Labour Leadership 2016

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 Left and right is kind of an outdated concept of course, Britain is much more socially liberal than it was across the political spectrum, for example.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.

Blairites have had a go and lost twice two general elections. The current crop of PLP approved candidates are all terrible and worse than Brown and Milliband. Angela Eagle come fourth in the deputy leader contest last year FFS.

I'd argue putting a Blairite candidate is more selfish, they have a track record of loosing.

Ed Milliband was many things, but a 'Blairite'? Behave.

I'm not arguing for a Blairite candidate - note the bit where I said I didn't want a Blairite and they should move out the way.

Eagle also voted for the Iraq war and anyone who did that is tarnished in my opinion and no good.

Who would you choose?

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)?

I don't with absolute certainty but if you have an unelectable opposition the party in power will remain in power and our elections are on fixed year five year terms so it doesn't seem like a huge leap in the dark. It's looking like enough Tories will unite behind May to make that happen so the Tory party imploding is looking quite unlikely.

I think fundamentally Britain does support state healthcare, I'm less sure about social welfare. Which is pretty dumb as that's the safety net we all rely on if things go tits up but I guess it's easy not to think about that if you have a job and are doing OK.

I wasn't actually there at the time you know ;)

But yes I think it did, although it certainly wasn't universally popular: doctors were perhaps unsurprisingly against it as it was effectively nationalisation. Aneurin Bevan had his work cut out to get it past them which he did partly by dividing the opposition and partly by offering lucrative consultancy fees, hence his famous "I stuffed their mouths with gold" quote.

After WWII the British public looked to the government to look after them - whether that was providing council houses (which didn't have the stigma then they do now), state healthcare or food (rationing didn't end until 1951).

Obviously these were very different times, but I think one of the important differences was that collectivism was a much more accepted part of society. Everywhere you look in society collectivism has declined and I think this perhaps explains declining support for things like the welfare state. Unfortunately we are literally in it for ourselves more often than not these days.

(rationing formally ended in 1954)

this again is what I said before, SDP lasted 7 years; it wasn't permanent. All other major European Labour parties have split.

Before our current discussions it was always the same post war, Gaitskellites and Bevanites, we are still here with both trying to direct the party. I guess the Lib Dems will make a come back, despite their past, Tim Farron is far from divisive or toxic which is all that is needed in the centre.

The point where career politicians, with no links to the area, were being parachuted into safe seats was one factor that alienated a lot of voters.

right in the fee fees

https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/posts/855236554580419:0

like johnson's uxbridge gig?

tory leader thraed >>> etc

If nothing else, understanding this makes it much easier to understand the splits in the party after the recent rebellion within the shadow cabinet. Even the language used by each side reflects basically different conceptions of what politics is about. For Corbyn’s opponents, the key word is always “leadership” and the ability of an effective leader to “deliver” certain key constituencies. For Corbyn’s supporters “leadership” in this sense is a profoundly anti-democratic concept. It assumes that the role of a representative is not to represent, not to listen, but to tell people what to do.

For Corbynistas, in contrast, the fact that he is in no sense a rabble rouser, that he doesn’t seem to particularly want to be prime minister, but is nonetheless willing to pursue the goal for the sake of the movement, is precisely his highest qualification. While one side effectively accuses him of refusing to play the demagogue during the Brexit debate, for the other, his insistence on treating the public as responsible adults was the quintessence of the “new kind of politics” they wished to see.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn

I've said this a couple of times. Corbyn's dilemma is a personal and moral one. Who does he represent? The 150,000 people who voted for him or the ideals/best-interests of the party as expressed by the PLP. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

PLP are selected by the same members who chose Corbyn. PLP have their own "professional" interests to juggle.

he got more than 150,000 votes,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015

Cheers. Mistyped.

And ^^ "PLP have their own "professional" interests to juggle." obviously. I'm not sure if I'm missing your point?

(Also selection is more complicated than simply the "people" choosing, if I'm not mistaken. Safe seats and lists come to mind).

I'm beginning to better understand those who don't mind if we are out of power for another decade or so. Blair's power and popularity allowed him to drag the party a long way to the right on many issues. I think he also dragged the tories toward the centre, but of course that is scant consolation for many on the left who have felt for a long time that there is no party to represent them. Corbyn has overcome this coup, I admire him for the shit he's been through. Many will be angry at him a long time, and at his supporters, for perhaps keeping Labour out of government. After Chilcot, and the fear of the unknown brought to the surface in the form of racial hatred by the referendum, I have a sense there are perhaps longer games to play in politics than the next election. Big political shifts can be healthy, and cathartic.

Not sure if covered above somewhere. What happens when Corbyn wins again?

Assuming he stands.

Angela Eagle is a joke.

The whole thing is a joke. But if Labour want to form the next government they need to jettison Corbyn.

Labour form the next government

Top trolling

What the choice Corbyn or any number of boarder line war crimials. I know where my vote will be going.

Corbyn will see her off, and then finally, maybe, the trident-approving, war-endorsing, red Tory PLP careerist scum will have to shut the fuck up and get on with the job.

eagle wont win, but this will be used as a last ditch opportunity by the PLP to further discredit and undermine jeremy corbyn. salting the earth.

despicable people.

also: how is announcing you're going to stand for labour leader on monday not an announcement that you're standing for labour leader on... saturday?

If the PLP were in a gambling mood, they could all choose to resign from the labour party and sit as independent labour MPs. This would not automatically trigger by-elections, but would cause the official Labour party to lose its status as the official opposition.
The PLP could choose to form a new party, approach other parties (i.e. the SNP) to form an opposition coalition, or, if they really wanted to shake things up, they could all apply to join the Greens.