Jeremy Corbyn vs Angela Eagle

Heh, Corbyn must feel a bit like Auric Goldfinger when James Bond is pleading for his life before his balls get fried by a laser: "If I don't report back, 008 replaces me!" "Then I trust he will be more successful."

https://s32.postimg.org/57vugz7lx/BAME.jpg

Hmmm.

Excluding anyone who registered in the last six months is as likely to favour Corbyn as anything else, as it also excludes people who signed up specifically to vote against him.

The £25 thing is bullshit. Either have the supporters vote or don't, but don't change the rules half way through.

Excellent inclusivity from the party of the poor and disadvantaged though.

say No to democracy

So, Corby wins this poll, overwhelmingly.

Then again, we are young people, and cool.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPQxwK_WlIu8o--CKHxE4cnSVZM-1TrXIpSljnRdMKLgf4sDspUQ

https://medium.com/@TenPercent/message-to-disabled-people-regarding-owen-smith-mps-leadership-bid-2de1eda0fd8d#.vfxbjg4o6

On Saturday 7th March 2015 I attended a Labour meeting in Pontypridd at which the guest speaker was Owen Smith MP, then shadow secretary of state for Wales. When questions were invited from the floor, I asked Mr Smith why, given that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) has been responsible for a great many more deaths than the Bedroom Tax, Labour had pledged to scrap the Bedroom Tax but had said nothing about pledging to scrap the WCA. Mr Smith replied that Labour could not pledge to scrap the WCA because this would make Labour appear weak on benefits in the eyes of the media and compromise Labour’s general-election chances.

I posted this on Facebook and a journalist took it up and posted the story online. Subsequently the journalist was threatened with legal action by Mr Smith if he did not take the story down. I was very intimidated by the prospect of defending myself in court, and I had no money for a legal defence. In addition my Labour colleagues were terribly keen to maintain good relations with Mr Smith and would probably have backed Mr Smith and not me if it came to a court case (one of them had even contacted the journalist and briefed against me). So I asked the journalist to pull the story and I deleted references to it on Facebook.

I am publicising this incident now because I am very concerned about Mr Smith’s attitude toward disabled people and particularly to his views that the deaths of disabled people are less important than Labour’s “tough on benefits” standing in the right wing press. If he threatens me with legal action again it will be incredibly stressful and will probably exacerbate my disability-related ill-health. But I believe it is important that Mr Smith’s attitudes to the WCA and to disability rights (and freedom of speech!) be robustly challenged if he stands for the Labour leadership. And because we should be able to discuss things that profoundly impact on us, like the WCA, without being intimidated into silence by threats of legal action. I am happy to provide more details to journalists who can contact me at lvanzy✧✧✧@gm✧✧✧.c✧✧’

Prior to standing for election Owen Smith worked as a lobbyist for drugs firm Pfizer. During that time, Owen Smith called for more involvement of such private firms in the NHS. “We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda,” he said on behalf of the firm.

In 2006 when there was a motion in Parliament calling for Pfizer to have less of a stranglehold on the NHS, Owen Smith said: “We believe (the early day motion) to be based on inaccurate information provided by wholesalers that we have not chosen to partner with.”

Asked to explain why he sought public office whilst earning a six-figure sum from Pfizer, Owen Smith said Pfizer were “extremely supportive” of him seeking to enter Parliament. Speaking about the early-day motion to reduce the involvement of Pfizer in the NHS, Owen Smith added: “We (he and Pfizer) feel that their (other wholesalers’) campaign to mobilise opposition to our proposals is entirely motivated by commercial self-interest.“

http://i3.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article10827053.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Owen2.jpg

xp Goes without saying that if you're dying of cancer, you don't want options, you want solutions.

Just what Labour (and the electorate) needs right now, a morally bankrupt anti-NHS candidate who bullies disabled people. Good media skills though, which is very important to some people.

I've been trying to consolidate Corbynmania vs the left anti-Corbyn argument in my mind over the last few weeks, and this article https://afterlabour.org/2016/07/12/corbyn-and-the-new-political-puritans/ has helped somewhat.
strikes me that rather than this conflict being about Corbynites vs Blairites, it's more an argument between an under-represented left who want to use the Labour platform to redress the nation vs those who wish to preserve the Labour party as a way of wresting power away from the Tories.

The first bunch are accused of spoiling the party, and the chances of Labour ever beating the Tories, with ham-fisted radicalism, naive idealism, and a stubbornness that transcends any reasonable approach to workable politics. The second bunch are seen as pussy-whipped panderers; sellouts; conservatives in all but name, who are afraid of any sort of shake-up to the establishment

So - is an 80s-style split within the Labour party necessary at this stage? It strikes me that there needs to be an accessible leftwing/socialist option on the polling cards that isn't tied to the trappings of old-fashioned bolshevism or things like the Socialist Workers Party. But: this has happened before and we're in danger of going full circle once again while the Tories continue to hold more and more power over the iron throne. And where would that leave Labour if they're left to occupy a space that just makes them look like a rival gang with the same interests as the Tories?

Margaret Hodge won't have helped on Today this morning, she directly accused Corbyn of not being interested in making anything better but just wanting power for power's sake. She also dredged up "beginning to feel like the 80s when you had lefties like Ken Livingston positions of power."

Can you imagine, even the most moderate and 'one nation' minded tory, speaking about Mrs Thatcher in that sort of way?

also lol the eighties like 2008 then

Corbyn just waking up one day after decades as an MP and thinking "POWERRRRRRR".

There are many reasons why Hodge was given the telephone extension 666 when the new numbers were assigned a couple of years ago.

It looks like LGBT Labour and Scientists For Labour have also suspended new applications, in addition to BAME Labour.

this is a truly heroic struggle to stop large numbers of people taking an interest in the political process

Lots of crowing about cutting 180k people out of voting atm. Possibly less when they realise they'll probably have to refund them. The Tories have just said they'll pay back anyone who joined them recently and thought they'd get to vote on the leader.

180k people joining unions to vote would not be a terrible outcome, tbh.

The NEC also decided to suspend all CLP meetings so the idea of Eagle being deselected is off the table until after the ballot.

guess I'll have to go to momentum meetings instead

Wonder what's going to happen isn't it going to be doubly depressing for someone to lose the election and then find out that they've been deselected straight afterwards?

they'll end up forming SDP 2.0 when they don't get their way over this

From the point of view of a country with multiple popular parties, it always seems a bit baffling to look at places with an (effective) two-party system... How can they manage to stay unified while still attempting to represent the enormous variety of opinions among their voters (or at least giving the illusion of doing that)? You'd think crisis like the one you're having now would be far more common?

well for the last 20 years both of the main parties have had indistinguishable economic policies, so that's helped

the crisis we're having now is only an overt period in a decades-long crisis i.e. the "battle for centre ground" which has bubbled under with periods of seeming stability and e.g. the "party unity" of labour during blair and brown due entirely to its incumbency and essential complacency

But shouldn't the Tories be going through similar crisis? (Or are they?) How can they give both the rah-rah xenophile "true" conservatives and the neoliberal urban business class what they want?

It was that split which lead to the referendum being called in the first place.

The Tories had a brief but brutal leadership crisis after Brexit but have pulled together swiftly and ruthlessly under Theresa May. They are very good at that kind of thing, generally being far more concerned about the survival and strength of the party than ideology.

xpost

Okay, I get it... But wouldn't splitting into separate parties be the obvious solution for both Tories and Labour? Or are they to afraid of what they will loose to see the benefit of what they might gain with such a move?

IIRC you guys also have a winner-takes-it-all voting system, like the Americans? I guess that's what discourages a proper multi-party system from taking form?

(xpost)

The possibility for mass defections to the Lib Dems is surely there but there's no way that would play well in Brexit constituencies.

they are they just seem to be holding it together currently - in order to cling onto power. v broadly speaking there's a feeling that the parlimentary labour party are "too right wing" for the membership the conservatives are "too left wing" for theirs. theresa may believe it or not represents the liberal side of things while her final rival for leadership was to the rah-rah side of things which is why she had to drop out before it got to a membership vote.

xposts

Or are they to afraid of what they will loose to see the benefit of what they might gain with such a move?

It'll never happen with the Tories, they are incredibly tribal. It looks fairly likely it'll happen soon for Labour, it already did in the 80s which is why we now have the Liberal Democrats, the perrenially underachieving third major party.

The whole Cameron project has been the grassroots and a huge chunk of MPs voting for someone they actively disliked on the basis that he was electable. That need to cater to both wings has wrecked the country and means he'll go down as the worst post-war PM if things unravel like it seems they're going to.

May is widely distrusted by centrists (as illiberal) and by the hard right (as not illiberal enough, and too pro-Europe). She has been able to keep a cap on it so far but it has literally been three days and when the negotiations on EU membership start in earnest she'll face similar problems.

The parties would probably struggle to survive in a split. The Tories would either have political donations but no grass roots, Labour would either have no business support or members / unions behind them.

Ah, okay I didn't actually know the history of the Liberal Democrats... I thought they were formed to represent that liberal urban business class I mentioned (the ones for whom Tories are too socially conservative), not as a splinter group from Labour.

(xpost)

That's effectively what they became, but again there was a huge fault line down the middle of the party between those who wanted to be a left-ish party and fiscal conservatives who also happened to be social liberals. The latter won.

The Tories would either have political donations but no grass roots, Labour would either have no business support or members / unions behind them.

So the state in UK doesn't support parties monetarily? In here I think that's one of the main reasons why some parties with an (at least initally) weak economic backing have managed to thrive.

Though there was a good chunk of time in the 00s when the Lib Dems were to the left of Labour on most issues.

xpost

That's effectively what they became, but again there was a huge fault line down the middle of the party between those who wanted to be a left-ish party and fiscal conservatives who also happened to be social liberals. The latter won.

Wouldn't there be support for a proper, big left-wing party in the UK then? I've always thought there are a lot left-leaning people living there.

They are a mix of splinter Labour and the classical Liberal Party, which was formerly a party of government but declined after WW2.

I mean, I get that it's these people who are supporting Corbyn now, but wouldn't it make more sense to form a new, properly left-wing party instead of trying to salvage an old one that clearly doesn't want to make that move?

(xpost)

So the state in UK doesn't support parties monetarily? In here I think that's one of the main reasons why some parties with an (at least initally) weak economic backing have managed to thrive.

It does but not to an extent that covers the kind of party machines both run and associated advertising / marketing costs. Labour were in about £25m of debt after the 2005 election.

there is state money for parties but not the big bucks that modern political activities and campaigning are able to devour

some people have characterised this whole labour debacle as a battle over the labour brand and that's more or less what it is when it comes down to it

Wouldn't there be support for a proper, big left-wing party in the UK then? I've always thought there are a lot left-leaning people living there.

Not so sure about that.

Yep.

I mean, I get that it's these people who are supporting Corbyn now, but wouldn't it make more sense to form a new, properly left-wing party instead of trying to salvage an old one that clearly doesn't want to make that move?

The electoral system in the UK doesn't work in favour of smaller parties. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote at the last election and got one MP out of a possible six hundred and fifty something - and he started out as a Conservative. A breakaway Socialist party would probably only work out under PR.

Neither side wants to lose 'Labour' as a name though - it has a long history and people are tribal too.

Presumably there wasa time when Labour was just needing to make its initial name. It wasa party that was formed for the first time sometime in the early to mid 20th century. Or did it tie in with more people getting the vote than previously anyway?

Possibly should know more about Labour Party history, but do know taht vaguery. Not sure if there is much of a gap between the working class getting the vote and the formation of the party which was presumably initially to represent them and sympathetic leaning voters. Which seems to be a long way from what it is now or what parts of it want to be but I'm assuming Corbyn is trying to return to.

So echoing what Tuomas is saying, what is to prevent a broad left wing party from forming outside of infighting between leftist factions. Also that the name Labour itself has a weight to it now that it would take any new party an age to build to.
& that it would probably need some momentum already gathering to brig the broad left wing to join.

I know taht the initial 2 parties were the Whigs and the Tories which evolved into the Liberal party and the Conservatives. Not sure exactly when LIberal Party shrunk out of the main running. I think they were already becoming the 3rd party as I grew up. My mother used to vote for them is all that I remember.
Did they evolve into Lib Dem or is that a totally different party?

Not sure that the Labour Party has been anything more than the Stop-The-Tories party my entire adult life.