rabble with little electoral support. And the left will re-split as the sensibles realise the Labour brand is lost to them and create something new.
I think that underestimates the passion with which a lot of sensible, moderate people identify with "Labour". They will never abandon its cultural heritage. On the other hand, the Labour Party contains many strands, and some of those (particularly the career politicians) may be tempted to do something rash by the prospect of being out of power for a generation (the generation in which they expect to see their careers prosper).
I agree, Labour remains an immensely strong brand, despite the best efforts of its leadership.
But, even strong brand loyalty can fade. I'd point to two long-term shifts that should worry Labour.
1. Coal-mining generated fantastic loyalty to Labour. As coal-mining ended, so did support for Labour start to fade. The process takes a couple of generations, but Labour will be in trouble in parts of Durham and South Yorkshire and South Wales before long, just as their support has vanished in ex-mining seats in the Midlands, Somerset, and Kent, where the pits closed earlier.
2. The New Towns were solid Red fifty years ago. Now, they're solid Blue.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
If they do that by being "Labour in a Blue Rosette", what's the point. Politics is supposed to be about having a belief about how the country should be run, its not supposed to be about the colour of the rosette.
Except they aren't.
Look at how much the Tories have cut spending as a % of gdp. George has done in five years what Thatcher did in eleven years.
I like the Tory focus and improvement on education.
This isn't what Labour would offer.
Worth noting in that comparison that Labour under Callaghan, Healey and the IMF had been squeezing expenditure for three years before 1979, whereas Brown and Darling were turning the taps on to full pre-2010.
Not long until we see the result. I wonder if a red win would prove Pyrrhic, especially if they lose a shedload of WWC voters to UKIP. If they win, Corbyn and Mao will continue as before, but if they lose maybe even PLP jellyfish will realise they've got to act.
Maybe.
Let us hope for a narrow Labour win. It is entirely for the long term good of the country that Corbyn survives to keep destroying the Labour Party right up until 2020. May 2020 is the time for trebuchets and space cannons - not now.
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week. It's possible he'll lead something - a wider movement under the Momentum banner - but Jezza is going to part company with the parliamentary Labour leadership fairly quickly now, and most likely because they will leave him. How do I know? A hunch only. We have a political system that requires a parliamentary opposition and there hasn't been one these three months. The vacuum cannot go on. Even if Corbyn gets through this week, there are too many other massive hurdles for him, such as Trident, Europe, economic policy. We don't know the Labour position on anything any more.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome from another newbie.
The difficulty with Jexit (or rather Jexplusion) is that there's no mechanism to force him out.
I would not say that losing the vote would be curtains for Dave. If he thought that was the case he wouldn't hold it. It's not essential for him.
Mr. EPG, the alternatives are Labour win, and the country enjoys life under an idiot and Chancellor Mao, or Labour lose anyway.
The best way is the fastest route back to sanity for Labour.
Yet nobody on PB comments outlines: (a) what the Labour moderates should do or more interestingly (b) what Corbyn should do to maximise the probability of victory.
The analysis is typically just "Split! That would be great. Corbyn's too extreme." "But would you vote for a non-Corbyn centre-left party?" "Of course not, I'd vote Conservative."
Anna Soubry on Corbyn in the Times 'The problem is that he doesn't ever seem to have done a job. The biggest decision he's probably made is what the veggie option would be at the buffet after the Outer Mongolian Basket-Weavers Solidarity meeting'
This was all predictable. Indeed, it was predicted (ahem)
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
If they do that by being "Labour in a Blue Rosette", what's the point. Politics is supposed to be about having a belief about how the country should be run, its not supposed to be about the colour of the rosette.
Except they aren't.
Look at how much the Tories have cut spending as a % of gdp. George has done in five years what Thatcher did in eleven years.
I like the Tory focus and improvement on education.
This isn't what Labour would offer.
Worth noting in that comparison that Labour under Callaghan, Healey and the IMF had been squeezing expenditure for three years before 1979, whereas Brown and Darling were turning the taps on to full pre-2010.
Apart from the pragmatic "how would we organise and pay for it" bit of forming a new Party, the Labour brand, for all its baggage right now remains totemic.
I can't see that changing unless Corbyn does something so appalling that their own loyalists flinch en masse. I can't see that happening given what's being tolerated so far. Losing seats - very likely, extinction event - very unlikely.
What Kippers do will be the key factor - as the SNP did in Scotland.
I think Labour will survive but become a Momentum/Stop The War/Respect type hard lefty rabble with little electoral support. And the left will re-split as the sensibles realise the Labour brand is lost to them and create something new.
I think that underestimates the passion with which a lot of sensible, moderate people identify with "Labour". They will never abandon its cultural heritage. On the other hand, the Labour Party contains many strands, and some of those (particularly the career politicians) may be tempted to do something rash by the prospect of being out of power for a generation (the generation in which they expect to see their careers prosper).
A lot of the wishful thinking on PB comments about new moderate-left parties is not incentive-compatible. Everyone is well aware that whatever the perils of Corbyn, splitting the left is a cast-iron way to stay out of power for a generation.
I think Labour will survive but become a Momentum/Stop The War/Respect type hard lefty rabble with little electoral support. And the left will re-split as the sensibles realise the Labour brand is lost to them and create something new.
I think that underestimates the passion with which a lot of sensible, moderate people identify with "Labour". They will never abandon its cultural heritage. On the other hand, the Labour Party contains many strands, and some of those (particularly the career politicians) may be tempted to do something rash by the prospect of being out of power for a generation (the generation in which they expect to see their careers prosper).
A lot of the wishful thinking on PB comments about new moderate-left parties is not incentive-compatible. Everyone is well aware that whatever the perils of Corbyn, splitting the left is a cast-iron way to stay out of power for a generation.
Except that sticking with Corbyn may render Labour permanently unelectable, in which a new party is the only way forward for the centre-left. In that case, the sooner the split the sooner the recovery can start.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Mr. EPG, I did suggest the PLP circumvent Corbyn by having one of their number (I mentioned Cooper) be the lead for votes in Parliament, thereby effectively making Labour a diarchy and removing from Corbyn much of his authority.
Unfortunately, removing a Labour leader is more difficult than removing a Conservative one, because the rules make it tricky and the PLP are far more craven/less bloodthirsty than the PCP.
As for a Corbyn victory - I have no wish to see the Labour Party led by a 1970s throwback, a security-endangering idiot unfit for any sort of public office. Even if I had an idea of how he could achieve a majority, why would I utter it publicly? Corbyn leading the UK would be disastrous.
Not long until we see the result. I wonder if a red win would prove Pyrrhic, especially if they lose a shedload of WWC voters to UKIP. If they win, Corbyn and Mao will continue as before, but if they lose maybe even PLP jellyfish will realise they've got to act.
Maybe.
Let us hope for a narrow Labour win. It is entirely for the long term good of the country that Corbyn survives to keep destroying the Labour Party right up until 2020. May 2020 is the time for trebuchets and space cannons - not now.
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week. It's possible he'll lead something - a wider movement under the Momentum banner - but Jezza is going to part company with the parliamentary Labour leadership fairly quickly now, and most likely because they will leave him. How do I know? A hunch only. We have a political system that requires a parliamentary opposition and there hasn't been one these three months. The vacuum cannot go on. Even if Corbyn gets through this week, there are too many other massive hurdles for him, such as Trident, Europe, economic policy. We don't know the Labour position on anything any more.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome!
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
Neither scenario sees Jezza booted out.
Morning all,
I have no knowledge, but I would be extremely surprised if there hasn't been discussion about a new party. Indeed, I seem to remember reading about ideas for the 'Progressive Democrats' a few weeks ago. The SDP however is the historical example that puts people off no doubt.
As to Ed M being a Tory. Perhaps this is true as he introduced the system that has allowed tens of thousands of non-Labour people to take over the party. He was a Tory sleeper.
This is quite a meme of yours - you complain about others not posting articles rather than posting them yourself - and now you're complaining others aren't providing an alternative.
The power of the keyboard is right in front of you.
Mr. EPG, the alternatives are Labour win, and the country enjoys life under an idiot and Chancellor Mao, or Labour lose anyway.
The best way is the fastest route back to sanity for Labour.
Yet nobody on PB comments outlines: (a) what the Labour moderates should do or more interestingly (b) what Corbyn should do to maximise the probability of victory.
The analysis is typically just "Split! That would be great. Corbyn's too extreme." "But would you vote for a non-Corbyn centre-left party?" "Of course not, I'd vote Conservative."
Hi all...been a lurker for a long long time, but this is too good not to join in.
There's no way Corbyn is going to lead Labour for five years: he could be out before the end of the week.
Welcome.
As for Corbyn, we need to put ourselves in his sandals.
From his perspective, he has won a landslide victory among the new, invigorated membership.
He has surrounded himself with the 1980s GLC, who are all like minded (London obsessed), and from his perspective he is just returning Labour to it's roots.
Even though his policies look more like the 2015 Green Party manifesto than the 2015 Labour one, he has decided that he should not go, but everyone else should.
It was the moderators - Kinnock, Smith, Blair - that hijacked Labour, not him. His fellow travellers see it the same way.
He will see Osborne's tax credits reverse as evidence of successful opposition, and will draw on the Iraq war as a reason to justify the non-interventionist stance on Syria.
He'll stay until he is succeeded by a younger version of himself. I wouldn't put money on this at this stage, but if he does the five years, I think Labour will go below 25%.
The council by-election outcomes in the last month or two have mainly been awful, and Labour will increasingly shrink to it's newer core.
A bit harsh - or potentially missing the whole point about Osborne. The unwavering end state of the Cameron / Osborne journey is a smaller and affordable state. The bits of the state they really think are most bloated are getting a major major haircut. Other bits are not. And these tend to be the politically harder ones. Ozzy WANTED to cut tax credits, for example, but found it politically expedient or necessary not to. He strikes me as an uber-pragmatist. We'll get to a much smaller state - but done so in a way that recognises the political demands of the day. That's not vacuous. That's sensible. Vacuous is sticking rigidly and inflexibly to dogma no matter how damaging that may be (and who might that be a good political description of these days I wonder?).
I think you are being a little generous.
The fact is that our government (which I have been broadly supportive of for most of the last five and a half years) has done much less to close the fiscal gap than most other countries.
If we look at the primary budget deficit*, that is the deficit before interest payments, then you see that the US has largely eliminated their deficit. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and Germany all run primary budget surpluses now. (France does not.)
Ours is still 3% of GDP. And it went backwards last year.
Considering that we are now five years into the current growth cycle, that's a bit of a problem.
We don't want to have economic cycles which leave us on an upward path of indebtedness, with each cycle's peak surpassing the last. That is not a good state to be in.
* Why primary budget deficit? Because otherwise QE and falling interest rates make you look cleverer than you are. Also primary budget deficit shows the actual impact of tax and spending decisions.
If multiple shadow cabinet members resign simultaneously, how does the market work?...
Nobody might resign of course. Corbyn could whip. Everyone defies the whip as he has done for last thirty years. Corbyn either sacks a few people, or does nothing, and everyone moves on to the next disaster. The public sees that Labour is split, but I think they already knew that.
"The problem that I think Jeremy has got, the problem that the leader of the opposition has, is that he has never abided by the discipline of the leader or of the shadow cabinet.
"He may try and impose this on the shadow cabinet. I think that would be wrong in this particular instance because I think people have very strong views one way or another."
Why do you believe that international law is adequate to deal with international terrorism? Hollande called the Paris murders "warfare" whilst Kerry called their perpetrators "criminally insane". They can't both be right.
" The Stop the War Coalition – once chaired by Mr Corbyn – launched a renewed lobbying drive to convince Labour MPs to vote against air strikes.
The group boasted of sending 40,000 messages to MPs urging them to oppose the war and promised to take to the streets in protest on the day of the vote."
'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
I'm no great fan of Cameron, but if I lived in a marginal seat, Cameron v Milliband or Corbyn would be a very easy choice to make.
Shrinking the State, reducing economic inactivity, free schools, are all good things that the government has done which Labour wouldn't have done.
If I lived in a Monster Raving Loony Party vs Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party marginal, I'd probably hold my nose and vote tactically...
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
I don't think it is right to view Corbyn as a conviction politician - he is far more narrow sighted than that.
To my mind, he is a blinkered politician. Unable (or unwilling) to see anything other than what he wants to see.
I agree, Labour remains an immensely strong brand, despite the best efforts of its leadership.
But, even strong brand loyalty can fade. I'd point to two long-term shifts that should worry Labour.
1. Coal-mining generated fantastic loyalty to Labour. As coal-mining ended, so did support for Labour start to fade. The process takes a couple of generations, but Labour will be in trouble in parts of Durham and South Yorkshire and South Wales before long, just as their support has vanished in ex-mining seats in the Midlands, Somerset, and Kent, where the pits closed earlier.
2. The New Towns were solid Red fifty years ago. Now, they're solid Blue.
Absolutely - there's a huge difference between the loyalty of the broader electorate, and the loyalty of the membership. I think that's the trap that waits for any political party that listens only to its members (and vocal fellow travellers). It severely wounded the Tories (and continues to do so), and it remains to be seen what damage it has done to Labour.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
As a political geek who loves the excitement of "events", I hate you for saying it; but I think you might be right.
'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
I'm no great fan of Cameron, but if I lived in a marginal seat, Cameron v Milliband or Corbyn would be a very easy choice to make.
Shrinking the State, reducing economic inactivity, free schools, are all good things that the government has done which Labour wouldn't have done.
If I lived in a Monster Raving Loony Party vs Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party marginal, I'd probably hold my nose and vote tactically...
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome!
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
Neither scenario sees Jezza booted out.
Welcome too to TGR!
There isn't a sufficient concept to attract enough people to a new party to make it successful. The market would presumably be the probably 30-40% of the membership (which, ahem, is not "millions") who didn't put JC first or second. That's a bit over 100,000. What would the USP of New Social Democrats be? "We are less Tory than the Tories, less liberal than the LibDems, less green than the Greens, and less leftist than Labour." It's a thin slice of territory, and I'd guess would attract no more than 20,000 members. What it would obviously do is split the non-Tory vote and put them in for a generation, just as the SDP helped to do. Even right-wing Labour members (who do exist) don't want that.
In response to TGR, I can't see Dave resigning if he lost the Syria vote. But it's not likely to happen - even if Labour MPs rally round an amendment or whatever, he'll say it's deplorable and carry on, just as he did last time round.
If multiple shadow cabinet members resign simultaneously, how does the market work?...
Do you think any of the jellyfish will actually resign?
As expected, Jeremy Corbyn has proved to be such a divisive character with the PLP, that party loyalty has broken down and the taboo of criticising the party leader has gone out the window. - No doubt Labour’s present internal warfare will damaged them electorally as a result, the PLP know this and yet, there is not a backbone amongst them to do the deed.
" The Stop the War Coalition – once chaired by Mr Corbyn – launched a renewed lobbying drive to convince Labour MPs to vote against air strikes.
The group boasted of sending 40,000 messages to MPs urging them to oppose the war and promised to take to the streets in protest on the day of the vote."
The streets of Raqqa, presumably? Because there's a bit of war going on over there also.
"It is the only way to face the climate change threat, but also the terrorism threat" Manuel Pulgar Vidal Chair of the previous UN climate summit (COP20) in Lima, 2014
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
As a political geek who loves the excitement of "events", I hate you for saying it; but I think you might be right.
'I do think there's a massive difference between the parties'
Really? One minute you are cheering the Conservatives copying Blair's policies and getting excited about people like Burnham crossing the floor, and the next you say this.
So is it the case that you only think these 'massive differences' exist between Corbyn-Labour and the Cameron Conservatives/New Labour/Social Democrats?
I think you would be broadly indifferent between Blair and Cameron, and entirely indifferent if they wore the same team shirt.
I'm no great fan of Cameron, but if I lived in a marginal seat, Cameron v Milliband or Corbyn would be a very easy choice to make.
Shrinking the State, reducing economic inactivity, free schools, are all good things that the government has done which Labour wouldn't have done.
If I lived in a Monster Raving Loony Party vs Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party marginal, I'd probably hold my nose and vote tactically...
For the Elvis Bus Pass Party or the Mike Smithson Bus Pass Party ?
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
As expected, Jeremy Corbyn has proved to be such a divisive character with the PLP, that party loyalty has broken down and the taboo of criticising the party leader has gone out the window. - No doubt Labour’s present internal warfare will damaged them electorally as a result, the PLP know this and yet, there is not a backbone amongst them to do the deed.
Even the splitters are split. Both pro and anti bombing shad-cab (sic) members want both a whipped and free vote
Further to the Prime Minister’s statement last week and ahead of a vote on the UK bombing of Syria, I want to consult with the Party on what Britain should do.
As you know, I have written to our members as well as the PLP and a meeting with the Shadow Cabinet will take place tomorrow. As a member of the Party’s governing body, it is also important to hear your views.
I would be grateful therefore if you could reply to this email at your earliest convenience regarding your thoughts on how the Party should proceed and whether we should support the Government proposal to commence airstrikes in Syria.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
I agree, Labour remains an immensely strong brand, despite the best efforts of its leadership.
But, even strong brand loyalty can fade. I'd point to two long-term shifts that should worry Labour.
1. Coal-mining generated fantastic loyalty to Labour. As coal-mining ended, so did support for Labour start to fade. The process takes a couple of generations, but Labour will be in trouble in parts of Durham and South Yorkshire and South Wales before long, just as their support has vanished in ex-mining seats in the Midlands, Somerset, and Kent, where the pits closed earlier.
2. The New Towns were solid Red fifty years ago. Now, they're solid Blue.
Absolutely - there's a huge difference between the loyalty of the broader electorate, and the loyalty of the membership. I think that's the trap that waits for any political party that listens only to its members (and vocal fellow travellers). It severely wounded the Tories (and continues to do so), and it remains to be seen what damage it has done to Labour.
All brands can die, there's no question - never too big or too old to fail. And the point about Labour is a good one. Politics used to be tied up in people's identity - I'm a Labour man, someone might say, and it had nothing to do with policy it was just who they were. That's largely disappearing on both sides as we move to retail politics. The successful brands are constantly shifting and changing - you have to say Cameron and Osborne have played that game well.
And as we become more personality obsessed the brands become linked to the person. It's Cameron's Tories against Corbyn's Labour. That might be a very different choice than May's Tories vs Umunna's Labour. I'm one of those few who still see my politics as part of my identity - I'll always vote Tory no matter what - but in the latter example I'd do it with almost no enthusiasm.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
So, are they having two Shadow Cabinet meetings, one for the People's Front of Jezdea, and one including the splitters? Or are Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers genuinely unaware what time they're meant to turn up?
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome!
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
Neither scenario sees Jezza booted out.
Welcome too to TGR!
There isn't a sufficient concept to attract enough people to a new party to make it successful. The market would presumably be the probably 30-40% of the membership (which, ahem, is not "millions") who didn't put JC first or second. That's a bit over 100,000. What would the USP of New Social Democrats be? "We are less Tory than the Tories, less liberal than the LibDems, less green than the Greens, and less leftist than Labour." It's a thin slice of territory, and I'd guess would attract no more than 20,000 members. What it would obviously do is split the non-Tory vote and put them in for a generation, just as the SDP helped to do. Even right-wing Labour members (who do exist) don't want that.
In response to TGR, I can't see Dave resigning if he lost the Syria vote. But it's not likely to happen - even if Labour MPs rally round an amendment or whatever, he'll say it's deplorable and carry on, just as he did last time round.
Nick.
If you were still in the HoC how would you vote of the Syria issue?
On the plus side I see Julian Lewis continues to advocate supporting the only moderate forces in Syria, the Syrian Arab Army. At least we can count on the Russians to continue to do the right thing.
Jeremy Corbyn will make Labour unelectable. Many Labour MPs think that's as bad as it gets. Actually, it's much, much worse. It's not the leader that's making the party unelectable. It's the party.
Mr Corbyn's Labour critics don't need to get their party a new leader. They need to get their party a new party: new members, new believers.
And If they can't do that, they should accept that Mr Corbyn – and the electoral doom he brings – is what Labour actually wants.
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I can't see the UUP or DUP opposing action - which surely makes the maths easier
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
Why'd they have to include the 'reported attempts' bit? Many will and would disagree with the rest of the statement regardless, but that bit invites the thought that they are conspiracy theorists, as that sort of phrasing suggests what we are told happened might not have.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I can't see the UUP or DUP opposing action - which surely makes the maths easier
There's a suggestion that he's not interested in only just winning a majority - that he is seeking consensus. So he's not doing the number on a majority of one, but rather on a majority that justifies war and the support of parliament for that war - and how big that is, is unknown.
The public can turn - if he squeezes a win and things go wrong ('cos we've always done so well in these wars before right?), then having Jeremy Corbyn standing opposite him, saying I told you so, is not how he wants to end his political career.
The Conservative Party are like Leicester City: it is always a bit surprising when they win but having them at the top of the table is undoubtedly A GOOD THING for the country.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I can't see the UUP or DUP opposing action - which surely makes the maths easier
It seems only a handful of Tories will now oppose. SNP? Have they decided yet?
Why do you believe that international law is adequate to deal with international terrorism? Hollande called the Paris murders "warfare" whilst Kerry called their perpetrators "criminally insane". They can't both be right.
No they can't: Kerry is wrong. They are evil, not insane. The two can go together but it's not necessary that they do so. The terrorists seemed to have clear objectives and logically put together and executed a plan to deliver on those objectives. Some of their reasoning and execution may have been flawed but neither that, nor their debased and abhorrent ideology, makes them insane.
@faisalislam: ..as for resignations, Labour figures far more adept at texting their annoyance to hacks than voicing it publicly or actually acting on it
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
Or call a fresh election, as I think Baldwin once did.
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
Did you just use the word "coordinated" to describe the current Leadership of the Labour Party - irony surely?
Labour MPs are behaving in classic Labour MP fashion, worrying about the approaching waterfall without doing anything that might stop them going over it. Remember Gordon Brown? They’ve learned nothing. And in electoral terms, Corbyn makes Michael Foot look like Attlee, Thatcher and Blair combined.
This Micawberish approach – something will turn up! - is not appropriate to the current circumstances. Hand-wringing and texting ‘sad face’ emojis to one another will get them nowhere. If they want their party back, moderates will have to fight for it. And they have to do it now: organise, mutiny, force Corbyn out, expel the hard-left and deal with the consequences. If they don’t have the stomach for this, then they should accept Labour is finished as a coherent movement, take the SDP route and set up a new, modern centrist party that stands a chance of attracting broad support.
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
Did you just use the word "coordinated" to describe the current Leadership of the Labour Party - irony surely?
I agree, Labour remains an immensely strong brand, despite the best efforts of its leadership.
But, even strong brand loyalty can fade. I'd point to two long-term shifts that should worry Labour.
1. Coal-mining generated fantastic loyalty to Labour. As coal-mining ended, so did support for Labour start to fade. The process takes a couple of generations, but Labour will be in trouble in parts of Durham and South Yorkshire and South Wales before long, just as their support has vanished in ex-mining seats in the Midlands, Somerset, and Kent, where the pits closed earlier.
2. The New Towns were solid Red fifty years ago. Now, they're solid Blue.
Absolutely - there's a huge difference between the loyalty of the broader electorate, and the loyalty of the membership. I think that's the trap that waits for any political party that listens only to its members (and vocal fellow travellers). It severely wounded the Tories (and continues to do so), and it remains to be seen what damage it has done to Labour.
Labour currently feels a lot like ManU have been taken over by Tranmere. The season ticket holders will still keep going out of a sense of morbid curiousity. Some exisitng Tranmere fans will go to see the big shiny stadium. And most of the millions of ManU fans won't notice - they will continue to keep wearing their fake shirts in the Philippines and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
But at some point, picking your mates from the park kick-about, engaging in 70's tactics where Norman Hunter is your idol, hoofing the ball up into the opponents penalty area - and getting drubbed week in, week out by a newer form of more subtle passing football - is going to take a toll.
And when they are playing in the Second Division, it will still be a year to the election.....
@patrickwintour: To underline integrity of Labour's consultation of "party members" on Syria I know the views of Donald.Duck@hotmail.com have been submitted.
EDIT: I once asked a Gaelic speaking friend the translation of Donald Duck so I could respond to the SNP request for comments...
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
Or call a fresh election, as I think Baldwin once did.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
One of the problems of modern politics is the acceptance of the preeminence of the Manifesto. Situations, times and requirements change.
Manifesto should be limited to a few generalised objectives, the government should then govern on the principle that they are acting in the best interests of the Country as they see it while, for example, providing Free Schools.
Jeremy Corbyn will make Labour unelectable. Many Labour MPs think that's as bad as it gets. Actually, it's much, much worse. It's not the leader that's making the party unelectable. It's the party.
Mr Corbyn's Labour critics don't need to get their party a new leader. They need to get their party a new party: new members, new believers.
And If they can't do that, they should accept that Mr Corbyn – and the electoral doom he brings – is what Labour actually wants.
No socialist believes that capitalism will surrender without a fight to the death. For Trots like JC, "socialism" and "government" are contradictions in terms.
This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
The heir to Blair and his disciples are sounding more like Blair himself everyday.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
One of the problems of modern politics is the acceptance of the preeminence of the Manifesto. Situations, times and requirements change.
Manifesto should be limited to a few generalised objectives, the government should then govern on the principle that they are acting in the best interests of the Country while, for example, providing Free Schools.
Also, people have missed something else about the Syria vote, if it takes place. It'll be curtains for Dave, too, if he loses.
Welcome!
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
Neither scenario sees Jezza booted out.
Welcome too to TGR!
There isn't a sufficient concmembers (who do exist) don't want that.
In response to TGR, I can't see Dave resigning if he lost the Syria vote. But it's not likely to happen - even if Labour MPs rally round an amendment or whatever, he'll say it's deplorable and carry on, just as he did last time round.
The reason Jezza won, IMO (!), is that none of the other candidates could explain what had changed in the Labour Party between 9.59pm and 10.01pm on May 7th.
Aside from the fact that the electorate tacked to the centre(-right) in this case.
No one made the case for what Lab stood for as they were all terrified of the narrative that the Cons had successfully built up. Apart from Jezza, of course. For indeed as you say that untrammeled ground is wafer thin.
Thing is, though, UK politics has coalesced around the centre ground and it is in the small differences in future that politics will be won or lost. Governments will be slightly centre-left or slightly centre-right.
Non-Jezza Lab-ites need the courage and ability to define what their flavour of centre-left politics looks like (a bit more redistribution, a wider safety net, a slightly bigger state, more owls, etc) in their own terms. They failed because they tried to set it in terms that the Cons had already defined.
Is it easy? Oh no. Can it be done without regressing back to feelgood yet impotent student politics? Yep. And Lab had better hurry because the Cons are busy claiming more centre ground (left and right) for themselves.
I fear that even in the 1950s it is difficult to argue that "the Tories" got a majority of seats in Scotland. They were divided then into three groups of candidates (Unionist, Conservative and National Liberal). Even then the best they did was in 1955 when they did get 36 out of 71 seats but with the vast bulk of winning candidates standing as "Unionists" not "Conservatives".
Interestingly when they largely ditched the old labels in favour of "Conservative" in 1964 they immediately went down to 24 seats and it has basically been downhill ever since.
All of which suggests that on this St Andrews Day wee Ruth should be making a declaration to change the name of the Party (an old Murdo Fraser policy) which would seem to be one of many prerequisites for recovery.
Alternatively they could just keep annoying the Scots by celebrating Great Britain winning the Davis Cup instead of awarding the victory where in belongs to Scotland, Dunblane or the Murray Family.
There is a fundamental flaw in Corbyn's thinking on all of this and that is his obsession with his 'mandate'
He may have won the leadership - but the job of MPs is not to obey the will of the 'membership' (however you determine that - and under the current system, it is hard to be clear who is actually a member of the Labour Party) - they are there to represent the electors of their constituencies.
Corbyn has not really mentioned the electorate in all this. Because he knows that, given a choice, his view would be massively defeated in the ballot box.
Comments
Shrinking the State, reducing economic inactivity, free schools, are all good things that the government has done which Labour wouldn't have done.
A Shadow Cabinet for Persons, and then one including the Non-Persons.
"I've been a Tory when we were the Millwall of the political world"
That's Ukip.
I thought they were evil.
Corbyn is committed. A three libe whip is inevitable.
The difficulty with Jexit (or rather Jexplusion) is that there's no mechanism to force him out.
I would not say that losing the vote would be curtains for Dave. If he thought that was the case he wouldn't hold it. It's not essential for him.
Incidentally, is the by-election being counted overnight?
Having nowhere else to go tends to result in watching TV instead of voting.
Infantile
@Number10gov PM: Scotland is a constant source of pride and passion and helps put the Great in Great Britain. Happy #StAndrewsDay
As a free market capitalist I am the first to believe in the market's ability to sort itself out. Bad shampoo? People will buy another brand. Don't like current politics? Start a new party.
But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disaffected Lab members are watching their party being taken over by the hard left. Logically they should start a breakaway party. But neither the CLP, nor the PLP seems to be doing it (I could be wrong I don't have my ear to the ground in either).
So we are left with those disaffected members tolerating the situation or not voting.
Neither scenario sees Jezza booted out.
But, even strong brand loyalty can fade. I'd point to two long-term shifts that should worry Labour.
1. Coal-mining generated fantastic loyalty to Labour. As coal-mining ended, so did support for Labour start to fade. The process takes a couple of generations, but Labour will be in trouble in parts of Durham and South Yorkshire and South Wales before long, just as their support has vanished in ex-mining seats in the Midlands, Somerset, and Kent, where the pits closed earlier.
2. The New Towns were solid Red fifty years ago. Now, they're solid Blue.
The best way is the fastest route back to sanity for Labour.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
The analysis is typically just "Split! That would be great. Corbyn's too extreme." "But would you vote for a non-Corbyn centre-left party?" "Of course not, I'd vote Conservative."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/15/corbyn-will-win-but-he-is-popular-with-the-wrong-people-at-the-wrong-time-for-the-wrong-reasons/
I can't see that changing unless Corbyn does something so appalling that their own loyalists flinch en masse. I can't see that happening given what's being tolerated so far. Losing seats - very likely, extinction event - very unlikely.
What Kippers do will be the key factor - as the SNP did in Scotland.
Unfortunately, removing a Labour leader is more difficult than removing a Conservative one, because the rules make it tricky and the PLP are far more craven/less bloodthirsty than the PCP.
As for a Corbyn victory - I have no wish to see the Labour Party led by a 1970s throwback, a security-endangering idiot unfit for any sort of public office. Even if I had an idea of how he could achieve a majority, why would I utter it publicly? Corbyn leading the UK would be disastrous.
@LadPolitics: Who'll be the first Shadow Cabinet member to leave? Latest odds from Ladbrokes
https://t.co/3UbIozRcub https://t.co/lb21vcL4N6
I have no knowledge, but I would be extremely surprised if there hasn't been discussion about a new party. Indeed, I seem to remember reading about ideas for the 'Progressive Democrats' a few weeks ago. The SDP however is the historical example that puts people off no doubt.
As to Ed M being a Tory. Perhaps this is true as he introduced the system that has allowed tens of thousands of non-Labour people to take over the party. He was a Tory sleeper.
The power of the keyboard is right in front of you.
As for Corbyn, we need to put ourselves in his sandals.
From his perspective, he has won a landslide victory among the new, invigorated membership.
He has surrounded himself with the 1980s GLC, who are all like minded (London obsessed), and from his perspective he is just returning Labour to it's roots.
Even though his policies look more like the 2015 Green Party manifesto than the 2015 Labour one, he has decided that he should not go, but everyone else should.
It was the moderators - Kinnock, Smith, Blair - that hijacked Labour, not him. His fellow travellers see it the same way.
He will see Osborne's tax credits reverse as evidence of successful opposition, and will draw on the Iraq war as a reason to justify the non-interventionist stance on Syria.
He'll stay until he is succeeded by a younger version of himself. I wouldn't put money on this at this stage, but if he does the five years, I think Labour will go below 25%.
The council by-election outcomes in the last month or two have mainly been awful, and Labour will increasingly shrink to it's newer core.
The fact is that our government (which I have been broadly supportive of for most of the last five and a half years) has done much less to close the fiscal gap than most other countries.
If we look at the primary budget deficit*, that is the deficit before interest payments, then you see that the US has largely eliminated their deficit. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and Germany all run primary budget surpluses now. (France does not.)
Ours is still 3% of GDP. And it went backwards last year.
Considering that we are now five years into the current growth cycle, that's a bit of a problem.
We don't want to have economic cycles which leave us on an upward path of indebtedness, with each cycle's peak surpassing the last. That is not a good state to be in.
* Why primary budget deficit? Because otherwise QE and falling interest rates make you look cleverer than you are. Also primary budget deficit shows the actual impact of tax and spending decisions.
@KateVotesLabour: Official @STWuk statement, in which Paris attacks dismissed in int'l law, as just one of those 'reported attempts.' https://t.co/q6yceXQ8lv
" The Stop the War Coalition – once chaired by Mr Corbyn – launched a renewed lobbying drive to convince Labour MPs to vote against air strikes.
The group boasted of sending 40,000 messages to MPs urging them to oppose the war and promised to take to the streets in protest on the day of the vote."
Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn.
As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations.
Labour will win Oldham.
Life will go on.
To my mind, he is a blinkered politician. Unable (or unwilling) to see anything other than what he wants to see.
There isn't a sufficient concept to attract enough people to a new party to make it successful. The market would presumably be the probably 30-40% of the membership (which, ahem, is not "millions") who didn't put JC first or second. That's a bit over 100,000. What would the USP of New Social Democrats be? "We are less Tory than the Tories, less liberal than the LibDems, less green than the Greens, and less leftist than Labour." It's a thin slice of territory, and I'd guess would attract no more than 20,000 members. What it would obviously do is split the non-Tory vote and put them in for a generation, just as the SDP helped to do. Even right-wing Labour members (who do exist) don't want that.
In response to TGR, I can't see Dave resigning if he lost the Syria vote. But it's not likely to happen - even if Labour MPs rally round an amendment or whatever, he'll say it's deplorable and carry on, just as he did last time round.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339059/Ukip-evil-force-society-says-McDonnell-Shadow-Chancellor-attacked-Farage-comments-rally-ahead-Oldham-West-election.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-34922775
"It is the only way to face the climate change threat, but also the terrorism threat"
Manuel Pulgar Vidal
Chair of the previous UN climate summit (COP20) in Lima, 2014
I'm sure wind turbines will help see off Daesh.
....
TBF though, I'd feel a bit greedy if we got a Kipper win in Oldham - I've eaten more popcorn in the last 6 months than my entire life.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
And as we become more personality obsessed the brands become linked to the person. It's Cameron's Tories against Corbyn's Labour. That might be a very different choice than May's Tories vs Umunna's Labour. I'm one of those few who still see my politics as part of my identity - I'll always vote Tory no matter what - but in the latter example I'd do it with almost no enthusiasm.
If you were still in the HoC how would you vote of the Syria issue?
http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad
On the plus side I see Julian Lewis continues to advocate supporting the only moderate forces in Syria, the Syrian Arab Army. At least we can count on the Russians to continue to do the right thing.
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/over-100-russian-jet-fighters-and-a-new-brigade-are-expected-in-syria-once-shaayrat-airport-is-in-service/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12017112/Worlds-first-anti-ageing-drug-could-see-humans-live-to-120.html
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
The public can turn - if he squeezes a win and things go wrong ('cos we've always done so well in these wars before right?), then having Jeremy Corbyn standing opposite him, saying I told you so, is not how he wants to end his political career.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3338907/Too-scared-oust-Corbyn-Labour-s-moderates-party-mortal-peril.html
The Abbotess is their willing mouthpiece
*mind bleach*
But at some point, picking your mates from the park kick-about, engaging in 70's tactics where Norman Hunter is your idol, hoofing the ball up into the opponents penalty area - and getting drubbed week in, week out by a newer form of more subtle passing football - is going to take a toll.
And when they are playing in the Second Division, it will still be a year to the election.....
EDIT: I once asked a Gaelic speaking friend the translation of Donald Duck so I could respond to the SNP request for comments...
Manifesto should be limited to a few generalised objectives, the government should then govern on the principle that they are acting in the best interests of the Country as they see it while, for example, providing Free Schools.
No socialist believes that capitalism will surrender without a fight to the death. For Trots like JC, "socialism" and "government" are contradictions in terms.
Aside from the fact that the electorate tacked to the centre(-right) in this case.
No one made the case for what Lab stood for as they were all terrified of the narrative that the Cons had successfully built up. Apart from Jezza, of course. For indeed as you say that untrammeled ground is wafer thin.
Thing is, though, UK politics has coalesced around the centre ground and it is in the small differences in future that politics will be won or lost. Governments will be slightly centre-left or slightly centre-right.
Non-Jezza Lab-ites need the courage and ability to define what their flavour of centre-left politics looks like (a bit more redistribution, a wider safety net, a slightly bigger state, more owls, etc) in their own terms. They failed because they tried to set it in terms that the Cons had already defined.
Is it easy? Oh no. Can it be done without regressing back to feelgood yet impotent student politics? Yep. And Lab had better hurry because the Cons are busy claiming more centre ground (left and right) for themselves.
There's your challenge, Nick.
I fear that even in the 1950s it is difficult to argue that "the Tories" got a majority of seats in Scotland. They were divided then into three groups of candidates (Unionist, Conservative and National Liberal). Even then the best they did was in 1955 when they did get 36 out of 71 seats but with the vast bulk of winning candidates standing as "Unionists" not "Conservatives".
Interestingly when they largely ditched the old labels in favour of "Conservative" in 1964 they immediately went down to 24 seats and it has basically been downhill ever since.
All of which suggests that on this St Andrews Day wee Ruth should be making a declaration to change the name of the Party (an old Murdo Fraser policy) which would seem to be one of many prerequisites for recovery.
Alternatively they could just keep annoying the Scots by celebrating Great Britain winning the Davis Cup instead of awarding the victory where in belongs to Scotland, Dunblane or the Murray Family.
He may have won the leadership - but the job of MPs is not to obey the will of the 'membership' (however you determine that - and under the current system, it is hard to be clear who is actually a member of the Labour Party) - they are there to represent the electors of their constituencies.
Corbyn has not really mentioned the electorate in all this. Because he knows that, given a choice, his view would be massively defeated in the ballot box.
Labour MPs must look to their electorate first.
Edited extra bit: I'm only referring to the fair victory but arrogance afterwards, incidentally, not (of course) Morsi's violent/oppressive ways.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/dynamite-memo-warned-feldman-about-clarke-in-summer-2014/