Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In Labour’s entire history just one general election winnin

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In Labour’s entire history just one general election winning leader was the choice of the membership

Looking at the current gulf between the Parliamentary Labour Party and its leader it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that party members had no say whatsoever in leadership elections until after the 1983 general election when the party, under Michael Foot, went down to its biggest defeat.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 80,943
    edited January 2016
    Labour MPs also gave us Gordon Brown without a contest.

    My normally apolitical friend said yesterday, Labour under Corbyn are fecked aren't they.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Oh, that's what 3 quidder means - I hate getting references wrong lol
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    If the MPs hadn't been so anxious to show how inclusive and pluralistic they were, there wouldn't have been a problem either.

    Or if Gordon Brown hadn't metaphorically strangled every vaguely talented centre-left politician so everyone with a brain swiftly went elsewhere.

    Or if the membership had bothered to do some research in their copies of the Morning Star...

    It's a bit like the Titanic. What's depressing is not just that it happened, but how many things went wrong along the way that overcame every normal safeguard to make the entire gargantuan disaster possible.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited January 2016
    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    Incidentally, the South African over rate is absolutely shocking. We're at the scheduled close and there are still 10 overs left. At this rate, Amla will be banned and the captaincy decision made for him.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OT FPT Sky have a headline that states Extreme Sports are dangerous
  • JenSJenS Posts: 82
    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Well quite. Corbyn is one of many brain farts by Labour MPs and members - they couldn't be saved from themselves.
    ydoethur said:

    If the MPs hadn't been so anxious to show how inclusive and pluralistic they were, there wouldn't have been a problem either.

    Or if Gordon Brown hadn't metaphorically strangled every vaguely talented centre-left politician so everyone with a brain swiftly went elsewhere.

    Or if the membership had bothered to do some research in their copies of the Morning Star...

    It's a bit like the Titanic. What's depressing is not just that it happened, but how many things went wrong along the way that overcame every normal safeguard to make the entire gargantuan disaster possible.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited January 2016
    Jezzorists..Jezhadis..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Is Harris (in the tweet) suggesting that the time limit was bent to allow Corbyn to get the required number?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    Corbyn is entirely the fault of the MPs who didn't understand their new system, his election as leader is Ed's legacy.

    It's worth reiterating that Tony Blair was the only electable Labour MP of the last 40 years. Loads of 'PB Tories' like myself voted for him. Until Labour can find someone equally electable they won't be winning anything. Not that they seem to care too much at the moment.

    It can't be long before the electable centrist careerists among the MPs - those who went into politics to win power and change things - realise that the current Labour Party isn't theirs any more.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited January 2016
    :+1: Apart from sucking up to Hamas et al.
    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,908
    I don't have a problem with the idea that the choice of party members should be the primary factor in choosing a leader, and that as broad a choice as possible should be offered to those members as a result. It doesn't guarantee a decent leader, but the members get the widest possible choice and influence, which some will think is the most important thing.

    The problem is that the party's rules included a very high nomination limit for what the party presumably thought was a good reason, and in part to screen the choices to be presented to the members (in an alternate fashion to the Tory's not even offering a member vote until the MPs have narrowed it down to the final two). So by ignoring the 35MP rule (in spirit anyway), MPs were essentially saying their own leadership contest rules were stupid. And if they felt that, why did they include that aspect in the first place?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    edited January 2016
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally, the South African over rate is absolutely shocking. We're at the scheduled close and there are still 10 overs left. At this rate, Amla will be banned and the captaincy decision made for him.

    17 runs from that over - maybe Ben Stokes likes playing in the dark!
    Edit: that was the first over of the new ball as well, unlucky for bowler Chris Morris
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    edited January 2016

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Dodd, that's easily beatable.

    A few years ago, an ITV chap helpfully informed us that avalanches rush downhill, powered by gravity. Even better, Richard Bilton (a BBC chap who once asked a Greek fireman whether the nearby forest fire was dangerous, and the mother of the Liverpudlian boy who got shot in crossfire whether she'd been affected 'that much' when she said in an interview the family was to move house) a few months ago, reporting on the migrant crisis, helpfully described the Mediterranean as a large expanse of water.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,004
    Corbyn would probably still have won under the old electoral college given how strong his s7pport was among unions and members, though not on the first round.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Herdson, would he have been nominated?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,433
    edited January 2016
    ydoethur said:

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
    Will historians look back on the 2015 GE and declare that Cameron won a "working majority"?

    My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Damning dose of reality, great summary.
    ydoethur said:

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Ears, also worth considering that the opposition is far more fragmented than it was in 1992, which can only help the Conservatives.
  • Is Harris (in the tweet) suggesting that the time limit was bent to allow Corbyn to get the required number?

    I think he's alluding to the sympathy nominations Corbyn received, to widen the debate.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    The electoral college didn't really change did it??? other than the 3 quid thing.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IMO there's no doubt Corbyn will do very badly in the May elections. The only question is whether anyone can find a way to remove him afterwards.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Eagles, ah. Well, that was MPs being bloody fools. Complaining about that is like the Romans complaining of 'Punic faith' when Hannibal cruelly used things like tactics and cunning in warfare.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    Those MPs who decided to nominate Corbo but publicly declared they supported another candidate should be expelled from the Labour Party when Corbyn is eventually removed.

    In the meantime, they should be knighted for services to Britain.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    ydoethur said:

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
    Yes, Labour supporters who subscribe to the "Blair was really a Tory" stuff are effectively asserting that their party has had no electoral success since colour TV came in. (Well, '74 I suppose.)
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :lol:
    Mortimer said:

    Those MPs who decided to nominate Corbo but publicly declared they supported another candidate should be expelled from the Labour Party when Corbyn is eventually removed.

    In the meantime, they should be knighted for services to Britain.

  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    edited January 2016
    I think given that the members votes pretty matched the supporters vote that I'm going to have to hold firm and say the electoral college didn't actually affect things.
  • JBriskin said:

    The electoral college didn't really change did it??? other than the 3 quid thing.

    MPs votes was 1/3 of the vote under the old system, now the only influence they have is who gets nominated.

    Allah bless Eric Joyce for getting pissed that night, punching some Tories, Unite trying to rig the Falkirk selection and Ed Miliband for giving us this new electoral system.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JBriskin said:

    I think given that the members votes pretty matched the supporters vote that I'm going to have to hold firm and say the electoral college didn't actually affect things.

    Under the electoral college MPs had one third of the votes!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,154
    The same is true of the Conservatives, and even David Cameron took two bites of the cherry to win an overall majority. Political party members are basically weird.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    Random anecdote alert: over Christmas excess, discussion turned to Corbyn. In the other half's family home, not known for being that politically engaged, but pretty centrist Tory, there was genuine fear of Corbo and his Trotness. Turnout is going to be high in even safe Tory seats next time around. Above 70%?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Soz - I thought MPs were still getting 1/3 votes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Meeks, Cameron had a huge electoral deficit to climb.

    Scotland's interesting, because it's an area of potential red resurgence, but the possibility of the blues gaining many seats there is remote.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    It's still done in 1/3s though isn't it though???? I'll stop now - clearly not informed enough.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Briskin, those seeking to make the short list had to get the backing of X MPs (35, I think). After that, everyone (full members, MPs, union affiliates and £3 jesters) had one vote, and Corbyn won that vote by a mile.

    In ye olden days, when Ed Miliband won, the membership, unions and MPs each had a third of the voting weight each, so MPs had a proportionately far heavier weight than they do now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    edited January 2016



    Will historians look back on the 2015 GE and declare that Cameron won a "working majority"?

    My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.

    That is a good point. There is however a clear answer - a working majority changes over time because what you are likely to require changes over time. In 1900, there were roughly 15 by-elections every year, and therefore (although a lot of them were unopposed) a fairly large majority could vanish rapidly if the government were unpopular (e.g. Balfour's majority went from 134 in 1902 to around 70 in 1905, and the remainder of the Unionists were split three ways as well).

    To take a more modern example, in 1992 John Major had a majority somewhat larger than Cameron's official figure of 12 (21, if I remember rightly). However, the average age of his MPs was around 60. Therefore, simply via natural causes, it was likely that 21 would not be enough to last five years - as indeed it was not, with the Conservatives losing 10 seats through by-elections (and two via defections) before 1997.

    Since then, the average age of Conservative MPs has dropped dramatically, helped by the fact they spent a long time out of power (therefore more work for less kudos) and a number of time-servers were cleared out in 1997 anyway. In fact, I think only one Conservative MP has died since 2005: Eric Forth in 2006. Therefore, while Major lost an average of 4-5 MPs a year in the 1997 Parliament, Cameron would be unlucky to lose more than 2-3 across the whole of it.

    Even allowing for that, the Conservatives have a much better recent record at by-elections than they did in the 1990s (where they didn't win one from 1989 until Uxbridge in 1997). So it would not be unreasonable to expect any bereavements to not affect their majority.

    Defections might also be a problem, as they were for Major - but can anyone honestly see any MPs joining Labour or the Liberal Democrats, or now joining UKIP following Reckless' demise?

    So although on paper this is less than a 'working majority', in practice I think it's the equivalent of a 1970s majority of around 40.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited January 2016
    MD Beat this one.. I once filmed a reporter interviewing a woman for the usual Christmas sob story....she had lost both her husband and her two legs in a horrific car accident the previous Christmas..."What do you do for kicks these days"...yowza
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited January 2016
    Something oddly forgotten by pundits and PBers.

    Mr. Meek, Cameron had a huge electoral deficit to climb.

    Scotland's interesting, because it's an area of potential red resurgence, but the possibility of the blues gaining many seats there is remote.

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380

    Mr. Briskin, those seeking to make the short list had to get the backing of X MPs (35, I think). After that, everyone (full members, MPs, union affiliates and £3 jesters) had one vote, and Corbyn won that vote by a mile.

    In ye olden days, when Ed Miliband won, the membership, unions and MPs each had a third of the voting weight each, so MPs had a proportionately far heavier weight than they do now.

    Got ya.

    One member and/or jester one Vote!!!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    ydoethur said:



    Will historians look back on the 2015 GE and declare that Cameron won a "working majority"?

    My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.

    That is a good point. There is however a clear answer - a working majority changes over time because what you are likely to require changes over time. In 1900, there were roughly 15 by-elections every year, and therefore (although a lot of them were unopposed) a fairly large majority could vanish rapidly if the government were unpopular (e.g. Balfour's majority went from 134 in 1902 to around 70 in 1905, and the remainder of the Unionists were split three ways as well).

    To take a more modern example, in 1992 John Major had a majority somewhat larger than Cameron's official figure of 12 (21, if I remember rightly). However, the average age of his MPs was around 60. Therefore, simply via natural causes, it was likely that 21 would not be enough to last five years - as indeed it was not, with the Conservatives losing 10 seats through by-elections (and two via defections) before 1997.

    Since then, the average age of Conservative MPs has dropped dramatically, helped by the fact they spent a long time out of power (therefore more work for less kudos) and a number of time-servers were cleared out in 1997 anyway. In fact, I think only one Conservative MP has died since 2005: Eric Forth in 2006. Therefore, while Major lost an average of 4-5 MPs a year in the 1997 Parliament, Cameron would be unlucky to lose more than 2-3 across the whole of it.

    Even allowing for that, the Conservatives have a much better recent record at by-elections than they did in the 1990s (where they didn't win one from 1989 until Uxbridge in 1997). So it would not be unreasonable to expect any bereavements to not affect their majority.

    Defections might also be a problem, as they were for Major - but can anyone honestly see any MPs joining Labour or the Liberal Democrats, or now joining UKIP following Reckless' demise?

    So although on paper this is less than a 'working majority', in practice I think it's the equivalent of a 1970s majority of around 40.
    Give that man a Geoffrey!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    JBriskin said:

    It's still done in 1/3s though isn't it though???? I'll stop now - clearly not informed enough.

    Nope! It was one vote per person, whether they were an MP, a Party member, a Union member or a three-quidder. All counted together with no weighting.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Something oddly forgotten by pundits and PBers.

    Mr. Meek, Cameron had a huge electoral deficit to climb.

    Scotland's interesting, because it's an area of potential red resurgence, but the possibility of the blues gaining many seats there is remote.

    If I remember correctly, when Cameron won the leadership there was a lot of talk of a two election strategy. That disappeared after the crash but it really shouldn't have.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    Nice little partnership of 94 there to end the day. Now, if they and Moeen can only add about another 125 tomorrow you would feel England are in a good position.

    I still think though that 223-5 is not very impressive on a flat pitch on a hot day against a novice attack when you've won the toss. Kudos to Stokes and Bairstow for digging us out of that hole.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    edited January 2016
    Stumps, day 1 and England in control thanks to an unbroken 94 partnership for the sixth wicket between Stokes and Bairstow at more than 5 an over. 317/5.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,028
    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    It shows just how much of a state the Labour Party are in; IDS was far more electable and better at leading his own party than Corbyn is.

    Plumbing new depths!
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Yes, that's a good point. Much as I despair of those people they are numerous, as you say, and mostly well-meaning (could I be any more patronising?)

    I think many of them are going to be very disillusioned. Not sure how it will play out though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,971
    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Happy New Year everyone!

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    To really see how dire the Labour position is, to take one example, there's an article in this month's Fabian magazine about UKIP in the North and the number of 2nd places. Sobering reading for Labour members.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Jonathan, a lot of people are enthusiastic about UKIP as well. If the noisy enthusiasts put off floating voters, that doesn't bode well.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    Wanderer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Yes, that's a good point. Much as I despair of those people they are numerous, as you say, and mostly well-meaning (could I be any more patronising?)

    I think many of them are going to be very disillusioned. Not sure how it will play out though.
    If they really do become disillusioned after Corbo's demise, Labour can add the following groups to their ex voters:

    Islington upper mc public sector workers
    The right on brigade
    Greenies

    Which begs the question - who would be left?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594

    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Happy New Year everyone!

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    To really see how dire the Labour position is, to take one example, there's an article in this month's Fabian magazine about UKIP in the North and the number of 2nd places. Sobering reading for Labour members.
    I wonder if as well the sheer passion of his supporters might mean people pay lip service to him and his 'new politics' for a quiet life when really thinking something else.

    For example, in the staff room at school there is only one person who actually admires Corbyn, but he REALLY admires him. Thinks he is unfairly treated by the media and will be the one to break the mould of machine politicians. Now, this is obviously not true. But as we all actually like this guy and don't want to argue with him, we will nod and smile, and just feel sorry for the horrendous reality check awaiting him at some point when he's talking about Corbyn.

    I appreciate that's purely anecdotal. But if, on another level, the price of dissenting from Corbyn is a death threat - well, it takes real courage to stand out against bullying like that.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,562
    edited January 2016
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Happy New Year everyone!

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    To really see how dire the Labour position is, to take one example, there's an article in this month's Fabian magazine about UKIP in the North and the number of 2nd places. Sobering reading for Labour members.
    I wonder if as well the sheer passion of his supporters might mean people pay lip service to him and his 'new politics' for a quiet life when really thinking something else.

    For example, in the staff room at school there is only one person who actually admires Corbyn, but he REALLY admires him. Thinks he is unfairly treated by the media and will be the one to break the mould of machine politicians. Now, this is obviously not true. But as we all actually like this guy and don't want to argue with him, we will nod and smile, and just feel sorry for the horrendous reality check awaiting him at some point when he's talking about Corbyn.

    I appreciate that's purely anecdotal. But if, on another level, the price of dissenting from Corbyn is a death threat - well, it takes real courage to stand out against bullying like that.
    Indeed. Opposing Socialism is hard; it often leads to other evils.

    The best way is to simply avoid socialism getting its tentacles on any form of power.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,028
    edited January 2016

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    On that point, your assumption is wrong. My local CLP (Horsham, W. Sussex) has seen it's membership swell. They are out campaigning in Dec/Jan on sensible local issues (living wage and the quality of the rail franchise) and getting a good reception and press.

    Now one may argue that this doesn't make a difference in the face of the general positioning of the party, the backstory of the current leadership and various splits, but the enthusiasm is real for many.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,971
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Happy New Year everyone!

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    To really see how dire the Labour position is, to take one example, there's an article in this month's Fabian magazine about UKIP in the North and the number of 2nd places. Sobering reading for Labour members.
    I wonder if as well the sheer passion of his supporters might mean people pay lip service to him and his 'new politics' for a quiet life when really thinking something else.

    For example, in the staff room at school there is only one person who actually admires Corbyn, but he REALLY admires him. Thinks he is unfairly treated by the media and will be the one to break the mould of machine politicians. Now, this is obviously not true. But as we all actually like this guy and don't want to argue with him, we will nod and smile, and just feel sorry for the horrendous reality check awaiting him at some point when he's talking about Corbyn.

    I appreciate that's purely anecdotal. But if, on another level, the price of dissenting from Corbyn is a death threat - well, it takes real courage to stand out against bullying like that.
    Interesting point. I had a similar experience a couple of weeks ago. A passionate, Corbyn Labour rejoiner friend was over at our house. When it came to discussing the man himself, I muttered something about not quite being a fan and being a bit worried about his stamina for the job, rather than letting rip with both my barrels.
  • ydoethur said:

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
    NAUGHT BUT PB TORY PROPAGANDA! :lol:


    :lol::lol::lol:
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,690
    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,971
    Jonathan said:

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    On that point, your assumption is wrong. My local CLP (Horsham, W. Sussex) has seen it's membership swell. They are out campaigning in Dec/Jan on sensible local issues (living wage and the quality of the rail franchise) and getting a good reception and press.

    Now one may argue that this doesn't make a difference in the face of the general positioning of the party, the backstory of the current leadership and various splits, but the enthusiasm is real for many.
    Ok, fair enough, I defer to your on-the-ground experience Jonathan. Be interesting to see if this is happening in other southern seats.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    Jonathan said:

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    On that point, your assumption is wrong. My local CLP (Horsham, W. Sussex) has seen it's membership swell. They are out campaigning in Dec/Jan on sensible local issues (living wage and the quality of the rail franchise) and getting a good reception and press.

    Now one may argue that this doesn't make a difference in the face of the general positioning of the party, the backstory of the current leadership and various splits, but the enthusiasm is real for many.
    A rather interesting Fabian article on the subject of changing patterns of membership, where it is coming in and what the implications are is here:

    http://www.fabians.org.uk/labour-party-membership-is-shifting-and-it-matters/

    This is in line with what you have seen regarding Horsham, but leaves some very awkward problems for Labour if it is equally accurate elsewhere - not least, it would leave them vulnerable to UKIP or even the Conservatives in the north-east.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 22,257
    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    Is it not an enthusiasm just for being different, or even for providing good sport in the dull game of politics, rather than enthusiasm which might translate into (or already is) a belief that he can lead a party of government?

    There is plenty of enthusiasm for Boris, and George Galloway, and Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump.

    This is not to say that any of them should or will get their hands on power.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,971
    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Interesting. But the problem for Corbyn is that he has surrounded himself with "scheming Trotskyists", or in Milne's case, Stalinists.
  • Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Gandhi, not Ghandi!
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    inb4 eveyone says they're INTJ
  • Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS never ever lost a General Election as leader!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Hard to argue against Corbyn being an NF (an Idealist).

    ENTJs are also pretty rare, from memory.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2016
    ''That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.''

    Writing like this would be considered preposterous in even the most clickbaity trot Guardian article.

    Quite breathtakingly other worldly.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Why do some bookmakers leave a political market suspended from anywhere between a couple of days to half a month?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    Jonathan said:

    Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.

    On that point, your assumption is wrong. My local CLP (Horsham, W. Sussex) has seen it's membership swell. They are out campaigning in Dec/Jan on sensible local issues (living wage and the quality of the rail franchise) and getting a good reception and press.

    Now one may argue that this doesn't make a difference in the face of the general positioning of the party, the backstory of the current leadership and various splits, but the enthusiasm is real for many.
    Good local anecdote. If the local Labour parties can campaign on local issues and keep the civil war private, then they may well surprise on the upside in the local elections. It's a big ask though, given that the previous election in these councils was Ed's high watermark of 2012.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,690

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Gandhi, not Ghandi!
    My dxsleyia showing!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,690
    taffys said:

    ''That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.''

    Writing like this would be considered preposterous in even the most clickbaity trot Guardian article.

    Quite breathtakingly other worldly.

    I'm an NF idealist too. ENFJ
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    The key difference with IDS was that it was easy to get rid of him when the Tories realised he was a dud. There are clear rules for triggering a vote of confidence, and clear rules for what happens next. If IDS had won, he remained leader - if he lost, there was a leadership election he could not stand in. That made his continuing grassroots popularity (yes, he would probably have beaten Ken Clarke again) an irrelevance.

    It is Labour's failure to have such a straightforward mechanism that is causing them angst now. If they had one, Corbyn would have gone already. But the only way to remove him is to mount a leadership challenge at the party conference - which everyone knows he would win. Even if Hyufd was right and Corbyn would have to be nominated to stand in that election, he would still be nominated and he would still win.

    Basically, Labour are stuck with him unless he chooses to resign, and it's hard to see what would cause him to do so short of a major personal scandal.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Barnesian, but hopefully you're not as daft as Corbyn.

    A man unhappy about shooting suicide bombers dead and who wants to negotiate with Daesh crosses from idealism into the realm of appeasement, cowardice and pipe dreaming.
  • Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Gandhi, not Ghandi!
    My dxsleyia showing!
    Branesian! :lol:
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,690

    Hard to argue against Corbyn being an NF (an Idealist).

    ENTJs are also pretty rare, from memory.

    2%
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Jonathan said:

    Labour is an interesting position. Not sure how it will play out. Imagine it will get worse before it gets better.

    One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.

    It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.

    "genuinely large"? Measured in terms of noise or new old Labour membership, maybe, but hardly electorially I suspect. But I do agree that to dismiss the Corbynista clique would be foolhardy.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,993
    MP_SE said:

    Why do some bookmakers leave a political market suspended from anywhere between a couple of days to half a month?

    Hills ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    It's even more mind-blowing to think that he was still polling somewhat ahead of Corbyn!
  • Barnesian said:

    Hard to argue against Corbyn being an NF (an Idealist).

    ENTJs are also pretty rare, from memory.

    2%
    2%? Similar to the number of people who can spontaneously enter trance-like states, without the need of psychotropic substances.

    Fascinating!
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312


    ydoethur said:

    If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?

    John Smith still died.

    What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).

    With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.

    Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.

    To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).

    A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
    NAUGHT BUT PB TORY PROPAGANDA! :lol:


    :lol::lol::lol:
    But based on truths?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594

    Barnesian said:

    Hard to argue against Corbyn being an NF (an Idealist).

    ENTJs are also pretty rare, from memory.

    2%
    2%? Similar to the number of people who can spontaneously enter trance-like states, without the need of psychotropic substances.

    Fascinating!
    There are so many jokes could be made on those lines... :wink:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    edited January 2016
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    Wasn't IDS only elected because the Tory MPs screwed up and gave the membership the choice of IDS or Ken Clarke - who in the opinion of the members at the time would have happily partnered with Tory Blair to have us join the Euro?
  • Labour's problem is not that its members choose its leader but that its members prefer their principles to power. Getting JC - or any other member of Labour's Left - to explain why they are socialists rather than anarchists could be very enlightening. Or rather, the enlightenment would lie in their declining to provide such an explanation.

    JC was elected by and for people who don't want to do politics - who do not intend to sacrifice any of their principles, however peripheral, for the pursuit and retention of power.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Ghandi is obviously his sartorial style guru although he sensibly keeps his socks on.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,004

    Mr. Herdson, would he [Corbyn] have been nominated?

    The old threshold was lower than the current one so presumably he would, though he'd likely still have needed loaned support. However, MPs would have been even more confident about him not winning given their one-third Electoral College share. Unfortunately for them, his share among members and unions would probably have been so high as to push him over the line all the same, though it would have been close and gone down to the final round.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,197
    It's a bit anecdotal, frankly. Members have had a say 4 times (Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Corbyn). Kinnock did reasonably well from a crap starting position but lost. Smith would almost certainly have won but died. Blair won. Not sure one can conclude anything from it.

    Moreover, as others have pointed out, the record of leaders chosen in other ways isn't overwhelming. Nor is there any decisive reason why the people who happen to be MPs (for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily political acumen) should get to decide who leads the movement.

    On the enthusiasm for Corbyn, it's certainly there, and nothing much to do with just being different or livening things up. Most of my political circle think he's the most refreshing, positive thing that's happened in politics for decades, including most of the Labour-leaning people I know in marginal Broxtowe, some of whom didn't vote for me and went Green or LibDem as they were so bored by Labour's offer. Note that this doesn't necessarily extend to every left-winger.

    But of course there's a much stronger anti-Corbyn vote than opposition leaders usually get. So it comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time. If the MPs had prevented us having the choice that most of us actually wanted, that would IMO have been a stitch-up.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.

    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    Wasn't IDS only elected because the Tory MPs screwed up and gave the membership the choice of IDS or Ken Clarke - who in the opinion of the members at the time would have happily joined with Tory Blair to have us in the Euro?
    According to some accounts IDS's supporters lent votes to Clarke to keep out Portillo who they really feared.

    I've also read speculation that Portillo was so disillusioned with not getting stronger backing from MPs that he may have voted against himself in the last round. Certainly the story of that election was Portillo falling flat.
  • Sandpit said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    Wasn't IDS only elected because the Tory MPs screwed up and gave the membership the choice of IDS or Ken Clarke - who in the opinion of the members at the time would have happily partnered with Tory Blair to have us join the Euro?
    I was a member at that time and thought exactly like that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,004
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    He wasn't. That IDS happened to be IDS was beside the point. He was the not-Portillo/not-Clarke candidate.

    The one advantage the Tories had (and have) over Labour is the leader ejection mechanism. It was possible to elect IDS (or risk electing him) in order to stop the other two in the knowledge that if he proved successful then the party could run with him through to 2005/6, but if he didn't then he could easily be dumped and a fourth option - Howard, as it turned out - elected in his place.

    Labour has no such simple ejection process.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    It's a bit anecdotal, frankly. Members have had a say 4 times (Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Corbyn). Kinnock did reasonably well from a crap starting position but lost. Smith would almost certainly have won but died. Blair won. Not sure one can conclude anything from it.

    Moreover, as others have pointed out, the record of leaders chosen in other ways isn't overwhelming. Nor is there any decisive reason why the people who happen to be MPs (for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily political acumen) should get to decide who leads the movement.

    On the enthusiasm for Corbyn, it's certainly there, and nothing much to do with just being different or livening things up. Most of my political circle think he's the most refreshing, positive thing that's happened in politics for decades, including most of the Labour-leaning people I know in marginal Broxtowe, some of whom didn't vote for me and went Green or LibDem as they were so bored by Labour's offer. Note that this doesn't necessarily extend to every left-winger.

    But of course there's a much stronger anti-Corbyn vote than opposition leaders usually get. So it comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time. If the MPs had prevented us having the choice that most of us actually wanted, that would IMO have been a stitch-up.

    It would have been a stitch-up if some of them hadn't nominated a candidate they didn't want to win?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Those of us with BBC Alba (arf) available will have-

    wait for it-

    Alloa Vs Falkirk (snork) live pretty soon.

    Not even joking. I'll probs put it on in the background
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,594
    edited January 2016

    It comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time.

    I still have trouble understanding the mentality of a politician who could write that. Perhaps if the others had been card-carrying members of the SA, it would make sense. But the reality is that you had a choice between three candidates on the centre-left who gave you a chance to win an election in the foreseeable future and one who looked like a refugee from Brezhnev's Communist Party, and who would make it impossible for you to win an election in the said foreseeable future.

    In a church, or a campaigning group, or even a Rotary club you might choose that fourth candidate who guarantees ideological purity. But for a political party to be any use at all, it has to aim for power (this is what trapped the Liberal Democrats in 2010). Labour are the second-largest party in the House of Commons and the most electorally successful party of the last 25 years at all levels. You were certainly not out of contention for power. But then, you decided as a group that you didn't care about power, only about how you felt other people saw you. And you chose the candidate you thought would do that for you.

    The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.

    This has been the most grotesque and pointless act of political seppuku since the Judean People's Front. And that was at least quite funny.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.

    The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
    I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.

    Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
    IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
    I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
    Quite, but he wasn't allowed to stay. Had he been allowed to do so it is conjectural in the extreme to speculate on whether that would have been worse for the Tories than Jehadi Jez being allowed to stay for any length of time would be for new old Labour. At present it does seem that JJ will be allowed to determine his own fate. But then that's new old Labour democracy for you.
  • Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.

    Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Gandhi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Gandhi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Ghandi is obviously his sartorial style guru although he sensibly keeps his socks on.
    Gandhi, not Ghandi!
This discussion has been closed.