Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[furnessvale]

Does Jeremy Corbyn deliberately set out to dress in a manner, so often seen in outside locations, as Tramp-in-Chief...:roll:

Not as shambolic as Michael Foot, but give him time!

 

[deltic]

Not as shambolic as Michael Foot, but give him time!

Not sure why Michael Foot got such a bad press over his dress sense etc. His hair was often longer and more untidy than what might have been expected and he certainly didnt wear smart city suits but he was perfectly presentable. And no he didnt wear a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph. Often used to see him waiting for the 24 bus from Whitehall to Hampstead back in the day.

 

[northwichcat]

The press coverage of the Copeland result is crap. In fact what was a Labour marginal is now a Tory marginal seat. No coincidence that it was once held by one of the few right-wing pro-nuclear power Labour MPs.

And that's one of the problems with Labour. A lot of their supporters have no idea what right wing means and use it to refer to anyone who isn't politically aligned with Corbyn. It wasn't that long ago Momentum called The Guardian a right wing newspaper after they printed a pro-Owen Smith column! Yes a lot of Labour MPs are further to the right than Corbyn but saying they are right wing is like saying a country like Iceland is scorching hot in the summer.

 

[northwichcat]

Brown lost 2010. Ed Milliband lost 2015.

Indeed. Brown also lost any chance of his party forming government as part of a coalition by refusing to agree to implement any policies which weren't in the Labour manifesto or drop any policies which were.

 

[gareth950]

David Miliband has given the tiniest hint today that he could return to British politics, but feels he is currently able to 'make more of a difference' in his role of head of the International Rescue Committee in the US.

Of course if he wanted to bid for the leadership of the Labour party again he'll have to get elected as an MP again first............

As has been said, the UK's only hope of being rescued from the ultra right wing, UKIP inspired Tory government at the moment are the Lib Dems, possibly in coalition with the SNP to form a government.
Although if the SNP were to get into government, no doubt one of their coalition red lines would be a Scottish independence referendum.
What a hopelessly sad situation this country is in.

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed. Brown also lost any chance of his party forming government as part of a coalition by refusing to agree to implement any policies which weren't in the Labour manifesto or drop any policies which were.

That's just Lib Dem revisionism.
The liberal democrats went into coalition with David Cameron because the ideology of state smashing is one they did and still do agree with. Despite their attempts to pretend to be a party opposed to untrammeled free markets

 

[miami]

That's just Lib Dem revisionism.
The liberal democrats went into coalition with David Cameron because the ideology of state smashing is one they did and still do agree with. Despite their attempts to pretend to be a party opposed to untrammeled free markets

Even with Lab and Lib in 2010 it still wasn't a majority of seats. The LIb Dems got an extraordinary amount of their policies enacted - including gay marriage, free school meals, fixed term parliaments, and a £10k income tax threshold.

Would brown have done that? How many policies will Corbyn get to implement?

The biggest problem with the 2010 coalition was it led Cameron to being cocky enough to include a referendum on Europe with intent of dropping it for a 2015 coalition discussion. That went well, all because students were worried about a 9% income tax above £20k.

 

[northwichcat]

That's just Lib Dem revisionism.
The liberal democrats went into coalition with David Cameron because the ideology of state smashing is one they did and still do agree with. Despite their attempts to pretend to be a party opposed to untrammeled free markets

Labour MPs who served in Brown's cabinet like Mr Darling also made the claim that he was unwilling to compromise.

A Conservative + Lib Dem coalition was the only way of getting a majority coalition without Labour and the Conservatives working together. The fact that the Lib Dems wanted to have talks with Labour after having talks with the Conservatives suggests they thought a minority coalition with Labour might be better than working with the Conservatives.

 

[northwichcat]

and a £10k income tax threshold.

Would brown have done that?

Both Brown and Cameron said the idea of a £10k income tax threshold would be unworkable in the leader debates which led up to the 2010 election. The fact that Cameron backed down and decided it would be workable when it was the top policy in the Lib Dem manifesto must have played a big part in the Lib Dems agreeing to go in to coalition with the Conservatives.

The biggest problem with the 2010 coalition was it led Cameron to being cocky enough to include a referendum on Europe with intent of dropping it for a 2015 coalition discussion. That went well, all because students were worried about a 9% income tax above £20k.

I also imagine it lost Labour some votes as Milliband said "A vote for Labour is a vote to stay in the EU" when some traditional Labour voters liked the idea of getting out of the EU.

 

[miami]

The press coverage of the Copeland result is crap. In fact what was a Labour marginal is now a Tory marginal seat. No coincidence that it was once held by one of the few right-wing pro-nuclear power Labour MPs.
.

If (and it's a big if) Labour wants to get the most seats in 2020 - let alone a majority - it needs to not only hold on to marginal constituencies, but win marginals (and more) from the conservatives. Copeland suggests the opposite will happen.

 

[gareth950]

Deleted

 

[HSTEd]

Even with Lab and Lib in 2010 it still wasn't a majority of seats. The LIb Dems got an extraordinary amount of their policies enacted - including gay marriage, free school meals, fixed term parliaments, and a £10k income tax threshold.

Fixed Term Parliaments are a disaster that leads to American style Zombie Governments and were only implemented because the LIb Dems wanted to make sure they would get a full five years in their ministerial cars. Indeed 5-year parliaments, previously the exception have now been codified as the norm to ensure this.

£10k income tax is a subsidy for rich people far more than it helps poor people, many of whoom don't earn enough to use the tax exemption in the first place.
Cutting income tax and not national insurance also acts to make pensioners even richer relative to working people.

And a handful of extra free school meals and and gay marriage are hardly the headline policies of the Lib Dems in their 2010 manifesto.

Would brown have done that? How many policies will Corbyn get to implement?

Thats irrelevant - the fact remains that the Liberal Democrats were never serious about a coalition with labour. They wanted one with the Tories and then decided to do face saving 'negotiations' to try and desperately save their student vote - which they had already decided to knife over tuition fees.

The biggest problem with the 2010 coalition was it led Cameron to being cocky enough to include a referendum on Europe with intent of dropping it for a 2015 coalition discussion. That went well, all because students were worried about a 9% income tax above £20k.

Ah, how dare students complain that they are betrayed or ignored time and again to ensure that unlimited resources are devoted to pensioners, bleeding everyone else dry to ensure this?

What economic basis is their for tuition fees to exist beyond the fact that pensioners demand that taxes on their income remain low and that their state pensions continue to grow at ridiculous and unsustainable rates?

 

[yorksrob]

Even with Lab and Lib in 2010 it still wasn't a majority of seats. The LIb Dems got an extraordinary amount of their policies enacted - including gay marriage, free school meals, fixed term parliaments, and a £10k income tax threshold.

Would brown have done that? How many policies will Corbyn get to implement?

The biggest problem with the 2010 coalition was it led Cameron to being cocky enough to include a referendum on Europe with intent of dropping it for a 2015 coalition discussion. That went well, all because students were worried about a 9% income tax above £20k.

Oh, so students shouldn't have voted against something that affected them adversely (let alone against something they didn't agree with) Just in case their party made a an agreement with another party they didn't vote for about a subject they weren't asked about.

Hardly the best advert for our parliamentary system.

 

[northwichcat]

£10k income tax threshold isn't a subsidy for the rich as they are also affected by the 40p threshold and in some cases the 45p threshold. Lowering those thresholds would have meant the rich didn't benefit but the Tories didn't want to do that as they wanted to cut tax for the rich as well. The Lib Dems wanted to keep the 50p threshold but the Tories wanted to scrap it, so they compromised at 45p.

It's interesting HSTEd thinks someone earning £7k per annum is rich. (They would have paid income tax when Labour left government.)

 

[Senex]

Fixed Term Parliaments are a disaster that leads to American style Zombie Governments and were only implemented because the LIb Dems wanted to make sure they would get a full five years in their ministerial cars. Indeed 5-year parliaments, previously the exception have now been codified as the norm to ensure this.

They're not wonderful because of that zombie-like last year or so -- and I'm not convinced that five years is the right length (even if it is a nice time to have a ministerial car). But is the alternative of a system that puts all the power in the hands of the prime minister of the day and means that unless a government is making a total disaster of things there can be a give-away bribing budget just before an election to buy another term of office any better?

 

[Busaholic]

They're not wonderful because of that zombie-like last year or so -- and I'm not convinced that five years is the right length (even if it is a nice time to have a ministerial car). But is the alternative of a system that puts all the power in the hands of the prime minister of the day and means that unless a government is making a total disaster of things there can be a give-away bribing budget just before an election to buy another term of office any better?

Yes. up to a point, Lord Copper. I'd put it as 'less bad' rather than better. David Cameron may well be remembered by history as not only being the man to be coerced into a needless referendum but also being the man who introduced Fixed Term Parliaments, and it may be a short straw to decide which was the worst decision.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They're not wonderful because of that zombie-like last year or so -- and I'm not convinced that five years is the right length (even if it is a nice time to have a ministerial car). But is the alternative of a system that puts all the power in the hands of the prime minister of the day and means that unless a government is making a total disaster of things there can be a give-away bribing budget just before an election to buy another term of office any better?

Perhaps we should have a system where - after around 3 and a half years, a computer randomly selects the date that Parliament will be dissolved, with the election to be held 4 weeks later - and no one (Government or Opposition) gets informed what the date is until about a week before Parliament is actually dissolved

(Yes, that wasn't entirely serious, there are some significant disadvantages of that system too).

 

[Howardh]

R/e length of term, I think it has to be fixed to give the chance for the government to fix things. When it was four years, they spent the last year in election mode (ie bribing us royally).

Maybe we should have it more like council elections, where there's no fixed term, but half the constituencies vote in one year, and half vote an alternate year, so as from 2015, half would vote in 2017, and the rest in 2019. So the standing government could be out in two years - that'll keep them on their toes!

OK< that's ludicrous, but I think 4 years is just fine, but the PM should hold the sole right to dissolve Parliament at any time just as Gordon Brown didn't.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe we should have it more like council elections, where there's no fixed term, but half the constituencies vote in one year, and half vote an alternate year, so as from 2015, half would vote in 2017, and the rest in 2019. So the standing government could be out in two years - that'll keep them on their toes!

Not all councils operate like that. For Cheshire East we had elections for a brand new council in 2008, then elections in 2012 and elections in 2016. Any other elections have been by-elections.

I found it a bit strange when I lived in Kirklees that two years after voting for 3 seats on the council, one of those councillors faced re-election but the other two were allowed to continue for another 2 years.

 

[PHILIPE]

Reported on BBC News that Jeremy Corbyn has referred to everybody within the Party to work together following the Copeland result and that, if they do, the Party will succeed. He seems to have forgotten that the electorate decide the result of elections.

 

[northwichcat]

Reported on BBC News that Jeremy Corbyn has referred to everybody within the Party to work together following the Copeland result and that, if they do, the Party will succeed. He seems to have forgotten that the electorate decide the result of elections.

That will only work if Corbyn is willing to listen to and work with the Blarites in the party, not say they are wrong and threaten them if they vote against him. If Blair had taken Corbyn's approach then Corbyn would have been expelled from the party a long time ago.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

That will only work if Corbyn is willing to listen to and work with the Blarites in the party, not say they are wrong and threaten them if they vote against him. If Blair had taken Corbyn's approach then Corbyn would have been expelled from the party a long time ago.

I don't follow your argument. I'm not sure that Corbyn has threatened the Blairite rump with expulsion, and Blair certainly wouldn't have expelled Corbyn and all those on the left of the party when he was in his pomp, he had no need to! (At the time they were just a minor irritant). It was the Blairite wing of the party who lost the 2010 election (OK, I know he had handed the mantle over to Brown), and Miliband was leader when Scotland decimated Labour. All this is Corbyn's fault? I know this is old ground, but really! Anyway, Theresa May leads the Workers party now, apparently.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not all councils operate like that. For Cheshire East we had elections for a brand new council in 2008, then elections in 2012 and elections in 2016. Any other elections have been by-elections.

I found it a bit strange when I lived in Kirklees that two years after voting for 3 seats on the council, one of those councillors faced re-election but the other two were allowed to continue for another 2 years.

Different district councils do things in different ways. Some councils have full elections, where the entire council faces elections in one go every 4 years; others have elections in 'thirds', where each year 1/3 of the councillors face re-election. IIRC it still goes in 4-year cycles because 1 year in every 4 that council has no elections (usually the year that the county council covering that area has its elections, if there is one) - so in theory, each individual councillor should still face re-election every 4 years.

 

[northwichcat]

Different district councils do things in different ways. Some councils have full elections, where the entire council faces elections in one go every 4 years; others have elections in 'thirds', where each year 1/3 of the councillors face re-election. IIRC it still goes in 4-year cycles because 1 year in every 4 that council has no elections (usually the year that the county council covering that area has its elections, if there is one) - so in theory, each individual councillor should still face re-election every 4 years.

If there's say 30 councillors and 10 of them would have been in office for 4 years next May but another 2 choose to stand down next May but have only been in office for 2 years, would that mean in May 2018 that there would still need to be 10 seats put up for election despite 2 of the seats having got new councillors two years previously?

 

[northwichcat]

I don't follow your argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50

It was the Blairite wing of the party who lost the 2010 election (OK, I know he had handed the mantle over to Brown), and Miliband was leader when Scotland decimated Labour. All this is Corbyn's fault? I know this is old ground, but really! Anyway, Theresa May leads the Workers party now, apparently.

2010 wasn't a bad result for Labour considering how long they'd been in office for (any party in government generally becomes less popular the longer they've been in government for) and considering they were in government when a recession started. It was quite impressive that they retained enough seats to stop a majority Conservative government in the circumstances.

Miliband may have lost Scotland but he gained support in England.

Labour have had less support at each of the last four by-elections than they had when Miliband let the party at the last general election:
Stoke-on-Trent Central - minus 2.2%
Copeland - minus 4.9%
Sleaford and North Hykeham - minus 7.1%
Richmond Park - minus 8.7%

If Corbyn's pro-Brexit left-wing stance loses Labour support in Stoke-on-Trent Central what chance has he got of gaining support in a constituency like Chester which Labour won from the Conservatives in 2015 with a margin of just 93 votes?

 

[Butts]

I don't follow your argument. I'm not sure that Corbyn has threatened the Blairite rump with expulsion, and Blair certainly wouldn't have expelled Corbyn and all those on the left of the party when he was in his pomp, he had no need to! (At the time they were just a minor irritant). It was the Blairite wing of the party who lost the 2010 election (OK, I know he had handed the mantle over to Brown), and Miliband was leader when Scotland decimated Labour. All this is Corbyn's fault? I know this is old ground, but really! Anyway, Theresa May leads the Workers party now, apparently.

Perhaps you should look a little closer to home for a workers party.

Arguably Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru should fulfil that criteria for you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure what the criticism of fixed terms is all about. Parliament can be dissolved with a vote of no confidence. What it stops is the incumbent government being able to call a snap election. Rather than Lib Dems being "greedy", I'd say it was more about a response to the problems caused by Gordon Brown dithering in 2007/8.

The Lib Dems underestimated their power, went along with the Tories to an extent but didn't crow about just how much they tempered the right-wing nutjobbery of that party. And they were creamed in 2015 because of it. I'd say Clegg was hopelessly naive, which is what really surprised me.

I don't think the Copeland result is the humiliating defeat the BBC- whose political editor is a woman whose father was implicated in trying to fix Labour internal elections in Scotland- are trying desperately to portray. It's been a marginal since the boundary changes in 2010, and the personality of Reed is what kept it Labour. It's a shame as the Labour candidate actually IS anti-Corbyn, and has said so repeatedly. Her losing actually strengthens Corbyn within the party, bizarrely enough.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Perhaps you should look a little closer to home for a workers party.

Arguably Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru should fulfil that criteria for you.

Thanks, Butts, can always rely on you! I don't have a problem with some of PC's policies, but the rabid Nationalistic element...ugh!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If there's say 30 councillors and 10 of them would have been in office for 4 years next May but another 2 choose to stand down next May but have only been in office for 2 years, would that mean in May 2018 that there would still need to be 10 seats put up for election despite 2 of the seats having got new councillors two years previously?

In that scenario, there'd be 12 seats up for election: 10 'normal' elections and 2 by-elections that might just happen to take place on the same day as the scheduled elections in the other 10 seats.

 

[Busaholic]

IMO Labour approaching the 2020 GE (and, no, I've not yet resiled from my position that there'll be an election either this year or next) has many similarities to Labour's position two or three years before the 2010 election. Then they had a leader (Gordon Brown) who didn't in practice have the support of many of his ministers or MPs or in the public polls, but they had to be more sotto voce because (big difference) Labour was in power. Nevertheless, as with Corbyn, so many of the more prescient could see that Brown would never get an overall majority from the electorate, even though Scotland would not be such a problem. Those members of the party/ministers/MPs knew they'd just have to lose, then choose a new leader. Perhaps this time, though, the incumbent would still choose to stay, inured to reality as he is, and his own gang might have to put it to him that decency required his removal.