Regarding Corbyn, it seems to me that the right of the party was always going to jump at the chance to stick the knife in. What's telling is that the 'soft left; contingent of the Shad Cab has abandoned ship as well. They must know that if there's a leadership election and Corbyn makes the ballot he'll be almost impossible to beat, and (unlike the right) would baulk at the idea of deliberately keeping him off it. That suggests that they reckon he won't have the energy to stand again, clearing the way either for Watson to come in or for a soft left candidate to win the leadership contest on a unity ticket.

 

Whether they're "Blairite" or "soft left", all of the "moderate" MPs thought it was a good idea to enthusiastically cheerlead for the Remain campaign, and didn't foresee how badly it would go down with the voters Labour needs to win an election. If their political judgement on that was so wrong, why on earth should we trust their judgement enough to hand the whole party over to them?

Did it occur to you that not every voter in a council area fits with your stereotype of their area? There's far more nuance than that and there are gains to be made all over the place.

 

Such as where? Do you believe that Labour could potentially gain Mole Valley, The Cotswolds, Tunbridge Wells, and the like in any circumstances then? Because that would be required to win an election with "the 48%".

 

Talk about it being "stereotypes" all you like, but it doesn't change that, outside of the big cities and a few university towns, the Remain-voting areas in England are generally a "who's who" of the few seats who stayed with the Tories in 1997.

Edited June 27, 20168 yr by Danny

But where from? The right of the party surely knows that there's so much political upheaval at the moment that a new centrist party could sink without trace. The left is more likely to split, but that would require Corbyn to go.

 

A de-selection bloodbath.

Whether they're "Blairite" or "soft left", all of the "moderate" MPs thought it was a good idea to enthusiastically cheerlead for the Remain campaign, and didn't foresee how badly it would go down with the voters Labour needs to win an election. If their political judgement on that was so wrong, why on earth should we trust their judgement enough to hand the whole party over to them?

Your definition of "moderate" seems to change day by day.

 

Such as where? Do you believe that Labour could potentially gain Mole Valley, The Cotswolds, Tunbridge Wells, and the like in any circumstances then? Because that would be required to win an election with "the 48%".

 

Talk about it being "stereotypes" all you like, but it doesn't change that, outside of the big cities and a few university towns, the Remain-voting areas in England are generally a "who's who" of the few seats who stayed with the Tories in 1997.

Firstly there's the seemingly obvious fact that council areas =/= constituencies.

 

Also, Leave won by a relatively narrow margin. I haven't had chance to look at the results in detail (blame Glastonbury) but there will be plenty of areas containing target seats where the Remain vote was more than large enough for a party to unite it and win the seat. If Boris does become PM, the Tories could unwittingly become almost uniformly associated with Leave pretty quickly.

Your definition of "moderate" seems to change day by day.

Firstly there's the seemingly obvious fact that council areas =/= constituencies.

 

Also, Leave won by a relatively narrow margin. I haven't had chance to look at the results in detail (blame Glastonbury) but there will be plenty of areas containing target seats where the Remain vote was more than large enough for a party to unite it and win the seat. If Boris does become PM, the Tories could unwittingly become almost uniformly associated with Leave pretty quickly.

 

There really aren't plenty of areas, at all. In most of the marginals in the Midlands and South, Leave won by a landslide. The swingier Tory seats went Leave, while generally only the most "core" of Tory areas voted Remain.

 

Breakdown by council area here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

 

That's leaving aside how impossible it would be to "unite" the completely disparate groups that voted Remain, anyway.

Whether they're "Blairite" or "soft left", all of the "moderate" MPs thought it was a good idea to enthusiastically cheerlead for the Remain campaign, and didn't foresee how badly it would go down with the voters Labour needs to win an election. If their political judgement on that was so wrong, why on earth should we trust their judgement enough to hand the whole party over to them?

What do you suggest they should have done? Should they have lied and pretended to support the Leave campaign? That sort of duplicity is best left to the likes of Boris Johnson.

What do you suggest they should have done? Should they have lied and pretended to support the Leave campaign? That sort of duplicity is best left to the likes of Boris Johnson.

 

Or the reverse, Teresa May, an outer who said nothing of consequence biding her time as a "Remainer"

 

Who said lying in politics was a flaw, the 2 main candidates to lead the Tory party seem to have

 

"WHOPPING LIAR" as the top required characteristic on the JD

 

Just ahead of ruthless self-interest.

 

 

What do you suggest they should have done? Should they have lied and pretended to support the Leave campaign? That sort of duplicity is best left to the likes of Boris Johnson.

 

I think they should've basically done exactly what Corbyn did: said they were voting Remain, but kept a low profile and made clear he didn't see it as the make-or-break issue. Frankly, I suspect that's the stance Blair would've taken if this referendum happened while he was opposition leader: no matter how pro-EU he was in his personal opinion, he would'e known back when he had a sense of public opinion that the EU would be deeply unpopular with sections of the Labour vote.

 

On the other hand, the current "moderates" in Parliament wanted Labour to be "passionate" in supporting Remain and made it the party's defining issue, and essentially send out the message that anyone who voted Leave would be banished from ever supporting Labour again. That would've been a recipe for a Scottish-style meltdown. It's not only a matter of them having the wrong policies in principle, the "moderates" also do not even have a better sense of public opinion than Corbyn does, as they've shown over the EU.

I think they should've basically done exactly what Corbyn did: said they were voting Remain, but kept a low profile and made clear he didn't see it as the make-or-break issue. Frankly, I suspect that's the stance Blair would've taken if this referendum happened while he was opposition leader: no matter how pro-EU he was in his personal opinion, he would'e known back when he had a sense of public opinion that the EU would be deeply unpopular with sections of the Labour vote.

 

On the other hand, the current "moderates" in Parliament wanted Labour to be "passionate" in supporting Remain and made it the party's defining issue, and essentially send out the message that anyone who voted Leave would be banished from ever supporting Labour again. That would've been a recipe for a Scottish-style meltdown. It's not only a matter of them having the wrong policies in principle, the "moderates" also do not even have a better sense of public opinion than Corbyn does, as they've shown over the EU.

Thereby allowing the contest to be portrayed even more as an internal battle within the Conservative party, and probably meaning a larger majority for Leave. That would be followed by a relentless attack on those same MPs for being spineless and unprincipled.

It's not only a matter of them having the wrong policies in principle, the "moderates" also do not even have a better sense of public opinion than Corbyn does, as they've shown over the EU.

Sorry, are you saying that backing EU membership wasn't the right approach? For a party whose supporters voted 70% Remain despite many not even knowing that the party had the same view?

Where are we getting the stats that 70% of Labour voters voted remain? Ashcroft gave 63% and 64% for Labour and SNP respectively. When looking at the types of areas that went heavily went for leave I'd say they pretty unanimously were Labour heartlands. - or at least places which USED to vote Labour.

There really aren't plenty of areas, at all. In most of the marginals in the Midlands and South, Leave won by a landslide. The swingier Tory seats went Leave, while generally only the most "core" of Tory areas voted Remain.

 

Breakdown by council area here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

 

That's leaving aside how impossible it would be to "unite" the completely disparate groups that voted Remain, anyway.

I went on that results page and clicked on the first local authority I could think of which matches up roughly to a marginal Westminster seat. That was High Peak, where the Tory MP sitting on a majority of 5,000 campaigned for Leave. The Leave vote in High Peak was 50.5%. Some landslide.

I went on that results page and clicked on the first local authority I could think of which matches up roughly to a marginal Westminster seat. That was High Peak, where the Tory MP sitting on a majority of 5,000 campaigned for Leave. The Leave vote in High Peak was 50.5%. Some landslide.

 

Hence why I said "most". And I'm not really sure a constituency where a majority voted to leave (however narrow the majority) suggests it would be a good strategy for Labour to be enthusiastically pro-EU

Edited June 27, 20168 yr by Danny

Hence why I said "most". And I'm not really sure a constituency where a majority voted to leave (however narrow the majority) suggests it would be a good strategy for Labour to be enthusiastically pro-EU

Because 50% is more than enough to win a seat. And I'm under no illusion that we should be enthusiastically campaigning for the EU post-referendum. We're not the Lib Dems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458 how much longer is he really going to stay?

Did anyone else see Dennis Skinner flipping the bird at all the Labour MPs yesterday.

 

What a 'LEDGE.

This has gone beyond a farce now. This was Labour's GOLDEN opportunity to prove why it should be re-elected at the next election by standing strong, united (as so few backed leave) and provided effective opposition in the face of a missing in action government.

 

The next election loss is as much Corbyn's fault as it is the Parliamentary Labour Party's. Did they learn nothing from Labor in Australia?!?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458 how much longer is he really going to stay?

 

That video just makes me mad. Corbyn is sending the Labour party the same way as the Green party.. a complete niche.

 

I don't really see anything wrong, Labour are going to get slaughtered by the next general election if they don't make a change now. Corbyn is not a leader and could have done more to support Remain. He might have the support of 250,000 people, but there is no way he is ever getting elected Prime Minister.

Apparently he is automatically allowed to be on the ballot for a new leader - this is DEFINITELY going to lead to a split!

Apparently he is automatically allowed to be on the ballot for a new leader - this is DEFINITELY going to lead to a split!

 

The interesting question will be if it does, who will be the faction that breaks away? Will the Corbynistas (Jezza, McDonnell, Diane etc) split to form a radical left alternative taking the £3 socialists with them, or will the 'moderates' split off and form a SDP-like party? The latter seems more likely, but for the future of the Labour Party as we know it, they'll be hoping it's the former.