Labour Leadership 2016

I don't understand why it isn't clear to everyone that Corbyn needs to go.

Yes he is popular with the party membership and I understand why - he's a man of principle, actually left wing, a conviction politician, not a personality. That's all great, but he is clearly not a born leader, is not delivering an effective opposition by any objective measure and because of his principles is unelectable to the majority of the electorate.

Britain is not a left wing country - if this wasn't clear before it has become patently clear in recent years. The Labour party is not a political plaything for the left wing middle classes and young people. It's not a campaigning or protest organisation. It's primary purpose is to return the Labour party to government so it can make the country a better place. Corbyn is not going to do that and allowing him to remain in place so the Tories can destroy the country for even longer is inexcusable.

The other very good reason he should go is there is some real talent in the Labour party among younger politicians. I'm fed up with ex-Blairites, ex-Brownites and Labour politicians (like Corbyn) who've been around since the ark. The younger talent needs to be given a chance to rise to the top and they should move out of the way to allow this to happen.

I did the same, but I actually think, despite myself, that I am leaning towards the lying deceitfuls

That all sounds reasonable. I'm not really in a position to judge his electability and that's what the key argument is based on. I guess I'm wary of where the truth is and there just seems to be a lot of people on both sides saying he is, he isn't. It's not really a truth as such since it's a prediction, but you know what I mean.

The second problem is I would be a lot more comfortable with him going if there were some positive alternatives being proposed. Real young Labour talent sounds great. Let's see them!

have the party ever given him the chance or did they start back biting / briefing / leaking the moment he was elected

I don't understand why it isn't clear to everyone that Corbyn needs to go.
Britain is not a left wing country

Because some of us want to change that. And to achieve that we have democracy, which is what got Corbyn where he is. I will be voting for him if contested because he represents what I want.

It sounds you would be happier if the Labour Party had lost the 2-300 seats forecast by the 'media' in the recent Local Elections.

If Britain is not a left wing country, despite health and education being (broadly) free at the point of use, what policies do you wish this new post-Socialist LP to espouse,
as Tory-lite failed in 2010 and 2015.

radio 4 trade unionist just said the divisions in the labour party were due to the plp policies over the last 20 years
it's those policies that have caused a disconnect with their core voters

#bliar

You can shift where the centre is but you'll never fundamentally change beliefs. Left and right is kind of an outdated concept of course, Britain is much more socially liberal than it was across the political spectrum, for example.

The reality is that if Corbyn wins again you'll get what you want but you're condemning Britain to years more of Tory government. I think that's selfish.

Trade Unionists have probably caused more division in the PLP over the years than just about anyone...

Call Blair a liar all you like but unlike Corbyn he realised that if you want to make people's lives better you need power, so you need to make yourself electable.

as Tory-lite failed in 2010 and 2015

Less because of policies I think and more because in 2010 the public had lost faith in Gordon Brown and in 2015 because they never really had any faith in Milliband. Just shows the importance of strong leadership.

Voting for a fairer system, better wealth distribution and better services is not selfish. Ridiculous statement.

Osborne is abandoning "the surplus" by 2020. They're gona time this just right and it will be the nail in Labour's coffin.

but he is clearly not a born leader, is not delivering an effective opposition by any objective measure and because of his principles is unelectable to the majority of the electorate.

This sort of thing is frequently asserted in the media. I believe the correct response is 'citation needed'.
Just because something is endlessly repeated doesn't make it true.

The premise that Corbyn has been ineffective can't go unchallenged. How can someone be effective if half his MPs are actively working against him. Briefing against him and apparently plotting. Genuine question.

No it's not, but voting for a leader and movement who are never going to achieve power is.

It's like I said: the Labour party isn't a political plaything for the left wing. It's not a toy or a home for lost causes. It's supposed to be the main opposition party which is trying to get back into government. To do that it needs to be electable.

Corbyn should resign and let Labour appoint a leader who actually wants to be Prime Minister. Not doing so is selfish and prolonging his leadership is too.

I don't understand why it isn't clear to everyone that Corbyn needs to go.

I struggle with this as well; it seems very clear to me despite the fact that I personally agree with the vast majority of what Corbyn believes in and says (though he does seem a bit, you know, useless at the leadership bit).

People seem to insist that he has to stay because of his majority support amongst party members, but that's not at all the same thing as having support amongst Labour voters and potential voters - Labour party members are a small subset of those people.

See, if you, and enough of the others vote for him, he will achieve power. So who's being selfish?

I'm against this "should be trying to get into government at whatever cost" nonsense, we'll just get the same swing back and forth. I want change.

As for the "Not wanting to be prime minister" I don't blame him, it's a horrible job, and if Rupert doesn't like you it's even worse! That doesn't mean he wouldn't do it, though. Afterall, he was reluctant to stand for Labour leader, but here he is....

The next election will be fought on our relationship with Europe. Corbyn has already shown his ambivalence towards the EU, and for that reason alone he should step aside.

Austerity is bonkers. You say the analogy to household finance is relateable, but it's just wrong. Somehow we have to get more of the electorate economically literate. Economists almost universally consider Osborne's austerity programme to be a bad idea in the circumstances. Indeed his most recent pronouncements suggests he is starting to get this himself. You really can't criticise Corbyn from the position of having accepted Tory myths about the economy as the PLP has done. My support for Corbyn and McDonnell is largely down to them having the clearest understanding of the economic arguments and the right policies for prosperity. Lots of reading out there, this is a decent start... http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/04/economic-consequences-george-osborne-covering-austerity-mistake

For anyone who heard AQ last night Labour's problems were displayed for all to see.

There was a very aggressive exchange between Caroline Flint and Matt Wrack at about 30min in (former Labour Minister and General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union respectively) where each proceeded to attack the other over Corbyn.

Flint said, The Labour Party is not a badge you wear on your jacket. It is a shield to protect the interests of ordinary men and women. And went on to reiterate what many others, including @Fox, have said that he is standing in the way of Labour winning an election; so he should be challenged for leadership.

Matt countered that Corbyn should stay as he won, with the largest margin, stating he is the victim of a very long, co-ordinated campaign by right and left, by those who never supported him to get rid of him. Furthermore that when Cameron told him 'For heaven's sake man, go!' that showed the political establishment and the media, not just individuals, are against him because he represents democracy and change.

But under the surface it was clear that this was not the real issue and next Flint seemed offended that she was being called the political establishment when her background is anything but. Proceeding to attack Matt and Corbyn's position again with much emotion that the future is lost with Corbyn at the top.

The result was, Graham Brady MP saying that he welcomed this unfolding discourse as it makes the Conservative Party seem a haven of tranquillity despite their own internal battles. Going on to say that Corbyn is a hopeless leader of the opposition and he needs to go as good opposition makes for better government.

That for me really highlighted the underlying issue, those who support Labour want the Party to be theirs but there are two distinct sides of support. The Party as competitive opposition to the Tories vs The Party as the representation of democracy. The problem is, UK Labour Party is the only political Labour movement in Europe that hasn't split permanently into two factions and this is unlikely to happen as both sides have lifetimes invested in it and the values it represents.

For people who agree on so much, the rift is so much more aggravated (like Christians and Jews perhaps?) I condemn those who expressed no confidence at such a critical time as they did not have an alternative or an agenda but acted on long standing disagreement with the leadership result last summer, this has been more damaging than the claims of Corbyn being unelectable as it has showed everyone in full public view that they can't even organise where people sit on benches let alone run a country. If Corbyn has to go then do it quietly, to save face, to maintain credibility, to remain The Opposition.

Everyday since last week there should have been condemnation from a unified Labour Party against Cameron's actions and the final result. In The Public's eye it appears that the Labour Party is more concerned about who sits opposite The PM than the state of the country in the hands of the Tories after they have possibly removed us from The EU, The Single Market and potentially even The UK.

The reality is that if Corbyn wins again you'll get what you want but you're condemning Britain to years more of Tory government.

How do you *know* this? I'm not disputing, I'm trying to understand. I'm not sure. It's in the future, how can you be so sure?

I don't know if Britain is or could be left wing but would it be so far stretched to ask people to support social welfare and healthcare?

I could google it but I'm guessing you're likely to know - when the NHS was founded did it have popular support (amongst people/voters not just politicians)?

Everyday since last week there should have been condemnation from a unified Labour Party against Cameron's actions and the final result. In The Public's eye it appears that the Labour Party is more concerned about who sits opposite The PM than the state of the country in the hands of the Tories after they have possibly removed us from The EU, The Single Market and potentially even The UK.>

Thanks, interesting post.
This bit^ resonates.

Regardless of who leads, The Labour Party has to have a firm policy to lower immigration if it wants to win a general election. Nobody is making any move towards this and meanwhile the swift moves amongst Tories has seen clear statements about future immigration policies which gives the impression they are responsible, competent and are satisfying the will of the people.

I fear that when a policy does come from Labour it will be too late and the electorate will have taken a stand behind May (or Gove?! That is somehow a real possibility), the arguments amongst themselves over conflicts with ideology will have condemned them, not who their leader is.

Why (genuine question) not raise the minimum wage and enforce it?

Immigration is a symptom, it's not the cause of the "there are no jobs" issue, it's Polish/etc people doing jobs (zero hours/borderline or actually illegal pay) that UKers don't want to do.

Level the playing field and you remove the attraction for the immigrants targeting the unskilled end of the labour market.

I recently had the 'pleasure' of hearing some local shop owners bitching about the new minimum wage. They were complaining about a price raise of twenty pence for their unskilled shop workers, who they lay off before two years are over because they didn't want to give them decent employment benefits. Apparently, they can't get people who work hard - which is not a big surprise, listening to these copper-bottomed cunts moan on.

These are the sort of copper-bottoms that line the pockets of the Tory party though, so don't expect a level playing field anytime soon.