But if the incumbant stays he will automatically be on the card and so there will be less others - so not to spread the votes.

God I'm so depressed. WHY ANGELA BLOODY EAGLE?

 

It could literally only have been Tom Watson.

 

I didnt realise she has been an MP since as long ago as 1992?! (according to labour list) Thought at the earliest she was a Blair Babe from 1997 or even after but 1992!!

 

What age is she, doesnt look more than 50. She is always stated as being on the left but she is strongly pro trident and voted for the war in Iraq and Syria.

I didnt realise she has been an MP since as long ago as 1992?! (according to labour list) Thought at the earliest she was a Blair Babe from 1997 or even after but 1992!!

 

What age is she, doesnt look more than 50. She is always stated as being on the left but she is strongly pro trident and voted for the war in Iraq and Syria.

Some of us are old enough to remember her beating Tory minister Linda Chalker in 1992 :P I think her sister joined her in 1997.

What is the thought process whereby a floating voter who doesn't want Corbyn to be PM, WOULD want Tom Watson to be PM? He's no more charismatic, has just as many image problems (shallow as it may be, I feel his weight would be just as big a problem as Corbyn's "scruffiness") and doesn't even seem like a nice and down-to-earth guy in the way Corbyn does.

He can actually mobilise our core vote in a way Corbyn can't - he's a fundamentally crap campaigner.

 

I don't think Watson's an election winner. I do think he'd have been the difference between us losing by 200 seats and us losing by 100.

which is, after all, the reason this is going on. Everyone saying the PLP have lost touch, I suggest you go out around areas of the country and just ask random people what they think of Corbyn as a leader. Not the Labour Party, not his policies, but him personally. Pretty sure most will say, nice quiet man, but useless in terms of motivating the average punter who just voted Leave.

 

He'd be much more effective steering SOME of the policies of the party in a supporting role.

But if the incumbant stays he will automatically be on the card and so there will be less others - so not to spread the votes.

Minimal. It's AV.

 

Assuming Theresa May is now the favourite to win that other leadership election, it's looking likely that we won't have an early election. That removes one of the reasons not to have a leadership election in order to ensure unity. It now becomes imperative that we make sure the leader going forward to 2020 is someone who can 1) keep the party together, 2) maximise our chances next time and 3) take advantage of another four years of a tiny Tory majority.

Could anyone explain why the Labour party are trying to organise a coup on their leader without having a credible replacement for him? This is more suicidal than Brexit?

Some of us are old enough to remember her beating Tory minister Linda Chalker in 1992 :P I think her sister joined her in 1997.

 

I checked Wiki shes actually 55 - :o and i like her performances in the commons but Owen Smith would be my prefered option policy wise.

 

Yeh Maria joined her in 1997!

So the 3pm announcement of Angela's challenge was delayed for further contemplation. This just gets more and more ridiculous.

 

At this rate Labour will suffer a Lib Dem style annihilation at the next election.

Minimal. It's AV.

But more opposing candidates spreads resources and spreads focus when they could be concentrated on one.

Anyone who puts Diane Abbott in such a high profile position deserves to be forced out.

 

I can't believe Angela Eagle is the best they can come up with as a challenger to Corbyn? What a joke.

Minor point, but they weren't. We lost seats.

 

Lost seats compared to 2012, which is not the equivalent point of the last electoral cycle (second year into a term, compared to one year in). Compared to 2011, Corbyn's Labour beat the Tories by 1% in 2016, whereas Miliband's Labour LOST by 1%. And of course, Corbyn's Labour did much better than the "Remain" campaign which was based on the Labour "moderates"' playbook.

 

Having said all this, Twitter is saying that MPs might nominate Clive Lewis for the leadership contest in exchange for standing down. I would be OK with that -- a more competent and charismatic version of Corbyn policies is the only acceptable way forward, for me.

Lost seats compared to 2012, which is not the equivalent point of the last electoral cycle (second year into a term, compared to one year in). Compared to 2011, Corbyn's Labour beat the Tories by 1% in 2016, whereas Miliband's Labour LOST by 1%. And of course, Corbyn's Labour did much better than the "Remain" campaign which was based on the Labour "moderates"' playbook.

 

Having said all this, Twitter is saying that MPs might nominate Clive Lewis for the leadership contest in exchange for standing down. I would be OK with that -- a more competent and charismatic version of Corbyn policies is the only acceptable way forward, for me.

As has been said multiple times, the equivalent results are 2012. 2011 isn't comparable in any meaningful way because different seats were up, which fundamentally changes the results.

I suppose I could live with Clive Lewis on the basis that if we're going to lose, we might as well do it in a way that can move on from after the election, rather than get bogged down in "we lost because Corbyn wasn't that charismatic"/"we lost because the MPs weren't loyal to Corbyn"/insert other excuse here. Better to move through the cycle quicker rather than have Clive Lewis in 2020.

Yeah, I'd take Lewis over Corbyn at this stage any day of the week.

 

I just did a mini-rant in a Facebook message thread which summarises my thoughts as to why I think Corbyn could have done more in the referendum and it's probably relevant enough to post here:

 

On the article - Curtice says that Labour voters were less divided than Tory supporters on the referendum, and that Corbyn therefore did less badly than Cameron in uniting his base. My issue with that is that the Tory base was always going to be fractured because it's a fundamentally divided party on the EU, with almost half of its MPs backing Leave, so the fact that its voters follow suit isn't surprising. You could definitely say the same about Labour, but Corbyn's whole schtick is that he's the one who can re-engage the disillusioned non-voters and UKIP switchers (the white working class, basically) and the fact that that group still voted overwhelmingly to leave is a pretty damning indictment of that idea. I'm not saying he could have single handedly swung the result, but it's yet another thing which makes me question whether he'll actually be able to get those type of voters to listen to him

 

It's a response to this article, by the way.

I wouldn't call it a mini-rant, I'd call it a pretty accurate assessment ....!

As has been said multiple times, the equivalent results are 2012. 2011 isn't comparable in any meaningful way because different seats were up, which fundamentally changes the results.

 

2011 isn't comparable to 2016 in any meaningful way, except it's the exact same point in the electoral cycle, and voteshare projections for the first year of the electoral cycle have a very high predictive value of the following general elections.

 

Comparing 2012 to 2016 (two years in, compared to one year in) is just as absurd as if you were to compare a football team's points in the Premier League in October of one year, to the December of the previous year. October 2016: "Leicester have only got 20-something points now, compared to the 40 points they had in December 2015 - that shows they're doing worse now". Well, yes, technically they would have a worse performance, but only because they're comparing completely different stages of the season -- to state the obvious, you can only meaningfully gauge whether they're doing better if you're comparing the equivalent stages of the season.

 

(Yes, reading this back, I probably should've picked a sport I wasn't as unknowledgeable about as football for this analogy.)

Edited July 1, 20169 yr by Danny

Yeah, I'd take Lewis over Corbyn at this stage any day of the week.

 

I just did a mini-rant in a Facebook message thread which summarises my thoughts as to why I think Corbyn could have done more in the referendum and it's probably relevant enough to post here:

It's a response to this article, by the way.

 

The problem with this argument is it's completely contradictory of the "moderates"' criticism of Corbyn on non-EU matters. If Corbyn had been more outspoken in favour of the EU, might the "Remain" campaign have won? Possibly yes, it might well have scraped a win. However, it would've undoubtedly meant Labour would've been hugely damaged -- hardened Leave voters would've concluded that if Labour's main raison d'etre was being pro-EU, then Labour couldn't possibly be the party for them, as happened in Scotland when pro-unionism became seen as Scottish Labour's main raison d'etre (whereas Corbyn's "we don't really care about the EU" stance has, judging by the polls this week, has meant there have been mercifully few Labour->UKIP defections).

 

The point is that the Labour "moderates" can't be outraged when left-wingers want Labour to stand firm against welfare cuts and nuclear weapons even at the expense of electoral success, yet at the same time demand Corbyn go on a kamikaze mission to advocate the EU even when it's patently obvious that such a stance would've hugely damaged the party's electoral chances. Either "electability" matters more than purity all the time, or vice versa - but moderates seem to think that purity should matter more on the issues they feel particularly strongly about (the EU), and that it shouldn't matter on the things that actually affect the people they're supposed to represent.

The problem with this argument is it's completely contradictory of the "moderates"' criticism of Corbyn on non-EU matters. If Corbyn had been more outspoken in favour of the EU, might the "Remain" campaign have won? Possibly yes, it might well have scraped a win. However, it would've undoubtedly meant Labour would've been hugely damaged -- hardened Leave voters would've concluded that if Labour's main raison d'etre was being pro-EU, then Labour couldn't possibly be the party for them, as happened in Scotland when pro-unionism became seen as Scottish Labour's main raison d'etre (whereas Corbyn's "we don't really care about the EU" stance has, judging by the polls this week, has meant there have been mercifully few Labour->UKIP defections).

 

The point is that the Labour "moderates" can't be outraged when left-wingers want Labour to stand firm against welfare cuts and nuclear weapons even at the expense of electoral success, yet at the same time demand Corbyn go on a kamikaze mission to advocate the EU even when it's patently obvious that such a stance would've hugely damaged the party's electoral chances. Either "electability" matters more than purity all the time, or vice versa - but moderates seem to think that purity should matter more on the issues they feel particularly strongly about (the EU), and that it shouldn't matter on the things that actually affect the people they're supposed to represent.

You're ignoring the fact that a lot of MPs feel strongly about EU membership for a number of reasons. Not only do they think it fits in with Labour's internationalist history, they also think that leaving will be very bad for the country. Why, then, should they act as if they don't really care one way or the other?

You're ignoring the fact that a lot of MPs feel strongly about EU membership for a number of reasons. Not only do they think it fits in with Labour's internationalist history, they also think that leaving will be very bad for the country. Why, then, should they act as if they don't really care one way or the other?

 

Because most Labour members feel strongly about welfare cuts and austerity in general, yet the "moderate" Labour MPs have been spending the last 6 years telling us it's "self-indulgent" for the party to take strong stands on those issues, and that "electability" matters more than principles. Yet suddenly that logic goes out the window when it comes to one of their priorities, such as the EU.

Edited July 2, 20169 yr by Danny