UKC

Seven dwarves?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 charliesdad 18 Feb 2019

What conclusions should we draw from the seven Labour MP’s who have chosen to leave?

5
 Oceanrower 18 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

That they have principles?

I know. Hard to believe, eh?

4
 ripper 18 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

I honestly don't know. the above is clearly one possibility. others include:

They believed they were facing deselection and preferred to jump, in the hope that they would then be able to control the narrative, or;

They sensed that a realignment was coming anyway and this could put them at its forefront, or;

They want to screw Labour over and this seemed the most opportune moment.

All, some, or none of which could have some truth.

1
 d_b 18 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

I can conclude that we will be hearing "stabbed in the back" excuses from Labour supporters for the next 30 years.  I am getting bored just thinking about it.

2
OP charliesdad 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

Indeed, but all their principles* are negative; they are against a range of things, primarily Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but what are they in favour of? What policies do they collectively wish to see, and how will they as a group make a real difference? 

(*Worth remembering that in the recent General Election they were happy to line up behind a leader and a policy platform they now find intolerable. So quite flexible principles then.)

19
 MG 19 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

I guess we will hear more about what they stand for shortly but it will be moderate, practical policies that address pressing concerns, I imagine. According to Kuenssburg, at least some them weren't happy to stand behind Corbyn at the last election and in fact explicitly said he shouldn't become PM.

4
 Rob Parsons 19 Feb 2019
In reply to MG:

> ... we will hear more about what they stand for shortly but it will be moderate, practical policies that address pressing concerns, I imagine ...

You've clearly bought the hype.

> ... According to Kuenssburg, at least some them weren't happy to stand behind Corbyn at the last election ...

No shit! Umunna hates Corbyn - nonetheless he was quite happy in practice to campaign for Corbyn's quite radical Labour manifesto in the 2017 election.

Had Umunna stood for leadership in 2015, as opposed to bailing from that contest, he might have a little more credibility. As it stands, what has he got? This current effort seems like a wrecking move to me. And one staged with absolutely appalling timing.

Post edited at 09:34
6
 krikoman 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> . And one staged with absolutely appalling timing.

couldn't have put it better, I liked Chaka's stance on the People's Vote, but he let them down too with this ridiculous stunt. But he's never been behind Corbyn, so his departure isn't that surprising, he's a Blairite through and through, as are most of them. This is the whole reason Corbyn was seen as an antidote to.

Look at their voting record, it tells you everything you need to know about why they've f*cked off.

I think the only one who might be justified is Luciana Berger, but I'm pretty certain she's seeing anti-Semitism within the party because of influences from outside the party and not separating the two.

11
 Tyler 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

>  nonetheless he was quite happy in practice to campaign for Corbyn's quite radical Labour manifesto in the 2017 election.

But if they split in 2017 you'd have been justified in saying 'why didn't they go in 2015, this is a terrible time to go as we are just about to start fighting Brexit' etc. etc. There's never a good time so this sort of point is bogus.

Post edited at 13:36
2
 Tyler 19 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> I think the only one who might be justified is Luciana Berger, but I'm pretty certain she's seeing anti-Semitism within the party because of influences from outside the party and not separating the two.

I'm confused, are you saying there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour party so she's justified or there isn't any and its a fabrication by outsiders?

 krikoman 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm confused, are you saying there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour party so she's justified or there isn't any and its a fabrication by outsiders?


I'm saying there anti-Semitism everywhere, not just in the Labour party, like there's an element of racism everywhere too. What she appears to be saying is every f*ckwit who posts on her social media is part of Labours problem. It isn't, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

 There might well be less anti-Semitism within the Labour party than in the general public, but that might depend on your definition of anti-Semitism too. Which has been done to death, so let's not start that one again.

Edit:

Interestingly though, Berger was saved from a vote of confidence, because of her advanced pregnancy, though she's still managed to be an instigator in all this shenanigans, though she's still pregnant. So maybe not as honourable / moral as she's making out.

Post edited at 14:27
12
 SDM 19 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

> Indeed, but all their principles* are negative; they are against a range of things, primarily Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but what are they in favour of? 

When talking about issues such as racism, bullying and discrimination against expectant / recent mothers, I struggle to see how this can be seen as a negative. 

In terms of Corbyn's leadership, he would have to show some for their to be something to be in favour of. There has been a giant opposition sized vacuum in British politics for the past 2 years, allowing the extremes of the Conservative party to assume the position of the defacto opposition.

He abandoned his election promises without so much as a whimper. He has given the most divided, least competent, government in my lifetime an almost free pass allowing their position to be steered by the far right of their own party rather than tempered by the opposition.

2
 Harry Jarvis 19 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Interestingly though, Berger was saved from a vote of confidence, because of her advanced pregnancy, though she's still managed to be an instigator in all this shenanigans, though she's still pregnant. So maybe not as honourable / moral as she's making out.

The vote of no confidence in Ms Berger was withdrawn when it was found that one of her key opponents within the local party called her a “disruptive Zionist”. And also to be noted that Tom Watson was prepared to accuse the local party of bullying.  Not very edifying, and not indicative of a party to be proud of.

Post edited at 14:47
1
 krikoman 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> The vote of no confidence in Ms Berger was withdrawn when it was found that one of her key opponents within the local party called her a “disruptive Zionist”. And also to be noted that Tom Watson was prepared to accuse the local party of bullying.  Not very edifying, and not indicative of a party to be proud of.


You're right, I withdraw my original post, or at least the last bit.

It also proves that these racist idiots don't do the party any good, with those stupid remarks the vote might have taken place, instead it didn't. Berger's been anti-Corbyn since he was leader, AFAIK, so it would be nice to get rid.

Post edited at 15:41
1
 neilh 19 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

Calling them seven dwarves yesterday was unbelievably bad and poor pr.

No wonder they left if this is the sort of verbal abuse people suffer. 

2
 Harry Jarvis 19 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> It also proves that these racist idiots don't do the party any good, with those stupid remarks the vote might have taken place, instead it didn't. Berger's been anti-Corbyn since he was leader, AFAIK, so it would be nice to get rid.

Or alternatively, it might have been better if the party leadership learned how to deal with differing views within the party. Criticism of the leadership from the backbenches is not a new thing, and certainly never stopped Corbyn expressing his own criticisms and rebelling against the leadership of the time. The idea, floated last week, that MPs sign some oath of allegiance is a loathsome notion, and sums up so much of what is wrong with our tribal political system. The Labour Party is in a terrible state, and I see few signs of willingness to sort itself out. 

1
 Rob Parsons 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> ... Criticism of the leadership from the backbenches is not a new thing ...

The level of animosity directed at Corbyn by members of his own Parliamentary party does strike me as a new thing. And it's not just been from the backbench - witness the famous 'weekend of the long knives' in 2016 in which many cabinet members (including Berger) resigned.

 FactorXXX 19 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Calling them seven dwarves yesterday was unbelievably bad and poor pr.

Does that mean that Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot are Snow White, the Evil Queen and the Handsome Prince?
Not necessarily in that order though...

 neilh 19 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

And on the same day, Hatton is back in as a member. You could not make it up.

1
 neilh 19 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Hardly surprising. Most MP's toed the party line, but not JC. Then when he is elected he expects everybody else to follow him .

And then they want a statement of allegience.

Kettle calling the pot black.

St..ff that for a game of soldiers.

1
 Tony Jones 19 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

Many of us are, I suspect, too young to remember Derek Hatton first time around (not me unfortunately) but it's worth listening to Neil Kinnock's conference speech from 1985 if you haven't seen it before.

https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1097588071648952325

They'll be letting Gorgeous George back in soon at this rate. As a lifelong Labour supporter I despair at what is happening at a time where we need a credible opposition more than we've ever needed one before.

Imagine a world where Corbyn was still a back bench supporter of lost causes, there was no Brexit, Britain still had a car industry...

If only Ed Milliband hadn't been photographed trying to eat that flippin' bacon roll.

1
 kevin stephens 19 Feb 2019
In reply to ripper:

> I honestly don't know. the above is clearly one possibility. others include:

> They believed they were facing deselection and preferred to jump, in the hope that they would then be able to control the narrative, or;

Hardly a serious worry with a general election (next opportunity for deselection) such a long time away

The fact is that with the worst, most incompetent and chaotic Tory Government ever Labour still can't get ahead in the polls (see the latest Sky News poll today).  The reason for this is that the Labour party is too left wing to attract the floating voters.  Most of the new membership is left wing, the NEC elections returned the hard left slate with a 2:1 majority over the less radical social democrat wing.  Therefor Labour is locked into a hard left ideology guaranteeing that the Tories and ERG will continue to drive this country down. after the next general election.  On top of this the Labour leadership is supporting Brexit (albeit with a less damaging customs union) rather than give the voters a chance to change their mind.

The "seven dwarves" have already had a great success in at last getting Labour to wake up to the fact that they may have a problem.

I've never put too much credence into the anti-Semitism allegations.  However reading Ruth George's paranoia that the seven dwarves may be a Mossad plot I can see there may be something in it

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47296591

1
 Tom Valentine 19 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

Couldn't agree more. Everyone knows that "dwarfs" is OK but "dwarves" has pejorative baggage associated with the portrayal of POSS people in films and literature as objects of derision.

Post edited at 19:01
 john arran 19 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> The fact is that with the worst, most incompetent and chaotic Tory Government ever Labour still can't get ahead in the polls (see the latest Sky News poll today).  The reason for this is that the Labour party is too left wing to attract the floating voters.

Most of their published policies aren't exactly radically left wing, despite it being portrayed that way in the right wing press. The biggest problem is that they've completely shot themselves in the foot by encouraging a Brexit that very few of their members or supporters are willing to support. So they've alienated probably most of the people they would otherwise be able to count upon as supporters.

No wonder their polling is hopelessly uncompetitive.

2
 kevin stephens 19 Feb 2019
In reply to john arran:

Most voters won’t get past the people to look at the policies, particularly Corbyn, Abbot etc. And there is a hard left majority in the party that will continue to try and influence policy. The spectre of this is reinforced by return of Derek Hatton etc. A change of leadership would go a long way to alleviate these fears. Unfortunately Brexit is still very decisive among labour voters but hopefully that will change

 john arran 19 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Most voters won’t get past the people to look at the policies, particularly Corbyn, Abbot etc. And there is a hard left majority in the party that will continue to try and influence policy. The spectre of this is reinforced by return of Derek Hatton etc. A change of leadership would go a long way to alleviate these fears.

Agree completely. It isn't the policies so much as the personnel, the presentation and the apparently Machiavellian tendencies.

> Unfortunately Brexit is still very decisive among labour voters but hopefully that will change

I can't see it changing unless the leadership starts to take the views of most of its followers more seriously. They're hemorrhaging supporters and will continue to do so as long as they keep prioritising party idealism over country. The ironic part is that,were they to act in the best interests of the country - i.e. to oppose Brexit but promise social reform - they would be far more likely to gain the power they appear to crave. 

 FactorXXX 19 Feb 2019
Moley 19 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

> And on the same day, Hatton is back in as a member. You could not make it up.

Soon as this came on the news I thought " I can see where this is headed". Unfortunately nowhere good.

1
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Couldn't agree more. Everyone knows that "dwarfs" is OK but "dwarves" has pejorative baggage associated with the portrayal of POSS people in films and literature as objects of derision.

Despite The Hobbit, 'dwarfs' is the standard English plural of dwarf. 'Dwarves' just looks very odd to me, like 'rooves'. I mean, would anyone really refer to Disney's famous film as 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'? 

1
 john arran 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It behoofs me to declare that referring to horses' hoofs is either a spoove or is a proove that one is being aloove.

 Tom Valentine 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I suppose people see a connection with other small people like elfs...

 krikoman 20 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Hardly surprising. Most MP's toed the party line, but not JC. Then when he is elected he expects everybody else to follow him .

> And then they want a statement of allegience.

> Kettle calling the pot black.

> St..ff that for a game of soldiers.


There's a massive difference between disagreeing on a number of subjects and constantly undermining the leadership, many in the PLP have tried to disregards the membership since Corbyn was elected leader twice, they seem to think, with outstanding arrogance, they know better than the members.

Kinnock is a prime example, almost wishing he'd lost his seat in the last election, to prove himself right that Corbyn was unelectable, when exactly the opposite was true in his constituency.

4
 elsewhere 20 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Meanwhile Corbyn continues doing sweet FA for party unity, electoral viability or the greater good of the UK leaving it up to Watson & McDonald to show some leadership. No change there then.

1
 Harry Jarvis 20 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> There's a massive difference between disagreeing on a number of subjects and constantly undermining the leadership, many in the PLP have tried to disregards the membership since Corbyn was elected leader twice, they seem to think, with outstanding arrogance, they know better than the members.

As a backbencher, Corbyn did exactly what you accuse the seven (now eight) independent MPs of doing. If he felt it acceptable to behave as he did, it is hard to understand why it is not acceptable for others to do the same. 

1
 Rob Exile Ward 20 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

'they seem to think, with outstanding arrogance, they know better than the members.'

Oh FFS of course they do - or should - that's their job. The membership agree the broad direction of travel for the parry, the MPs have to translate that into what is electorally and politically possible.

Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal don't subscribe to that, they think it's better to make empty promises that make their supporters happy but have absolutely no chance of ever being implemented.

1
 The New NickB 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

8 is now 11, former Tories this time. Predictably Soubry, Woolaston and Allen.

 toad 20 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

A football team, maybe even a couple of reserves by the end of the day. Reckon if Soubry gets deselected she'd be a popular replacement for Ken Clark on my side of the river

 krikoman 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> The membership agree the broad direction of travel for the parry, .....

And nearly all of the seven have been voting against that since Corbyn was elected, even on what should be core Labour policies. The whole reason he was elected was to change direction FFS! Many Labour supporters were sick of Blair and the direction he'd taken the party, that's the point of Corbyn.

4
 krikoman 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> As a backbencher, Corbyn did exactly what you accuse the seven (now eight) independent MPs of doing. If he felt it acceptable to behave as he did, it is hard to understand why it is not acceptable for others to do the same. 


But not constantly, he stood up fr what he thought was correct, not to try and bring the leader down, because he didn't like them. There's the difference.

3
 neilh 20 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Blair and his team let him be a freethinker and do what he wanted. They were accommodating and they let  him have  his views. They did not try and deselect him to my knowledge.

In reply to krikoman:

"....he stood up fr what he thought was correct, not to try and bring the leader down, because he didn't like them. There's the difference."

I think they are standing up for what they think is correct, no more anti semitism in the Labour party, no?

2
 Harry Jarvis 20 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Blair and his team let him be a freethinker and do what he wanted. They were accommodating and they let  him have  his views. They did not try and deselect him to my knowledge.

That seems a slightly generous version of events. To my mind, he was largely ignored, because the numbers allowed him to be ignored. His vote was never required. 

pasbury 20 Feb 2019
In reply to john arran:

> The ironic part is that,were they to act in the best interests of the country - i.e. to oppose Brexit but promise social reform - they would be far more likely to gain the power they appear to crave. 

Len McClusky (Deputy deputy leader of oppo) would never allow it!

1
 Rob Parsons 20 Feb 2019
In reply to john arran:

> ... they would be far more likely to gain the power they appear to crave. 

Weird - and tendentious - way of putting it. 'Power they appear to crave'? No - but clearly they would like to form a government, precisely so that they could then implement the policies that they would have won an election on.

Post edited at 14:29
 kevin stephens 20 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

You don’t get it do you? With influx of new members the balance of hard left to social democrats ( NOT blairite, a lazy insult like Daily Mail readers that gets used) is 2:1 going by the voting in last NEC elections. The problem is that this 2:1 ratio is totally at odds with the swing voters that Labour need to win an election. That is why Labour is not ahead in the polls despite an awful Tory government.

putting it simply the self indulgence of you and Labour hard left is committing the UK to 5 more year’s under the jackboot of the ERG after the next election 

Post edited at 18:11
3
Moley 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Moley:

> Soon as this came on the news I thought " I can see where this is headed". Unfortunately nowhere good.

Nope, I got that wrong, he's gone again.

pasbury 20 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Spot on

3
 hokkyokusei 20 Feb 2019
In reply to charliesdad:

> Indeed, but all their principles* are negative; they are against a range of things, primarily Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but what are they in favour of? What policies do they collectively wish to see ...

I think they might be in favour of remaining in the EU.

 hokkyokusei 20 Feb 2019
In reply to Tony Jones:

> Many of us are, I suspect, too young to remember Derek Hatton first time around ...

I'm not.

> If only Ed Milliband hadn't been photographed trying to eat that flippin' bacon roll.

Or the unions hadn't stitched up his brother.

 hokkyokusei 20 Feb 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Most of their published policies aren't exactly radically left wing ...

Nationalisation? Mandatory gifting of shares to employees?

> ...The biggest problem is that they've completely shot themselves in the foot by encouraging a Brexit that very few of their members or supporters are willing to support. 

Not going to argue about that.

 kevin stephens 21 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

well I guess it's easier to tick a dislike than answer the argument, still waiting...…….

 krikoman 22 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> You don’t get it do you?

Of course I get it, these leavers were mainly people who'd lost their local support or in at least one case an outright liar, probably both.

They've put themselves, before the people that voted for them, and are frightened to prove the people they represent will continue to vote for them by holding a by-election.

There's an ultimate arrogance that they believe their constituents voted for them and not for the party.

I recently read Labour voters traditional vote 80%+ for the party rather than the candidate, so where does that leave them?

Most of these MPs jumped before they were pushed, and they didn't represent their constituency voters

5
 Rob Exile Ward 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

'There's an ultimate arrogance that they believe their constituents voted for them and not for the party.'

Um … I think you'll find that most people think that's how the system is supposed to work, that the calibre and character of the candidate makes a difference.

The oft spoken adage that 'constituents in xxx would vote for a monkey so long as they were Conservative/Labour' is generally considered a weakness and an insult.

1
 Harry Jarvis 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

That's one reading of the situation. Another is that they have lost patience with the current leadership of the Labour Party and they no longer feel that the current leadership has what it takes to win a general election, and that there is significant substance the accusations of bullying and hard-left entryism.

That that possible alternative reading of the situation is being dismissed out of hand is, in itself, telling. 

 john arran 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> There's an ultimate arrogance that JC believes Labour voters voted for him and not for the party.

> I recently read Labour voters are 80%+ for Remain rather than Leave, so where does that leave them?

FTFY

1
 SDM 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Of course I get it, these leavers were mainly people who'd lost their local support or in at least one case an outright liar, probably both.

> They've put themselves, before the people that voted for them, and are frightened to prove the people they represent will continue to vote for them by holding a by-election.

> There's an ultimate arrogance that they believe their constituents voted for them and not for the party.

> I recently read Labour voters traditional vote 80%+ for the party rather than the candidate, so where does that leave them?

> Most of these MPs jumped before they were pushed, and they didn't represent their constituency voters

Before they were pushed? Although things can change very quickly in UK politics at the moment, there is currently no mechanism that is likely to lead to an early general election. Their positions seemed relatively safe in the medium term.

Anna Soubry's discussions on LBC yesterday on whether to hold a by-election were quite interesting. 

She campaigned at the previous election broadly under the Conservative manifesto. However, she made it crystal clear at the time that she did not support, and could not vote for, the official Conservative position on brexit.

Her constituents still voted her in. 

Her position, her voting record and her convictions have not changed since. She still stands for the same things she campaigned for before the election. She therefore thinks there is no requirement to hold a by-election because she still represents the position she was elected for.

The Conservative Party has diverged from their manifesto due to pressure from the ERG. She argues that it is the Conservative Party that has failed to honour their election promise, not herself.

I struggle to disagree with her position.

 kevin stephens 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

I see that indeed you do not get it by ignoring the key point!! JC playing to the gallery of hard left members continues to make Labour unelectable 

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to SDM:

> The Conservative Party has diverged from their manifesto due to pressure from the ERG.

Has it? Their manifesto promised to exit the European single market and customs union - which is what they are still trying to do.

Where have they 'diverged from their manifesto'?

 krikoman 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> The oft spoken adage that 'constituents in xxx would vote for a monkey so long as they were Conservative/Labour' is generally considered a weakness and an insult.

It might well be considered a weakness and an insult, it doesn't mean it isn't true. I've lived in both, Labour and Tory safe seats, and there wouldn't be a cat in hells chance of either of those places ever changing hands.

Besides that, it's not the point, the point being, these leavers, have assumed their constituents agree with them, they are not giving the people who voted for them the chance to either agree or disagree. Worse than that they are doing it under the guise of democracy!!!

2
 krikoman 22 Feb 2019
In reply to john arran:

> > There's an ultimate arrogance that JC believes Labour voters voted for him and not for the party.

> FTFY


That might be the case now, but it wasn't what people voted for. As a remainer I'd love to see a peoples vote. It's the hypocrisy of these few people I can't abide by, coupled with extremely bad timing, making a people vote even less likely.

I heard Chuka  speak at the People's Vote March, it was terrible. I felt like I was listening to a party political broadcast on behalf of Chuka Umunna.

I believe the Labour section of the referendum was something like 65% to leave.

So once again, democracy in action. I'd love to see another vote and lets test democracy again, I think we'd reverse the original decision, but that's not an option yet.

Post edited at 11:22
3
 krikoman 22 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> I see that indeed you do not get it by ignoring the key point!! JC playing to the gallery of hard left members continues to make Labour unelectable 


JC listening to the members and Labour voters, while sticking to their manifesto, which these people we elected on, you mean?

3
 krikoman 22 Feb 2019
In reply to SDM:

 

> Her constituents still voted her in. 

> Her position, her voting record and her convictions have not changed since. She still stands for the same things she campaigned for before the election. She therefore thinks there is no requirement to hold a by-election because she still represents the position she was elected for.

> The Conservative Party has diverged from their manifesto due to pressure from the ERG. She argues that it is the Conservative Party that has failed to honour their election promise, not herself.

> I struggle to disagree with her position.

I agree and think Soubry is one of the most honourable of the ones who've defected, for the reason you've stated above.  I was mainly talking about the Labour defectors, most of whom have fought against Corbyn from day one, we're elected on a Labour manifesto they supported at the time, only to change their minds and views on, after the election.

One's been caught out lying about some anti-Semitic accusations which she made but were later found, as there's a film of it, to be false, yet she stands by her comments. Another made a massive faux pas, on the day of her resignation by calling some people "tinged".

2
 Doug 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> It might well be considered a weakness and an insult, it doesn't mean it isn't true. I've lived in both, Labour and Tory safe seats, and there wouldn't be a cat in hells chance of either of those places ever changing hands.

Until fairly recently most people would have said the same of many traditionally Scottish Labour seats, which are now SNP. So change is possible.

 kevin stephens 22 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Nope we haven’t got there yet have we? Maybe if I use fewer words we can get through?

Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader = right wing Tory government after the next election 

1
 Wilberforce 22 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm not convinced by your contention that either JC or a Scandi social democrat platform in general are electoral poison.

Labour's vote share for the past 6 GE:

1997: 43.2% Blair

2001: 40.7% Blair

2005: 35.2% Blair

2010: 29.0% Brown

2015: 30.4% Milly

2017: 40.0% 'Unelectable' Corbyn

Edit: source document link

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7529#f...

Post edited at 14:05
 kevin stephens 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Wilberforce:

Unfortunately it’s not about % of votes but about the swing seats

Removed User 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Wilberforce:

Probably better to publish how many seats were won in each election.

The list simply proves that statistics can be misleading.

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> The list simply proves that statistics can be misleading.


You don't think that an increase from 30% to 40% between Milliband (austerity-lite) in 2015 and Corbyn (traditional labour policies) in 2017 is either interesting or telling in any way?

Remember that Corbyn's chances were written off before that election: it was supposed to be a Tory landslide.

 skog 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Wilberforce:

I think this just reflects that Corbyn is great at getting even more people to vote Labour in areas where Labour is already popular, and very poor at it elsewhere (simplistically, he's polarising, and busily preaching to the converted while alienating swing voters).

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to skog:

> I think this just reflects that Corbyn is great at getting even more people to vote Labour in areas where Labour is already popular, and very poor at it elsewhere (simplistically, he's polarising, and busily preaching to the converted while alienating swing voters).


It can't be quite that simple since, in the 2017 election, seats did change hands:

  • Conservative to Labour (28)
  • SNP to Labour (6)

Labour also lost 6 seats to the Tories, some of which had been historically considered safe.

 skog 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> It can't be quite that simple

I'm sure it isn't!

But I think that's the core of it.

 kevin stephens 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

What it tells us is increased votes in safe labour seats but not making any headway in the moderate swing seats

 Wilberforce 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Kevin Stephens, Eric9Points and skog:

You all make fair points, I was slightly naughty with my previous post and the seat numbers aren’t nearly as rosy for JC.

Year: Vote Share: Seats Won

1997: 43.2%: 418

2001: 40.7%: 412

2005: 35.2%: 355

2010: 29.0%: 258

2015: 30.4%: 232

2017: 40.0%: 262

Notwithstanding the above, I think with good PR (public relations, although the other kind of PR would be nice too) Corbyn (or a left-ish successor) IS electable, as Rob notes, there was an improvement in the last election after predictions of electoral annihilation.

There are two problems, the first is that Labour are so divided and the rhetoric from both camps is hopeless: one side is being characterised as a scheming cabal of Blairite vipers doing whatever they can to sabotage JC (extreme versions of this narrative include a conspiracy with 'Big Corporations' or even the Mossad.

Meanwhile, the other side are made out to be a festering cesspit of Marxist fanatics and bigots who are anti-business, anti-semites, anti-UK, anti-EU, anti-personal-property and even anti-ice-cream.

The truth is obviously more nuanced: elements in the PLP have obviously conspired (internally and with media contacts) to undermine the current leadership from very early on. 

The flip-side is that neither the leadership nor the pro-Corbyn grassroots have engaged with centrists when they’ve raised legitimate issues; it’s much easier to write off criticism as disruptive propaganda and tell people to shut up (and get behind our leader) than face up to problems, especially when a proportion of the criticism IS in fact disruptive propaganda. This in turn feeds into the conspiracy theories of the anti-semitic scumbags spewing poison all over the internet, triggering the next round of recriminations and so on. There’s actually a sort of sick symbiosis between the two [Labour] narratives when you think about it (not dissimilar to the interplay between the far-right and radical Islam).

The second problem is Brexit: a split electorate and a split party. It is impossible to reconcile hardliners on either side, but it’s worth remembering that the last Labour manifesto clearly included some statement about honouring the result so it’s no good people moaning that Labour are betraying them with a stealth Brexit. Arguably a small Brexit (Customs Union etc.) that ‘honours’ the original referendum result whilst minimising the inevitable economic damage is the best (least bad) option for the nation and the party but I can’t tell if Corbyn is genuinely trying to achieve that (e.g. with letter to TM) or just trying to provoke a rift in the Tory party whilst looking like he’s being constructive.

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> What it tells us is increased votes in safe labour seats but not making any headway in the moderate swing seats


No - since, as we see above, 26 seats did change hands.

It needs a detailed analysis. Your claims don't necessarily stack up.

Btw what is a 'moderate swing seat'?

 neilh 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

 JC still came second. Coming second does not hack it, coming first does. It is as politically brutal as that.

Is jc going to do well next time? It’s being reported that labour are losing supporters , probably young remain voters who are disillusioned ....

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

>  JC still came second. Coming second does not hack it, coming first does. It is as politically brutal as that.

Well aware of that.

Nevertheless the result showed that there was an unexpected (both to the commentariat, and the Tories) appetite among the voters for traditional labour policies. That's a sea change when you reflect on the past thirty or so years.

 David Riley 22 Feb 2019
In reply to SDM:

> Anna Soubry's discussions on LBC yesterday on whether to hold a by-election were quite interesting. 

> She campaigned at the previous election broadly under the Conservative manifesto. However, she made it crystal clear at the time that she did not support, and could not vote for, the official Conservative position on brexit.

I have just read through all the emails she sent me before the election.  I'll post them if you want.   I don't think they give that impression.

> The Conservative Party has diverged from their manifesto due to pressure from the ERG. She argues that it is the Conservative Party that has failed to honour their election promise, not herself.

No it has not.

She wants another vote about the EU.  But not about her.  She would be gone.

 neilh 22 Feb 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Does not matter it is still coming second .You can spin it which ever way you want.

He did well but not well enough. 

And that is the point the centrists are making. You need to win us over to make the difference, to top up your core vote. At the moment you are so far adrift.

 Rob Parsons 22 Feb 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Does not matter it is still coming second .You can spin it which ever way you want.

I am not 'spinning' anything.

 toad 22 Feb 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I think she would do well if she stood in Rushcliffe. Ken Clarke intends to stand down and I think there is some jockeying as to who the tories will parachute in. Given we are strongly remain, she would be a good fit. Not that i would vote for her, mind

 David Riley 22 Feb 2019
In reply to toad:

I think you are right.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...