Nope. They want to replace him with one who's anti-immigration.

 

The irony of finding myself neutral on him going.

 

What anti-immigration Labour MPs are there anyway? The only one that sticks out is Frank Field, and I doubt they'll give him the job.

Or at least one who might have a chance at appealing to voters enough to listen to what he says rather than ignore him...?

 

Well, many of the Labour "moderates" (Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Emma Reynolds) are among the people who designed the official Remain Campaign strategy. Their messages, all based on the premise that "economic credibility" with the elites was the key to winning, clearly didn't work out so well, so it surely follows that they would have similarly doomed strategies if they took control of the Labour Party?

 

The Blairites' preference for economically conservative / culturally liberal policies are the exact opposite of what the traditional Labour heartlands want. Atleast with Corbyn at the helm, there's atleast a chance that working-class Labour voters will overlook their HUGE differences with Labour MPs on cultural issues, and nonetheless vote Labour on the basis that Corbyn would be a kick to "the Establishment" and that it would shake up the economy to make it work for normal people.

Edited June 24, 20169 yr by Danny

Andy Burnham went fairly unambiguously for anti-immigration rhetoric during the leadership campaign. 'There are English workers who eat alone at work because they're the only ones who speak English', or 'there are houses of Polish people putting plumbers out of work'.

Nope. They want to replace him with one who's anti-immigration.

 

The irony of finding myself neutral on him going.

 

Well, it depends what's meant by "anti-immigration". I don't want to see dog-whistle stigmatising of immigrants as individuals (by talking about them bringing HIV, raping the women, etc.), but I don't see the problem in principle with some moderate controls on low-skilled immigration, who DO pull average wages downwards, like any unregulated free market would.

 

But there's nothing new about huge sections of the Labour vote being socially conservative -- Enoch Powell was very popular in some Labour heartlands back in the day, after all. But they got around it by telling them "you may disagree with us on these cultural issues, but we'll still improve your lot and pull the rich down a peg or two, so you can still stick with us".

 

This really is the consequence of the Blairites washing out the mainstream economic debate; cultural issues inevitably rise to the fore when that happens.

And Caroline Flint is on TV right now laughably saying "Corbyn should've been more positive about the EU".

 

These people can't have it both ways, they can't criticise Corbyn for not being flexible enough to public opinion generally AND at the same time that he didn't defy public opinion enough on the EU.

And Caroline Flint is on TV right now laughably saying "Corbyn should've been more positive about the EU".

 

These people can't have it both ways, they can't criticise Corbyn for not being flexible enough to public opinion generally AND at the same time that he didn't defy public opinion enough on the EU.

I think the argument she's trying to make is that Remain would've won if Corbyn had been more high-profile in campaigning to stay in (what with half of Labour voters not knowing the party's position on the referendum, etc), hence he's culpable for the result.

 

I don't really think it's true though. I don't think anyone could've told most of the Leave voters in the North East how to vote.

Well, it depends what's meant by "anti-immigration". I don't want to see dog-whistle stigmatising of immigrants as individuals (by talking about them bringing HIV, raping the women, etc.), but I don't see the problem in principle with some moderate controls on low-skilled immigration, who DO pull average wages downwards, like any unregulated free market would.

 

I generally have the belief now that taking a high profile stance that more immigration is a bad thing de facto leads to more stigmatisation of immigrants in public, much as the person saying more immigration is bad can try to distance themselves from it.

 

But there's nothing new about huge sections of the Labour vote being socially conservative -- Enoch Powell was very popular in some Labour heartlands back in the day, after all. But they got around it by telling them "you may disagree with us on these cultural issues, but we'll still improve your lot and pull the rich down a peg or two, so you can still stick with us".

 

This really is the consequence of the Blairites washing out the mainstream economic debate; cultural issues inevitably rise to the fore when that happens.

There's nothing new about it. But I think it's now too polarised for the party to ride two horses at once and keep its metropolitan London voters and its socially conservative voters. I think the party has to choose between pro-immigration and anti-immigration. Any halfway house on this one (like Ed's last year) just leaves both sides dissatisfied - the pros think Labour is being racist and dog-whistling and the antis think Labour can't be trusted on the promise.

 

To be honest, if it wasn't for Sadiq at this point I'd just throw the whole towel in on the burning wreck of a party and join the SNP.

And Caroline Flint is on TV right now laughably saying "Corbyn should've been more positive about the EU".

 

These people can't have it both ways, they can't criticise Corbyn for not being flexible enough to public opinion generally AND at the same time that he didn't defy public opinion enough on the EU.

Sounding like he meant what he said would have been a start. How do you convince the electorate if you sound as if you haven't even convinced yourself?

I generally have the belief now that taking a high profile stance that more immigration is a bad thing de facto leads to more stigmatisation of immigrants in public, much as the person saying more immigration is bad can try to distance themselves from it.

 

Careful, you're almost sounding like us loony lefties talk about austerity - you'll be talking about "Overton windows" next :P

 

There's nothing new about it. But I think it's now too polarised for the party to ride two horses at once and keep its metropolitan London voters and its socially conservative voters. I think the party has to choose between pro-immigration and anti-immigration. Any halfway house on this one (like Ed's last year) just leaves both sides dissatisfied - the pros think Labour is being racist and dog-whistling and the antis think Labour can't be trusted on the promise.

 

To be honest, if it wasn't for Sadiq at this point I'd just throw the whole towel in on the burning wreck of a party and join the SNP.

 

If Labour chooses to go down the route of being economically conservative but culturally liberal, then the party is finished outside of London. Seriously. Cultural liberalism is just too niche a market. The white working-class generally actively dislike it, and most of the wealthy, even if they agree with cultural liberalism, will always go for the party which is best for it's pocketbook.

 

Left-wing parties only EVER succeed (in any Western country) when they have a left-wing economic message that the middle-class idealists and the working-class "self-interested" voters can unite behind, to distract from the cultural issues on which they're ALWAYS going to disagree.

Sounding like he meant what he said would have been a start. How do you convince the electorate if you sound as if you haven't even convinced yourself?

 

The problem was the message, not the messenger(s). The official Remain Campaign (which, again, was partly designed by some of the politically-clueless Labour "moderates") decided to turn it into a referendum on the economic status quo - "the whole of the current economy will be ruined if we leave". The great many people who are already at rock bottom decided they quite liked the sound of torching the status quo since they're getting so little from it. They simply chose the completely wrong strategy, for a campaign which was based on winning working-class voters.

End of the day, as i constantly rattle on about there are alwys consequences.

 

Thatcher allowed huge invetment banks to exist unregulated. The rest of the world went kerching. British bankers invented crap packaging and selling on. Labour fuelled those fires, blair invaded iraq, and the huge f***ing 2008 crash has led to a decade of austerity which led to anti eu feelings thanks to billionaire propaganda and refugee images from the middle east.

 

British governments are totally culpable for everything tht has happened, and the electorate are fools for believing the Eu is to blame. They have a small hand in it, but the usa and uk are FAR more to blame.

Christ. I am actually seeing suggestions on Twitter from self-styled "centrists" that Labour should forget about all Leave voters and just try to build a coalition of support on Remain voters. They genuinely seem to think Labour should be targetting ultra-wealthy true blue Tories in Oxfordshire and Surrey (the best results for Remain outside of London) and writing off three-quarters of their current seats.

 

And they say the Corbynites don't understand politics.

Hilary Benn has been sacked, and now half the shadow cabinet are planning to resign.

 

I think we are about to see a total capitulation of the Labour party!

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Doctor Blind

Expecting Corbyn to go by the end of the day :lol:

I wouldn't normally want to judge after less than a year, but I'm prepared to make an exception this time. Corbyn has been the worst leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. Michael Foot was poor, but at least he could show some passion and make a coherent argument. Corbyn has demonstrated no leadership skills whatsoever. It was always going to be hard for him after 30 years on the backbenches, but he still hasn't even begun to make the leap from rebellious backbencher to leader.

I wouldn't normally want to judge after less than a year, but I'm prepared to make an exception this time. Corbyn has been the worst leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. Michael Foot was poor, but at least he could show some passion and make a coherent argument. Corbyn has demonstrated no leadership skills whatsoever. It was always going to be hard for him after 30 years on the backbenches, but he still hasn't even begun to make the leap from rebellious backbencher to leader.

 

He's got to go. There is no way he is ever going to be electable. He might be popular with the rebellious 18-24 year old youth and those that are really left-wing, but Labour would be massacred in a general election.

Corbyn is indeed a goner, however unless I'm mistaken, the next Labour leader will be elected in the same way as Corbyn was, ie letting all the associate members who paid £3 to join Labour get a vote, so they'll probably end up getting another Corbyn-esque leader anyway, unless this time Labour MPs consciously refuse to get any of the hard left MPs enough votes to get onto the ballot paper.

There is also some confusion about whether the incumbent is automatically allowed to be on the ballot paper - this could get VERY interesting! :lol:

Corbyn is indeed a goner, however unless I'm mistaken, the next Labour leader will be elected in the same way as Corbyn was, ie letting all the associate members who paid £3 to join Labour get a vote, so they'll probably end up getting another Corbyn-esque leader anyway, unless this time Labour MPs consciously refuse to get any of the hard left MPs enough votes to get onto the ballot paper.

 

I think they have learned their lesson from the last time. No idea how they do it mind.

Absolute carnage! The craziest week in British politics since the fall out of the hung parliament.