POLITICS CORNER

[PanBiker]

The dissenters are now suggesting policies of his that they would retain if he decides to resign. First it was a delay to let him come to his senses and now this. I think they are beginning to realise they have now lost the argument. They should put up or shut up, the latter would include an option for resignation if they cant support their democratically elected leader. My membership is also full, paid up in advance.

[Tizer]

Did you note that in the last week Labour have signed up 60,000 new members?

The Labour Party is now effectively two parties, Old Labour and New Labour, vying for the name `Labour Party'. So we've got people signing up wanting New and others wanting Old, which is not a good situation. We've no idea how many are for Old and how many for New. A Labour man on the radio this morning said `half of the first 13,000 of those 60,000' had written on their ticket that they wanted Corbyn as leader. So we only know the wishes of 11% of them. Now I know the recent 60,000 is a small proportion of the 400,000 or so members but it's quite possible that one half of the 400,000 support Old and the other half New Labour. Membership peaked around 400,000 at the 1997 election and fell away over the Blair/Brown years to plateau at 200,000. Since Miliband left and Corbyn came in it has returned to 400,000. But perhaps the 200,000 who maintained support in the Blair/Brown era were primarily New Labour supporters with a smattering of staunch Old Labour people holding on. We could have 200,000 for New and 200,000 for Old. Time for the present Labour Party to accept it's no longer one party and to split before it's too late.

[PanBiker]

Well, the original Labour Party was built on proper socialist principles so can rightly lay claim to the name with Jeremy as leader. Those wishing to leave if they chose to do so could try New Labour but that's already been done and it didn't work, the sooner they realise that the better, Chilcott may help here. They could try "Lost" or the "Temporary Stupid Party" that would just about fit.

Jeremy might not be the right man for PM but that is irrelevant at the moment we don't or shouldn't want the government at the moment it's poisoned. Put the policies in place first and then take the crown. Four to five years to do this properly without ripping the party to shreds. If there has to be some casualties in the weaker sections of the PLP so be it. Instant gratification is not always the best way.

[Whyperion]

Problem with Labour at local levels is procedure and manuipulation rather than principles. Partywise its always been three or four factions across the country. Of that 400,000 membership I presume there are more English members now than earlier - has it picked up in Scotland. And If anyone could live with the bad taste I suppose one could have Pro Corbyn vs Anti Corbyn in the Birstall by-election.

I've always thought the neo-liberal (?) part of the Labour parliamentary members are a put up from British Secret Services to prevent an overthrow of the UK Monarchy.

[Stanley]

Ian has saved me the trouble of repeating myself again. It is cruel what they are doing to Corbyn. If the contenders for leadership think they have a chance they should trigger a proper re-election process. The Tory Press are increasing the level of attack against Corbyn painting him as the leader of a bunch of fruitcakes and far left. Really? Even Neil Kinnock joins in. Basically, as with the referendum vote, it's a contest between the public and the politicians.....
Will Chilcot break the log jam?
Re Chilcot..... See THIS article by Alex Salmond in which he muses on the connection between the report and the attempts to get Corbyn out. Salmond is a pretty astute politician and Dennis Skinner agrees with him. Worth reading and a bit of thought....

[Tripps]

That's a very perceptive article by a very clever politician. Mr Blair is "haunting the TV channels" again this morning. I can't see he will face any consequences.
The number of British deaths is said to be 179. I can't help comparing that with the number of deaths on the Somme, which we remembered only a few days ago. Was there ever a 'Chilcott Enquiry into the Battle of the Somme?

[PanBiker]

Neill Kinnock is sticking his two pennorth in now. He has actually suggested that Jeremy should not be ALLOWED to have his name on the ballot, shame on him! He knows damn well that this has been checked out by the party lawyers and as existing leader he gets an automatic entrance on the ballot. It is up to any challengers to make their case or not, as the case may be. This coming from the bloke who was the longest opposition leader in UK political history. Might give him an insight into failure but no right to disregard basic democracy.

[Tripps]

Lord Prescott has just said on TV that even as the incumbent, Jeremy Corbyn still needs to get the required number of MP proposers. Who's right?

[Whyperion]

If Kinnock quoted party rules correctly, there is a process for challenging the incumbent. Presumably means the incumbent leader stands for re-election without nomination.

[Tripps]

I just head Lord Kinnock on R4. I took him to mean quite the opposite. He said words to the effect that any candidate must be nominated by 20% of the current number of Labour MP's and MEP's, and that Jeremy Corbyn could not raise this level of support, thereore could not stand.

I do appreciate that others say they have taken legal advice, and say that he can stand, but I don't know the history of this sort of situation. Has the incumbent ever stood for election as leader before, after having his leadership challenged?

[PanBiker]

As far as I am aware this was broached last week and was checked for the correct procedure by party lawyers. If he needed the support for a nomination and does not have it within the PLP as claimed why are the challengers not getting on with it? They could surely disregard Jeremy altogether stick, a name on a ballot and go to the membership for support. They won't because they know they are going to have to fight to wrestle the leadership from the democratically elected incumbent. The PLP is not the b all and end all of the party, they are all there at the behest and with the support of the membership, the sooner they revisit this basic democratic principle the better.

[Tripps]

Well - we will soon see what happens. Next week looks as if it will be memorable on so many levels. I heard the phrase 'lame duck parliament' used last week, by David Davis MP I think.

That about sums it up.

[Whyperion]

Still going on with privatising the land registry I understand

[PanBiker]

Not what was reported and debated in parliament last week. Not feasible to privatise so no plans, clearly stated by the minister.

[Stanley]

David, no need for a 'Chilcot' after the Somme, the reasons for being there were never disputed. See THIS Guardian report on possible attempt to impeach Blair, Alex Salmond is stirring it a bit of late!
I wish people like Blair and Kinnock would keep their noses out of current politics. Blair for obvious reasons, Kinnock because he equates Corbyn with the legitimate struggle he had with the extreme left. Both are weak reeds and yesterday's men....
Ian is right, if Corbyn can be blocked and the opponents are sincere, why not get on with it? Answer is quite simple, they believe that if the selection process was repeated Jeremy would win on a higher majority. Actually nobody can be sure of that but there is enough overt opposition out there to give them pause for thought and be fearful of their political careers.... Consider the facts. Two politicians stand out in the Cameron Catastrophe for not using lies, damned lies and forecasts, Nicola Sturgeon and Jeremy Corbyn. This is actually a fight between the PLP and the membership and it's a disgrace.
You'll see even more of Blair later in the week. He's been honing his fight back for weeks. He used to talk a lot about 'legacy', my God he's got one hasn't he!



Remember Hutton?

Later at 06:15. Bojo must have heard me.... LINK to BBC report. Bit rich Bojo accusing the contenders for leadership of having no strategy for exit.... Dis I miss something in his pitch for 'LEAVE'? I don't remember him having any ideas. His campaign manager Ben Wallace has gone for Gove's throat saying he gossips when he has been drinking and leaks like a sieve. The last one strikes a chord with me because he is infamous for having a posse of attack dogs on social media who articulate what he wants them to. 'Sources close to the Minister'.
A stray inconsequential thought for you.... Orwell wrote 1984 in 1949. What would he make of the present situation....?

[Tripps]

I'll not be lazy, and have looked up the answers to my questions.

Incidentally I learn that nominations are required from20% of MP's and MEP's to challenge an incumbent, but just 15% are needed when there is a vacancy. Jeremy got 15.52% last time after some arm twisting. No wonder Margaret Becket was in tears last week - she nominated him, but later had a severe attack of 'nominators remorse'.

From The Guardian -
Would Jeremy Corbyn’s name automatically be on the ballot paper?
Good question. The party’s rules do not clarify this point. Some party officials say “no”. It has been reported that McNicol has received legal advice saying a sitting leader would need to receive nominations from MPs and MEPs in order to stand again. But the Guardian has seen more recent legal advice to the party which argues that as the sitting leader he would automatically be on the ballot paper. This could result in the unedifying spectacle of a high court judge ruling on whether Corbyn has a right to stand. This is crucial because Corbyn might well struggle to get 50 or 51 nominations.

Has anyone challenged a sitting Labour leader before?
Yes. In 1988 Corbyn’s mentor Tony Benn, father of the sacked shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, tried and failed to topple Neil Kinnock, whose son Stephen Kinnock MP is now aiding the campaign to oust Corbyn.

I suppose now I should see if Neil Kinnock's name was on the ballot.

PS Yes it appears it was, and he won quite easily. Labour leadership election 1988

[Pluggy]

I think the labour party will need to change its constitution. I think those who want to be members (or those who join so they can elect a leader - say no more) of the labour party will always go for the old school "roots" left wing stuff and the MPs who want to be re-elected in THIS century will want to stay in the centre ground. The trade unions - where the labour parties roots are, are like myself, Microsoft and the church in this day and age, scrabbling for traction in a world that's moved on.

[Tizer]

Well said, Pluggy. To outsiders like me the Labour Party and unions now seem like secret societies such as the Masons etc, wanting to carry on behind closed doors and leaving the rest of us wondering what they're up to. We give up trying in the end. At least the Tories stab each other in public! We're in the 21st Century now and if you want to sell something you have to get out there and promote yourself, whether it's selling your political views or your latest idea for an electronic gadget. The Labour Party seem just too introspective, only interested in their own troubles.

[Tripps]

Well said Pluggy. I suggested a little while ago that Labour had largely achieved what it set out to do regarding social security, education, and the NHS . Others disagreed, and yes inequalities remain, and probably always will, but I think anyone with a memory, or more likely with a connection, to the 1930's depression, means test etc would settle for what we have today.

[PanBiker]

Difficult for any leader to put forward policies when you are being stabbed in the back. I never found the Labour Party to be a secret society, I was involved at all levels in the constituency at one time. Branch, General Committee and Executive, Constituency Technology Officer for my sins as well. Non members were always welcome at any of the branch meetings, they could hear all the issues brought up and the debates (but could not vote of course). I think the socialist principles to help the workers and those who may be disadvantaged are as relevant now as they always were. I'm proud of being a "lefty" if that's how folk want to describe me, socialism is nothing more than fairness for all.

[plaques]

wanting to carry on behind closed doors and leaving the rest of us wondering what they're up to.

The Conservatives appear to be open about stabbing each other in the back but does anybody know where I can read the current meeting minutes of the 1922 committee?

[PanBiker]

Well said Pluggy. I suggested a little while ago that Labour had largely achieved what it set out to do regarding social security, education, and the NHS . Others disagreed, and yes inequalities remain, and probably always will, but I think anyone with a memory, or more likely with a connection, to the 1930's depression, means test etc would settle for what we have today.

Yes, great strides were made under socialist principles but there is more to do. Whilst inequalities remain all we are left with is what seems to have been accepted as the norm. Pay the folk that already have it and bugger the ones at the bottom, give no incentive either through work or attitude for them to better their situation, it's morally wrong as well as a socially inept way of running a country. Yes people are better off and of course it's better than the 1930's and it should be but there is still lots of room for improvement.

[Tizer]

I never found the Labour Party to be a secret society, I was involved at all levels in the constituency at one time. Branch, General Committee and Executive, Constituency Technology Officer for my sins as well. Non members were always welcome at any of the branch meetings...

Regardless of all that, Ian, the Labour Party needs to sell itself to the public. It still has an image of being a club for the unions and Corbyn tends to make it even more so rather than creating a modern image. I want to see an effective opposition party but the current Labour Party doesn't tick the box. I wish it would get its act together. Waiting until 2020 is all very good for those insiders keen to see it do better in a future election but there's a whole crowd of us out there who want an opposition party with some clout...now please.

[PanBiker]

I would just say, give the bloke a chance he has only been there nine months. Policies and a decent manifesto are lot more important than someone that looks nice and jumps up and down and just says what people want to hear. If that's all that people want from their leaders it's god help us. I would trust that the electorate when given a proper choice may well make a proper decision to change things. A steady beardy bloke that doesn't lie might be a good start.

[Whyperion]

New leaders really should be ready to get their program in and underway from day 1 , here he has been undermined from day .

Easiest might be hang around and see whom the tories choose, sounds like one potential is making noises about 'fairness' that sound socialistic. So, work out what are the three or four key agenda points one wishes to see occur, then work out how to get them. If the tories can deliver , then use them, and call to account when and where they dont.

Meanwhile Farage has announced he is stepping down from UKIP leadership (but will hang around and give advice, if a new leader wants it !!).