Jeremy Corbyn re-elected: what now for Labour?

On the front page of today's Guardian, it says 'Corbyn foes refuse to be silenced by poll victory'. Corbyn has refused to sign up to proposals for elections to the shadow cabinet, and has kept open the possibility of deselection of MPs who don't agree with him. It hardly bodes well, and certainly doesn't chime with his stated desire to all pull together. 

The desire to give a greater say to the members, but the only trouble in that is that huge numbers are Corbyn fans, making the PLP feel even more out of the loop. 

One thing I've been pondering on recently, is that at the County Council where I work, the leader chooses the Cabinet - not councillors, not the local party members. It's worked fine since the introduction of the leader and cabinet model for local government, and actually I see no issue with the leader of the Labour Party choosing their cabinet, just as the Conservatives do. If the PLP elected a cabinet that disagreed with the leader, Government couldn't work. 

One thing I would do though is to stop registered supporters and affiliated members from voting and restrict it to full party members. The idea that you can pay £25 for a vote, or vote just because you are a member of a union, seems potty. 

HH, the cabinet system at local government level is too open to abuse.  Illustrated by one case I know of...

The cabinet pushed through some 'minor' revisions to the constitution.  In amongst a load of nearly irrelevant changes and tweaks to articles, they included one where the Standard And Ethics Committee could only refer decisions made by the Cabinet back to the Cabinet for them to make a final decision; they could not refer Cabinet decisions to the general Council, nor could they declare a decision made by the Cabinet to be unethical or to fall below the required standard or refer it to any outside body.

Jeremy vine is just debating this very topic on radio 2, good time to get a consensus of opinion 

wenger2015 posted:

Jeremy vine is just debating this very topic on radio 2, good time to get a consensus of opinion 

This is politics, a "consensus of opinion" is rarely a realistic objective!  

Huge posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Jeremy vine is just debating this very topic on radio 2, good time to get a consensus of opinion 

This is politics, a "consensus of opinion" is rarely a realistic objective!  

Very true, but you do get a feel for how the person in the street might be thinking .......

Ah, the man on the top deck of the Clapham omnibus!

Unless the service has been cut, of course. 

I like it HH, I'm pleased to see that your sharp incisive wit is returning.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Unless the service has been cut, of course. 

Look, I keep telling people; there is no call for an omnibus service in Clapham.

Thanks Huge. My hearing is starting to return a bit too, which has perked me up no end. Even Labour's problems won't get me down. He says, steering back on topic.....

HH, I have always felt uncomfortable with political party members selecting the parliamentary party leader. In my simplistic view, the voters elected MPs as representatives and it is up to those MPs only to chose their leader in parliament. I have no problem with the selected leader picking his/her chosen 'cabinet' as otherwise (if the ministers had been selected by a ballot of al MPs) it would be difficult to govern (mind you the whips would probably stitch up the cabinet elections). If I recall correctly the leader of both parties has always had an absolute say on who does what in the (shadow) cabinet but there was a period sometime recently when the Labour shadow cabinet (but not the real one when they were in power) was selected by the Labour MPs voting. It was Miliband who opened up the leadership vote to anybody who paid £3; in my opinion an absolutely insane decision.

Huge posted:

.....

The Conservatives believe the part about accumulating capital in the economy in good times and minimising the deficit in bad times (but ignore the part about using the excess for social reform and economic stimulation [to prevent recession]).

Labour believes the part about spending money for social reform and [more recently only] economic stimulation (but ignore the part about having to have the money to do it in the first place).

 

Huge - come come - that is too much of a stereotype cliche - neither party ignores - its just that different members within its leadership at different points at time attach varying values / importance to them. Your descriptions sounds like a PPB for the Liberal Democrats  

On the Brexit topic what I find as an interesting observation is that the vote has brought together the more left and right wing groups within English and Welsh politics with a common outcome - and its the more liberal that are possibly more minded to disagree. 

Its interesting that Corbyn and now May are being criticised for not have more passionately banged on the remain battle drum... perhaps they knew something we don't.

PeterJ posted:

HH, I have always felt uncomfortable with political party members selecting the parliamentary party leader. In my simplistic view, the voters elected MPs as representatives and it is up to those MPs only to chose their leader in parliament. I have no problem with the selected leader picking his/her chosen 'cabinet' as otherwise (if the ministers had been selected by a ballot of al MPs) it would be difficult to govern (mind you the whips would probably stitch up the cabinet elections). If I recall correctly the leader of both parties has always had an absolute say on who does what in the (shadow) cabinet but there was a period sometime recently when the Labour shadow cabinet (but not the real one when they were in power) was selected by the Labour MPs voting. It was Miliband who opened up the leadership vote to anybody who paid £3; in my opinion an absolutely insane decision.

Have to agree substantially with that, and in that decision of Milliband lies so much of the evolving disaster whereby hardly any of the elected MPs want, agree with or even like the leader they now have. That situation seems bizarre, but Labour has always had to shuffle around the role of Members, Unions and MPs in some sort of way for leadership, cabinet and policy.

Of course it can be read another way; the new active membership that Corbyn has attracted might argue that it is important that the constituency candidates are in line with the will of the membership-hence lots of deselection coming up. Ultimately that seems to ignore the fact that MPs have an electoral mandate from the constituency they represent, not just one from the votes of Labour Party Members.

Bruce

Labour will continue to be irrelevant until it elects a leader capable of leading. I am not sure how long this will take, or even if it is possible with the current method of electing a "leader".

Simon,

On reflection "... ignores ..." isn't quite appropriate...;  OK, how about "... chooses to ignore (due to pressures of internal party squabbles and party philosophy) ...".

I also acknowledge that even this is hyperbole, as in reality the Tories do make some concessions to funding social reform and Labour do make some concessions to fiscal responsibility.  So yes at times both parties have ameliorated these positions, but the underlying trends remain.

In respect of a PPB for the Lib Dems, I would side with the Monster Raving Loonie Party's policy on defence:
"De fence will be creosoted every two weeks to stop the other parties sitting on it!".

P.S.  I won't apologise to any political party or any politician for the use of hyperbole - I don't see that I should apologise for use of any debating technique upon which they also heavily rely!

Dozey posted:

Labour will continue to be irrelevant until it elects a leader capable of leading. I am not sure how long this will take, or even if it is possible with the current method of electing a "leader".

Does the term "Leader" not imply followers?

In the case of Jeremy Corbyn it seems that few of the PLP are actually his followers, and most of the PLP wish to pursue a different course.  So, herein lies the conflict.  Jeremy Corbyn's policies are a reasonable match to the aspirations of Labour Party members in the country, but probably not a good match to the views of a majority of the electorate in the country.

So should the party represent the views of it's members (as Mr Corbyn wants), or the views of a wider electorate (as the majority of the PLP want, as their seats in the Common depend on being re-elected).

...and Corbyn is hardly going to want to see the constitution of his Party re-written for a system that gives more power choosing a leader to the PLP either! Ditto the Unions.

I can only assume that Corbyn would appear to prefer to be where he is and lose the next election than see the leadership pass to somebody who could really be considered by the public a future PM. If he does not see that as being the likely outcome he is deluded in my opinion.

Owen Smith did not look like my idea of a PM either by the way.

Bruce

Hungryhalibut posted:

On the front page of today's Guardian, it says 'Corbyn foes refuse to be silenced by poll victory'. Corbyn has refused to sign up to proposals for elections to the shadow cabinet, and has kept open the possibility of deselection of MPs who don't agree with him. It hardly bodes well, and certainly doesn't chime with his stated desire to all pull together. 

The is an answer to all those points though HH... First; 'Corbyn foes refuse to be silenced by poll victory' ... well I'm sorry but Corbyn has been elected (and I will state for the record that I applaud his policies but think he has failed as a leader) and those against him have to either support the direction and help him; or be prepared to cause further rifts within the party.

Next "Corbyn has refused to sign up to proposals for elections to the shadow cabinet" ... and why should he.  Those who are trying to oust him were the very people who fought to remove the elections for shadow cabinet because those elected by the party weren't those they wanted to lead.  The labour party are doing themselves a disservice by their continual changing and reinterpreting the rules.  Its the throwing their toys out their pram situation.

Finally "kept open the possibility of deselection of MPs who don't agree with him" ... well part of this is down to the fact that there are (potentially) 23 MPs who's constituency will no longer exist.  Jeremy may be being clumsy in how he says things; but that is the essence of the "deselection of MPs".  

The problem is Jeremy Corbyn may be willing to put the last 3 months behind him and work with everyone ... but other people do not appear to be willing to work with Jeremy Corbyn.

One thing I would do though is to stop registered supporters and affiliated members from voting and restrict it to full party members. The idea that you can pay £25 for a vote, or vote just because you are a member of a union, seems potty. 

I agree that the whole labour membership rules do appear to need an examination.  There needs to be a decision over who may vote - all members or only those who have been a member for more than 6 months?  And the registered supporter issue needs examining and is too open to abuse (IMO).

Most people I know are not actually members of a particular political party. The few friends who are, are the ones who are very single-minded about where their politics lie.

I suspect that most members of any political Party tend to be the die-hard, very keen politically minded people.

In the case of the Labour Party, this means most signed up members are likely to be aligned with the left of the party.

Jeremy Corbyn increased his majority as leader of the recent party vote, with 422,664 votes. (The Guardian) 

Compare this to the number of people who actually voted Labour in the 2015 election - 9,347,304 (Wiki) and you'll appreciate that a HUGE number of people who voted Labour at that election, did not vote for Corbyn in the leadership battle..

History tends to show that the moderate leaders (centre left or centre right) tend to win General Elections.

Therefore, although I admire Corby's honest approach and the fact he doesn't shout at everyone, I don't think Labour have a cat-in-hells chance at being elected at a General Election under his leadership.

Eloise, I don't disagree with anything you say. It will be interesting to see what happens as the week goes on. It was interesting that John McDonnell was the one on the Today programme this morning. I wonder if Jeremy really is frightened to go on. It does seem rather odd. Where is the leadership? Perhaps in bed with a bowl of muesli?

Eloise, although I fundamentally disagree with Corbyn's policies I believe that his main failings are not related to those. He clearly is seen as a leader by the left wing of the Labour Party. His failings are his inability to convert (or even understand let alone have a dialogue with) those who do not support him. Also, IMHO, he does not have the necessary intellectual ability to be able to be able to drive strategies and policies and trends or to be able to select honest and competent advisors, spokespersons and managers.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Eloise, I don't disagree with anything you say. It will be interesting to see what happens as the week goes on. It was interesting that John McDonnell was the one on the Today programme this morning. I wonder if Jeremy really is frightened to go on. It does seem rather odd. Where is the leadership? Perhaps in bed with a bowl of muesli?

Looks like Diane Abbott is out then ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Eloise, I don't disagree with anything you say. It will be interesting to see what happens as the week goes on. It was interesting that John McDonnell was the one on the Today programme this morning. I wonder if Jeremy really is frightened to go on. It does seem rather odd. Where is the leadership? Perhaps in bed with a bowl of muesli?

Looks like Diane Abbott is out then ?

He's swapped Diane Abbott for a bowl of muesli?

G

Eloise posted:

The problem is Jeremy Corbyn may be willing to put the last 3 months behind him and work with everyone ... but other people do not appear to be willing to work with Jeremy Corbyn.

 

 

I don't see much evidence that Corbyn is willing to work with everyone.

Working with people involves listening to them, taking on their concerns and good ideas. Corbyn has a pre-determined agenda. This agenda is attractive to a few hundred thousand LP Members. I see no sign that he is willing to compromise his agenda.