The Political Thread

[Banners]

...spent about half an hour editing that and trying to find a particular Guardian quote about Ken Loach being banned, and Banners beat me to it and said it all so much better.

Come the revolution, he'll be first against the wall.

Eek! Me or Ken Loach...?!?

;-)

[Steve Green]

...spent about half an hour editing that and trying to find a particular Guardian quote about Ken Loach being banned, and Banners beat me to it and said it all so much better.

Come the revolution, he'll be first against the wall.

Eek! Me or Ken Loach...?!?

;-)

Or the floor...

[Jim_Campbell]

I think it would be wonderful if Corbyn were to win the Labour leadership election contest for two reasons.  One, people will have a genuine choice between Tory and Labour.  Two, Labour will lose the next general election.

Corbyn is considerably more Euro-sceptic than a substantial chunk of the Conservative party. Given your willingness to give your vote to a party of racists, homophobes and anti-semites on the basis of your (bafflingly wrong-headed*) list of grievances with the EU, I would have thought you'd be a lot keener on any politician who wasn't very keen on the EU but simultaneously was a lot more kindly disposed towards the system of socialised medicine which you have said more than once you are reliant upon.

Jim
*You never did explain how the EU made you walk further to your bank, BTW.

[GordonR]

One of the main problems facing a Corbyn leadership would be getting the Parliamentary party to fall into line.  Not just because so many of them have already openly spoken out against him (his "Well, we would just have to manage somehow" reply to Chuka Umunna's declaration that we wouldn't serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet was a classic bit of understated put-down) but because of the example he himself has set.

He's defied the party whip more than 500 times as an MP.  That's great, if you want to be the perennial rebel backbencher, but how as leader can you expect anyone to respect and follow your leadership instructions  and values when you've routinely ignored those of previous leaders?

[Jim_Campbell]

He's defied the party whip more than 500 times as an MP.  That's great, if you want to be the perennial rebel backbencher, but how as leader can you expect anyone to respect and follow your leadership instructions  and values when you've routinely ignored those of previous leaders?

I don't see Corbyn as leading the party for the next five years and taking them to a 2020 election victory.

He certainly does seem to be the catalyst for a grass-roots determination to resist the Blair-ite faction of the parliamentary Labour party to move the party still further to the right. Given that there are going to be five years before the next election, if ever the Labour party has time for a serious and, if necessary, discussion about what it stands for, it's now. If the Blairites win, it may well be the signal for the Labour left to decamp to en masse to a party more closely aligned with their values, like the Greens.

OTOH, it might be hugely amusing if Corbyn wins the leadership and the party's polling improves dramatically. After all, the Blairites have been saying that getting elected is more important than actual policies. Presumably, that must cut both ways — if they could win an election on a significantly more left-wing platform than their natural instincts would prefer, presumably, they'd be OK with that. After all, it's all about getting elected, isn't it?

Cheers

Jim

[JamesC]

OTOH, it might be hugely amusing if Corbyn wins the leadership and the party's polling improves dramatically. After all, the Blairites have been saying that getting elected is more important than actual policies. Presumably, that must cut both ways — if they could win an election on a significantly more left-wing platform than their natural instincts would prefer, presumably, they'd be OK with that.

Cheers

Jim

On the other hand I'm sure they're acutely aware that a large number of votes can be attributed to the personality (or image) of the man, not the policies.
As first time voter when Blair got in I can attest that a significant number of my peers weren't voting based on policies or ideology but on the fact that Blair 'used to be in a band' and was getting matey with Noel Gallagher.

[GordonR]

As first time voter when Blair got in I can attest that a significant number of my peers weren't voting based on policies or ideology but on the fact that Blair 'used to be in a band' and was getting matey with Noel Gallagher.

But Cameron hanging out with One Direction and Gary Barlow - and citing The Smiths as his favourite band - wasn't enough to sway you toward the Conservatives?

[Professor Bear]

All this talk of rebellious MPs and splits is based on the rather unconvincing notion that away from its leftie wing the Labour party has the balls for that kind of in-fighting, never mind the desire.
The last time it happened was the Milliband vs Milliband pagga that haunted Ed all the way to his resignation - how may times did we see jabs about how he "stabbed his brother in the back for power"?  The party core have already dragged representatives from the three contenders and Liz Kendall's campaign teams to tell them there won't be any legal challenges and the vote result will be binding, so that tells you the party body doesn't want to be seen as factional even if some MPs are grumbling their discontent about potentially having to do some work in their immediate future - they'll keep their heads down after the new boy gets in, just like they did after saying they wanted David Milliband as leader instead of his brother all through the leadership contest where it looked like David was winning.  They got in line after Ed squeaked in by manipulating the union vote, and like the spineless cunts they are, they'll get in line if Corbyn gets elected, too.

[GordonR]

All this talk of rebellious MPs and splits is based on the rather unconvincing notion that away from its leftie wing the Labour party has the balls for that kind of in-fighting, never mind the desire.
The last time it happened was the Milliband vs Milliband pagga that haunted Ed all the way to his resignation - how may times did we see jabs about how he "stabbed his brother in the back for power"?  The party core have already dragged representatives from the three contenders and Liz Kendall's campaign teams to tell them there won't be any legal challenges and the vote result will be binding, so that tells you the party body doesn't want to be seen as factional even if some MPs are grumbling their discontent about potentially having to do some work in their immediate future - they'll keep their heads down after the new boy gets in, just like they did after saying they wanted David Milliband as leader instead of his brother all through the leadership contest where it looked like David was winning.  They got in line after Ed squeaked in by manipulating the union vote, and like the spineless cunts they are, they'll get in line if Corbyn gets elected, too.

There doesn't have to be any legal challenge to a Corbyn victory.  Under the party's own internal rules, it only needs 20% of the Parliamentary party - that's just 47 MPs - to call for a vote of no confidence in the leader.  A Corbyn leadership could be over by Christmas.

As for the non-left of the party having no balls for a fight, Labour are the only major party in modern UK political history to have suffered a genuine schism, when four senior members of the party's right broke away to form the Social Democrats.

[JamesC]

As first time voter when Blair got in I can attest that a significant number of my peers weren't voting based on policies or ideology but on the fact that Blair 'used to be in a band' and was getting matey with Noel Gallagher.

But Cameron hanging out with One Direction and Gary Barlow - and citing The Smiths as his favourite band - wasn't enough to sway you toward the Conservatives?

As a Smiths fan I took it as a personal insult!

[Professor Bear]

There doesn't have to be any legal challenge to a Corbyn victory.  Under the party's own internal rules, it only needs 20% of the Parliamentary party - that's just 47 MPs - to call for a vote of no confidence in the leader.  A Corbyn leadership could be over by Christmas.

As for the non-left of the party having no balls for a fight, Labour are the only major party in modern UK political history to have suffered a genuine schism, when four senior members of the party's right broke away to form the Social Democrats.

That was in 1981, and look at what happened to what was left of the party in the last election.
If a vote of no confidence is to pass, it would still mean biding time so that it could be justified, so Christmas is unlikely.  Easter at the earliest, though the lobbying will no doubt be well-underway behind the scenes by then.

I also look forward to the culling of Labour MPs from their seats once the large numbers of Labour supporters - a significant amount of which are freshly-politicised activists - who want Corbyn in charge turn on anyone who supports the no-confidence vote, because the dumbest thing that could be done right now is to assume that Corbyn is the beginning and the end of the left-wing tendency in modern Labour, because whatever centre-right parody it's become of late, it's still the Labour party.

[Old Tankie]

Hi Jim, I'm genuinely touched that you can remember what I posted months ago, bearing in mind, I can't remember what I did yesterday!

Back to the Labour Party, I'm not interested in voting for a party that's Euro-sceptic, that doesn't mean anything.  I'll vote for a party who's policy is to leave the EU and if neither Tory nor Labour will commit to that, I'll vote for Ukip again.

Oh, and regarding your point relating to my bank account, I'd banked with Lloyds for forty years and had been very happy with them.  The EU in all its wisdom decided that Lloyds Bank was too big and told them to dispose of some of their branches, one of which was my local branch.  So, I was left with a choice, change to TSB, which had taken over my branch, or, if I wanted to stay with Lloyds, move to a Lloyds branch which was further away.

[Jim_Campbell]

Oh, and regarding your point relating to my bank account, I'd banked with Lloyds for forty years and had been very happy with them.  The EU in all its wisdom decided that Lloyds Bank was too big and told them to dispose of some of their branches, one of which was my local branch.  So, I was left with a choice, change to TSB, which had taken over my branch, or, if I wanted to stay with Lloyds, move to a Lloyds branch which was further away.

You also don't remember that I addressed this point, assuming that this would be what you would say. Your bank wasn't a Lloyds, it was a Lloyds TSB and the EU regulations on fair trade and anti-competitive practise ruled that the merged bank breached those regulations and should de-merge. The UK also signs trade agreements with these sort of stipulations. I asked you then, and I'll ask you again, do you think we shouldn't sign trade agreements that have 'level playing field' stipulations?

So: your branch wasn't a Lloyds,* and it wasn't 'taken over' by the TSB. It was owned by the merged Lloyds TSB, whose assets were divided when they de-merged. There was a branch in the exact same place that there had been one before, it's just that the word Lloyds had disappeared from the name Lloyds TSB over the door. You chose to take your business elsewhere and that's your prerogative, but you could have continued to use the exact same branch, with the exact same staff, and a slightly different name over the door. Oh, curse the evil EU!

Jim

*It may have been a Lloyds before the merger, but it stopped being one when it became a Lloyds TSB.

[Professor Bear]

I stood on a Lego brick today, and by God did it hurt!  I've never stood on a Lego brick before, so if you ask me, bloody immigration in this country has a lot to answer for.

[Old Tankie]

So my old branch is no longer a Lloyds Bank then.