The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

Being as there is currently no majority in the house for no deal, this would be a good thing, no? Strong leader means No Deal less likely

Sorry, you've lost me. Can you expand on that?

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry, you've lost me. Can you expand on that?

I think it's pretty much there in black and white but here goes.

Johnson is less likely to call an election if Labour has a strong Leader

Currently there is no majority in the house for No Deal, so the strong leader means that an election is less likely to be called and a no deal scenario will be avoided by the current make up of the house

There is definitely no majority in the house for the WA

That really does only leave two options revoke or referendum.

Calling an election is dangerous and might allow Brexit to happen, the strong Labour Leader prevents that by your logic

So in the strong leader scenario, this house and this government has to deal with the mess. The current weak leader allows an election to happen and that means the risk of a No Deal Brexit increases dependent upon the election result

[HanoiVillan]

Thank you for explaining your thoughts @bickster. However, that all depends on the view that you need a majority in the HoC for a No Deal to happen. There appear to be ways for Johnson to leave with No Deal if he wants to, as far as I can see. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thank you for explaining your thoughts @bickster. However, that all depends on the view that you need a majority in the HoC for a No Deal to happen. There appear to be ways for Johnson to leave with No Deal if he wants to, as far as I can see. 

Possibly, possibly not, all depends on various legal challenges. Plenty more twists in this to come

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

3) Logically, Johnson is significantly *less* likely to call an election if he perceives the leader of the opposition to be strong and credible, not more. 

One of the things the tories have been saying is "vote me to keep Corbyn Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Hard Left Corbyn Government" to keep voters and Tory MPs onside against Catweazle. Get rid of Catweazle and the threat of ""vote me to keep [Kier Starmer or Yvette Cooper or whoever] Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Centrist Labour Government" or whatever is rather less of a weapon for the throbbers - in terms of "he'll/she'll wreck this country" because they know it won't wash.

Corbyn is a useful asset for the tories in that regard. Not his fault at all, (other than by dint of being a clueless berk). So I'm with Bicks on the logic of it all.

[bickster]

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Because they would then be in a position to win that election instead of Johnson and steer the ship away from the iceberg. 

Even with a new leader Labour would not win an election. It's gone beyond that right now. A new leader would only stem the flow of votes from the party. New policies entirely required and we're years off that happening. In terms of Brexit it might be best in the short term if Corbyn stayed put and destroyed the party's public standing completely. Labour has almost destroyed itself in its Welsh heartlands, an opinion poll was published the other day that gives Plaid the most seats if a Welsh Assembly vote was held now. Let that sink in... Plaid are currently looking like the party most likely to in a number of South Wales seats... that is entirely unheard of. It's already buggered up Scotland for itself.

I've never seen the party in such a bad position in over 40 years of me showing an interest in politics

[chrisp65]

I think one of the many problems for Welsh Labour is the personality void of their 'leader'. Mark Greyford will not commit to whether it's day or night unless his London masters have given him a statement to read out.

That would be bad enough in better times. But when the Westminster leader rarely gives a definitive opinion on anything, it's become glaringly obvious that 'Welsh' Labour is utterly directionless.

I've said it before, I've followed a good few local labour accounts on twitter. They've basically ground to a halt, or just discuss cats and last night's TV. They're pretty much relying on people voting for them out of habit.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, Xann said:

London Economic

The problem for the newspapers is that Corbyn is actually pretty boring (in news terms).  There really isn’t much dirt to dig up.

As a media outlet, it isn’t easy to smear a popular politician who held his seat for approaching 40 years and has dedicated his life to peace and democratic socialism, standing up for the working class.

Hacks in the press rooms have been tasked by their superiors with siphoning through decades old leaflets, newsletters, videos and interviews to try and pull out a line or two that may, if taken out of context, portray Corbyn in a negative light. Hence why a continuous newsreel of loosely interpreted ‘Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser’ and ‘Corbyn the anti-Semite’ stories are shoved down our throats.

...In a political period where we have leaders and high profile politicians like Trump and Boris overtly making racist comments and failing to condemn racist actions, it makes the whole Corbyn smear seem even more absurd. Yet the mud sticks, and it keeps coming.

You can’t win an election with the media against you

As a local constituency MP, Corbyn was OK. He could follow his desire to focus on Islington interest things like talking to the IRA, Hamas, whoever, or hailing Chavez in Venezuela and it didn't matter. But as a leader, and even more so as a potential prime minister, that "judgement" does matter. That world outlook is far more significant. It's not just a talking point for some posh Londoners to cogitate over free range cocaine and organic quinoa dinner parties. He could as a local MP, work to help his constituents with whatever problems they had with the Gas Board or the council and all was well with the world.

He could rebel frequently on all sorts of things, and it didn't matter. Right or wrong, he could indulge his views, for the good or for the bad. He could talk to folk on a calm level and appear human and decent and eccentric and it didn't matter, it helped a few folk feel better about things, feel their consciences were a little clearer, perhaps.

But as a leader where competence and judgement are critical, he's no sort of candidate at all. His instincts are awry by a long way on too many things. He can't bring his party with him. He deigns not to involve himself with the media and then people wonder why most of the media is not overly kind to him. By not "playing the game" he's not helping his party, or his chances.

It's not the media's doing that he's not romping ahead in the polls against a succession of utterly appalling, dreadful, woefully bad tory opponents - it's his fault, his responsibility, his burden. He's got his supporters, and fair play to those who like or rate him, but too much of the country simply don't for his, or Labour under him, to ever get elected as Government. He's an asset (much as he won't like it) for the tories, and more horror from them. When even his closest friends and long-standing supporters like Abbott and McDonnell describe car crash and are worried about the direction, there's clearly more than the media to be looking at.

He's an incompetent arse.

[HanoiVillan]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

One of the things the tories have been saying is "vote me to keep Corbyn Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Hard Left Corbyn Government" to keep voters and Tory MPs onside against Catweazle. Get rid of Catweazle and the threat of ""vote me to keep [Kier Starmer or Yvette Cooper or whoever] Out" - dangling the "threat" of a "Centrist Labour Government" or whatever is rather less of a weapon for the throbbers - in terms of "he'll/she'll wreck this country" because they know it won't wash.

Meh. They said all the same stuff about 'Red Ed' Miliband. 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Meh. They said all the same stuff about 'Red Ed' Miliband. 

Labour share of vote in 2015 GE: 30.4%

Labour current opinion poll average: 25%

Just sayin'

[chrisp65]

Difference now of course, is if Corbyn got photographed eating a bacon sandwich Margaret Hodge would say it was a deliberate insult and a signal of support to all anti semites. 

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Meh. They said all the same stuff about 'Red Ed' Miliband. 

That's right, they did to an extent. So Labour went more left and gave them more ammo. It'd have less of an effect if they moved back towards the centre, not further away, particularly as most people and voters actually want "non-extreme" politics. I'm just talking tactics here, and observations, not what I want as an individual (though binning off Corbyn is definitely something I think would be a good move.

[Xann]

The mudslinging isn't just from the comics, it's at all levels, inveigling readers social grades A-E.

Anyone pledging to stem the flow of wealth to tax havens will be "unelectable" like he supposedly is.

Stark fork in the road at the next election.

In a post Brexit scenario,  I don't think the next GE is the one to piss about with the Liberals or spoiling ballot papers.

You know who the establishment don't want you to vote for.

The bullet needs bitten or the crooks get away with our loot,.and our bloody health!  In old age and for following generations.

Let's not get into the crumbling Union.

I mean WTF.

If he gets into power? He gets more talent onside and can go about replacing loons and haters.

I don't like it either btw, would much rather stay Green. Now's not the time.

[colhint]

you're right Jota is better

[peterms]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Meh. They said all the same stuff about 'Red Ed' Miliband. 

They've been saying the same stuff since the Zinoviev letter.  Even before that.

And before Labour existed, it was stuff about how trade unions, or people asking to work less than an 80 hour week, or peasants asking for enough food to live on, were a threat to Civilisation As We Know It.

Best we listen to Tony, and Chemical Ali, and other "moderates" and the press barons who approve of them.  Only choose representatives who won't threaten the status quo. Know your place.  Respect the rich.  They must have done something to deserve it.

[peterms]

This may be interesting for some who feel drawn to the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of evil, but who deep down recognise (though they may not like it) that the Corbyn tendency is where opposition to the tories needs to be focussed.

Quote

Mandelson blames New Labour for Brexit

 

It doesn't seem to permit quoting more than the title.  But basically Mandy says he didn't realise the benefits of globalisation would be so unequally distributed (he should read more widely, like his grandad did), and this created a situation where it was easy to whip up anti-immigrant feeling and link it to Brexit.

[peterms]

Chris Dillow is always worth reading, even if you disagree.

Here he discusses leadership.  Not quite what the centrist dads maintain.  More interesting.  With added football comparisons.

Quote

The search for a new England manager, new Tory leader and perhaps new Labour leader too brings an under-appreciated question into focus: what exactly can leadership achieve?

In the Times today, Matthew Syed decries the “ludicrous idea that everything would be well if only we could find a new messiah.” He’s talking about the England manager’s job, but the words fit a lot of people’s attitudes to the Labour leadership: Tories, I sense, are slightly more sensible.

This messiah complex is what I’ve called cargo cult thinking, the sort of thing that goes like this:

    Leadership

    ?????

    Success.

People don’t fill in the ?????. They assume that the new messiah will perform some ju-ju and success will follow. They don’t ask the question which the late great Andrew Glyn drummed into us: what’s the mechanism?

I’d suggest three broad correctives to this messiah syndrome.

First, remember that what matters is the match, not just the man. Compare Louis van Gaal and Claudio Ranieri. Two years ago, van Gaal had by far the more impressive CV, with league titles in three countries and a Champions League medal. But Ranieri was a glorious success at Leicester whilst van Gaal suffered at Manyoo. The reason? Ranieri turned out to be a great match with City’s squad, whilst van Gaal never fitted in.

The point generalizes. Boris Groysberg studied the fortunes of managers who moved from GM – generally regarded as a great training ground for bosses – to other firms. He found (pdf) that where the manager was a good fit for the new company he did well but where he wasn’t, the firm suffered. This is despite the managers appearing equally competent beforehand. For example, if a firm needs to cut costs it shouldn’t hire a marketing man, but if it needs to manage expansion it shouldn’t hire an axeman. As the cliché goes, you need round pegs in round holes.

When we’re looking for a leader, we must ask: what exactly is the defect we are trying to address? For England manager, it seems to be a need to overcome the mental block that so often strikes players in big tournaments - what Vincent Kompany calls the “psychological event” that afflicted the team against Iceland.

For Labour, I’d contend, it is a need to unite the PLP and grassroots. This requires emollience, charisma and person-management skills rather than a talent for policy development, because in the economic sphere at least this has been going well.

Whether such good matches are discovered by skilful hiring or by dumb luck is another question.

Secondly, we must remember that, as Nick Bloom and colleagues say, management is a technology (pdf). Those ????? are processes whereby performance is monitored and feedback gathered to enable the aggregation of marginal gains. We should ask of leaders: what processes have you put in place to facilitate improvement? It could be that the best such processes require less "strong leadership" and more decentralized or collegiate decision-making - although such a view is outside the Overton window.

The third principle is to be aware of the force for good and ill of organizational capital. Some organizations are so structurally weak that pretty much no manager can turn them around. As Warren Buffett said:

    When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.

This could well be England’s problem. Fifty years of hurt under all different types of boss hint at deep structural problems; Matthew is right to say that it is the system that has failed. The same might be true of any Labour leader. Given the hostile ideological climate, (alleged?) splits between social conservatives and metropolitan liberals and a declining class base, it might be that nobody can be a truly successful leader now...

 

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, peterms said:

Chris Dillow is always worth reading, even if you disagree.

...Not quite what the centrist dads maintain.  More interesting.  With added football comparisons.

I don't know what these centrist Dads maintain (or indeed who they are) - are you talking about "if only we could find a new messiah" people?

But surely the "messiah" thing is something that is (or was) kind of attached to Saint Jeremy by the momentum lot - all the "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" chanting, the cult of Corbyn stuff and  how he's all different and has principles, not like other politicians. 

The article is dead right that "finding a messiah" doesn't solve anything. It's wholly unrealistic. Jeremy wasn't the prvious one, and whoever's next won't be either.

The other parts of the article, seem fairly standard common sense. They also seem to identify exactly why Corbyn is struggling. "For Labour, I’d contend, it is a need to unite the PLP and grassroots. This requires emollience, charisma and person-management skills rather than a talent for policy development, because in the economic sphere at least this has been going well." 

The PLP and grassroots are not only not for uniting, it's Corbyn more than anyone who has disunited them. He's about as divisive a charachter as you could imagine (in the Labour party).

Further "We should ask of leaders: what processes have you put in place to facilitate improvement? It could be that the best such processes require less "strong leadership" and more decentralized or collegiate decision-making " Probably best steer clear of the anti-semitism stuff, but there's not much evidence (i.e. none at all) that Corbyn's done well with this. Again, the opposite applies.

As the article extract concludes, it's maybe too far gone now, whoever and however they take over.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The PLP and grassroots are not only not for uniting, it's Corbyn more than anyone who has disunited them

I know you see Corbyn as the root cause of anything wrong with Labour, but the problems between MPs and party members are often down to MPs having been pushed onto local parties which did not choose them.  This was a conscious strategy pursued over many years by the Blairites when they controlled the party machinery.  Kate Hoey is just one example.

The PLP on the whole probably has views which are to the right of the membership on the whole.  I think that most members accept that they may have an MP whose views may not fully reflect their own, if the MP is good in other ways and is an asset to the party.  When some MPs actively join in trying to undermine and sabotage the elected leadership, then it's likely that party members will start asking why they should tolerate it, especially when a lot of people accepted right wing control for years even if it wasn't their personal preference.

 

[bickster]

15 hours ago, peterms said:

I know you see Corbyn as the root cause of anything wrong with Labour, but the problems between MPs and party members are often down to MPs having been pushed onto local parties which did not choose them.  This was a conscious strategy pursued over many years by the Blairites when they controlled the party machinery.  Kate Hoey is just one example.

The PLP on the whole probably has views which are to the right of the membership on the whole.  I think that most members accept that they may have an MP whose views may not fully reflect their own, if the MP is good in other ways and is an asset to the party.  When some MPs actively join in trying to undermine and sabotage the elected leadership, then it's likely that party members will start asking why they should tolerate it, especially when a lot of people accepted right wing control for years even if it wasn't their personal preference.

 

This is partially true but the detail would reveal a rather different picture

Yes Blairite Labour parachuted lots of people into seats, they however were generally chosen by the unions, the unions at the time were mostly more moderate than they are now. My MP (Bill the automaton Esterson) is a prime example

The political make up of the party as a whole was vastly different in both numbers and outlook under Blair than it is today. The membership was more moderate, the membership was much smaller.

Yes today the local MP is generally chosen by the local party but the local parties have been stuffed to the gills with left wingers by the likes of Momentum and again, the unions

What happens now is that the local party does indeed vote for their own candidate but it's still the union man that gets elected. See Dan Carden in Liverpool Walton, he was up against the local Mayor, another leading local councillor and a local MEP but Dan had the added advantage of being the Union's choice because he was on their staff, he had no actual experience of being elected by the party and dealing with any part of our democratic process, yet he was chosen

Before it was the Union man that got the seat, now, it;s the union man that gets the seat. The only think that has changed is that the unions have moved radically to the left and the selection process has the window dressing of being more democratic

By and large it is still as it's always been, the unions controlling the party and that goes all the way to the top with Corbyn. The Unions have moved to the left, so has the party and so has the membership but that is all being controlled by the Unions. Blair at least managed to wrestle some control away from the unions but they were always there in the background having an influence, now it's just bigger