Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Big blow to Corbyn as GMB members vote to back Smith Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, of you're talking about Corbyn: pre Blair Labour...

    2020 would in effect be a rerun of '83

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Both left and right, and the whole economic and social landscape have changed since 1983. While this is the myth that is being talked, the reality of the 'left's' policies and how they fit into the current economic landscape are totally different now.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Like you say its about numbers, but we don't know the numbers who would prefer his approach as it has never been offered before.

    If you read the article you will see that Toyota UK have had a 6 hour day for 13 years now, and say it has improved profits. So not unrealistic or unbusinesslike.

    He has been ridiculed by the establishment media, but if you look at the effect he has had, he has moved the entire political debate to the left already. Not bad for someone only in the public eye for 9 months. Owen Smith is practically mirroring his policies and even the Tories are trying to be the party of the people.
    We arent going to elect a pacifist who comes across as very weak on defence.
    We arent going to elect someone who fails to inspure confidence as a potential leader, hence the ,eltdown in the party about his woeful contribution during Brexit.
    We arent going for someone who is considering a 6h working day, when the UK has some of the lowest rates of productivity in the G20.

    Moving the political agenda to the left, just alienates the people in the middle ground and those on the right. It isnt a left wing country any more if it ever was. All he has done is appeal to the socialist worker and the excluded, they arent enough of the general population.

    I dont have any particular allegiance.
    I am also not saying Owen Smith is much better, except he isnt Corbyn.
    Labour will not win the next election or the one after imo, they are busy destriying themselves as a credible opposition.

    Back to the thread topic. I think Labour has been infiltraded enough by the harder left, so he is guaranteed to win , even if none of the MP's except Diane Abbot want him plus some of the Union barons.

    To win an election you need the majority of seats across the country and his appeal is not great enough. The Tories are his biggest fan.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If Corbyn went off and left Labour to form a new political party, he would win more seats than Smith and the next GE. Serious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    To win an election you need the majority of seats across the country and his appeal is not great enough.
    You state the second part of this like it is a fact.

    Name:  CploIgSWYAAd1x8.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  113.3 KB

    This chart shows that Labour were actually improving their chances despite Corbyn after Osborne's budget. So it is not completely out of the question.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    In the first leadership election 51% of the members voted against him.
    No, they didn't. 50.41% rounds to 50%, not 51%.

    More importantly, Labour conducts leadership elections by AV, meaning it's not so much a case of voting for or against a particular candidate, but one of allocating preferences. As Corbyn won on the first round, we don't know what the votes were beyond first preferences.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You state the second part of this like it is a fact.

    Name:  CploIgSWYAAd1x8.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  113.3 KB

    This chart shows that Labour were actually improving their chances despite Corbyn after Osborne's budget. So it is not completely out of the question.
    And then you compare it to what should have happened. What should have happened is what happened 5 years ago. At this point 5 years ago Labour had the healthy lead, now the Tories have a dominant lead. Corbyn is the first leader for at least 50 years (longest I could find records for easily) to have a net loss of council seats the year after an election. Things may not be going as badly as some predicted, but things are going objectively badly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    If Corbyn went off and left Labour to form a new political party, he would win more seats than Smith and the next GE. Serious.
    I don't think either Corbyn or Smith will split, though I think there will be one.

    I wouldn't be surprised if it happens almost accidentally. I can envisage a situation where the anti-Corbynites attempt to elect a separate PLP leader, but Bercow tells them either that they can't, or that by doing so they are de facto forming a new parliamentary party.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    If Corbyn went off and left Labour to form a new political party, he would win more seats than Smith and the next GE. Serious.
    If we look at the SDP, or even the Lib Dems last year, we see neither would get many. It doesn't matter which wing breaks off, the vote share would be about the same, and would be in the half dozen seats sort of range. Meanwhile tjw Tories are handed a 300 seat majority rather than 100.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And then you compare it to what should have happened. What should have happened is what happened 5 years ago. At this point 5 years ago Labour had the healthy lead, now the Tories have a dominant lead. Corbyn is the first leader for at least 50 years (longest I could find records for easily) to have a net loss of council seats the year after an election. Things may not be going as badly as some predicted, but things are going objectively badly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I put the graph not to show that Corbyn was doing well, as he is clearly not, but that is hardly surprising given what has been happening in Labour and in the media since he was elected. It was to show that the definitely unelectable rhetoric was an exaggeration. Voters do change their minds, on an almost daily basis, if the polls are anything to go by.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I put the graph not to show that Corbyn was doing well, as he is clearly not, but that is hardly surprising given what has been happening in Labour and in the media since he was elected. It was to show that the definitely unelectable rhetoric was an exaggeration. Voters do change their minds, on an almost daily basis, if the polls are anything to go by.
    Most don't change their minds, it's about 10pc that do. When the election comes it will perhaps be one of the easiest elections in history for the Tories. They have a massive war chest while there are reports of Labour lacking funds, which puts them at an immediate advantage, but they don't need much money it just helps them for 2025.

    Second you get that normal practice is for a new government (or PM, which is part of the current boost) gets a polling boost for the first few months, at which point the opposition surge, the honeymoon period is over. Instead the best Labour have managed under Corbyn is basically staying in line with the election. Then we throw in that governments get a boost in the late years because budgets get geared away from doing what is needed for the country to what is needed for the election, that is relatively lower taxes and higher spending, which suggests current polling would easily be in line with the beginning of the short campaign.

    Further you get that if May doesn't mess up, which I'm confident she won't, a massive chunk of the right of UKIP will go home to the Tories, on the other hand there is potential for Labour to lose more votes to UKIP, or not get many back. Add onto this that a lib dem fightback may well come more from Labour than the Tories right now and Labour are in a weak position going into the short campaign, and that is where Corbyn will be well and truly defeated.

    The short campaign for the Tories will be easy, and not just because of massive funding differences, Corbyn himself is the biggest asset of the Tories. In the same way that last time a central argument was keeping the SNP out, this time it will be keeping Corbyn out. May is a much stronger figure and speaker than Corbyn, and Corbyn isn't liked. All the Tories will do is argue Corbyn is a weak leader and dangerous. They will just keep going on about terrorist links with the IRA and Hamas, they will go on about how his money printing will destroy the economy and bring about hyperinflation (whether it would or not), they will talk about how he will unequivocally not press the nuclear button, about how he is a Republican for some crowds. They will make it look like Miliband won the economic and defence arguments. Labour will be in an '83 position without even splitting, if there is a split then they have to worry about UKIP too.

    And that's before we factor in that Labour relied on Scotland in recent years to win, the Tories haven't for half a century.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Most don't change their minds, it's about 10pc that do. When the election comes it will perhaps be one of the easiest elections in history for the Tories. They have a massive war chest while there are reports of Labour lacking funds, which puts them at an immediate advantage, but they don't need much money it just helps them for 2025.

    Second you get that normal practice is for a new government (or PM, which is part of the current boost) gets a polling boost for the first few months, at which point the opposition surge, the honeymoon period is over. Instead the best Labour have managed under Corbyn is basically staying in line with the election. Then we throw in that governments get a boost in the late years because budgets get geared away from doing what is needed for the country to what is needed for the election, that is relatively lower taxes and higher spending, which suggests current polling would easily be in line with the beginning of the short campaign.

    Further you get that if May doesn't mess up, which I'm confident she won't, a massive chunk of the right of UKIP will go home to the Tories, on the other hand there is potential for Labour to lose more votes to UKIP, or not get many back. Add onto this that a lib dem fightback may well come more from Labour than the Tories right now and Labour are in a weak position going into the short campaign, and that is where Corbyn will be well and truly defeated.

    The short campaign for the Tories will be easy, and not just because of massive funding differences, Corbyn himself is the biggest asset of the Tories. In the same way that last time a central argument was keeping the SNP out, this time it will be keeping Corbyn out. May is a much stronger figure and speaker than Corbyn, and Corbyn isn't liked. All the Tories will do is argue Corbyn is a weak leader and dangerous. They will just keep going on about terrorist links with the IRA and Hamas, they will go on about how his money printing will destroy the economy and bring about hyperinflation (whether it would or not), they will talk about how he will unequivocally not press the nuclear button, about how he is a Republican for some crowds. They will make it look like Miliband won the economic and defence arguments. Labour will be in an '83 position without even splitting, if there is a split then they have to worry about UKIP too.

    And that's before we factor in that Labour relied on Scotland in recent years to win, the Tories haven't for half a century.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Looking historically much of what you have said is correct. It really underlines that Labour, whoever was going to be leader was going to struggle. There really are only two choices for Labour, to move closer to the tories even than Blair, to split their vote, which to my mind would leave the country with no real choice at the election, or take a chance on Corbyn's anti-austerity anti-establishment tack. The polls reflect the disarray within the party, rather than a true representation. If the rest of the Labour Party gave him support, the media would probably back off a bit. They could then retain the existing Labour vote, and add the new anti establishment non voters, and attract UKIP supporters who will no longer be attracted by the EU factor. The mass of Leave support may trust Corbyn rather than May not to backtrack too. Yes the Tories will attack, but they have always done that as their campaign tactic. It's never about what they are going to do, but more about how scary the alternative is. If Corbyn can get his policies heard, he may actually be able to be offering an attractive enough package to counter the scaremongering.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Looking historically much of what you have said is correct. It really underlines that Labour, whoever was going to be leader was going to struggle. There really are only two choices for Labour, to move closer to the tories even than Blair, to split their vote, which to my mind would leave the country with no real choice at the election, or take a chance on Corbyn's anti-austerity anti-establishment tack. The polls reflect the disarray within the party, rather than a true representation. If the rest of the Labour Party gave him support, the media would probably back off a bit. They could then retain the existing Labour vote, and add the new anti establishment non voters, and attract UKIP supporters who will no longer be attracted by the EU factor. The mass of Leave support may trust Corbyn rather than May not to backtrack too. Yes the Tories will attack, but they have always done that as their campaign tactic. It's never about what they are going to do, but more about how scary the alternative is. If Corbyn can get his policies heard, he may actually be able to be offering an attractive enough package to counter the scaremongering.
    Come 2020 the matter of leaving will not be if it will happen, but how it did happen, and if it isn't done in a satisfactory way for Kippers Corbyn isn't going to be suggesting what will make them happy, because that would alienate many of those in Labour who are not brand loyal and push them to the Lib Dems.

    As for being heard, how well that will help him is questionable. What is important to voters? A strong economy, strong public services (which is trumped by the economy the vast majority of the time), strong leadership, strong defence. On the economy the Tories have a natural advantage, Labour need to work particularly hard to win there which means tacking to the right, a la Blair. Corbyn being heard wouldn't help him much because it turns things to "Corbyn cannot be trusted on the economy" you get talk of a big deficit, high taxes, inflationary policies, etc.

    Services are Labour'#s stomping ground, but given the Tories will control the debate for the most part a lesser matter. May needs to act as if she is helping them if she isn't. She needs to crush the BMA rather than caving early to show that actually it wasn't dangerous, and get the 7 day NHS is late in the term so it can be said to have been done but there are get out clauses if actually it wasn't a good idea. Grammar schools in poor areas will help the social mobility argument, especially if the current 20 is just a pilot with more being opened elsewhere later.

    On defence, it's not a hard argument, Corbyn is a unilateralist pacifist, the argument on nuclear weapons has been going on for a long time, it's not like they're unknown, and most of the public still back an independent deterrent. May has stated, whether actually true or not, that she would be a strong enough leader to actually use the deterrent if the time came, she claims to be willing to kill millions just so the deterrent can deter. On top of that you get natural conservative strength on defence.

    And finally you get a strong leader, quite simply May is seen as strong, Corbyn is seen as weak, and it's unlikely he will be able to turn that around. Weak leader, weak on defence, weak on the economy is nothing but a losing combination, whether people hear what he has to say or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    It is a bit academic though as it is highly unlikely that Smith will win, and if he does his policies will change back to his old ones.
    What do you mean his "old ones"?

    Obviously you don't think for yourself and lap up Corbynite propaganda. Smith has always been on the soft left of the party, that's exactly why Corbyn appointed him to the DWP portfolio

    Didn't hear a single Corbynite complaint at the time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No, they didn't. 50.41% rounds to 50%, not 51%.

    More importantly, Labour conducts leadership elections by AV, meaning it's not so much a case of voting for or against a particular candidate, but one of allocating preferences. As Corbyn won on the first round, we don't know what the votes were beyond first preferences.
    It doesn't round to anything, it's a majority against him.

    And AV, if you actually bother to do the allocations, suggests Burnham would win on members alone. Anyone who was inclined to Corbyn would have voted for him first preference; there might have been some Burnhamites who would second pref Corbyn but it would never get there

    First round, Liz Kendall is knocked out and likely all her votes are redistributed to Cooper. There isn't a single Kendallite alive who would second preference Corbyn. Second preference, Cooper gets knocked out; again, there's not a single Cooperite who would preference Corbyn over Burnham. So the votes are redistributed to Burnham; at that point he's over the 50% + 1 vote threshold so Burnham wins.

    So it's completely valid to point out a majority of actual Labour Party members (not £3 Trots and Tories like Toby Young) voted against the Dear Leader
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Come 2020 the matter of leaving will not be if it will happen, but how it did happen, and if it isn't done in a satisfactory way for Kippers Corbyn isn't going to be suggesting what will make them happy, because that would alienate many of those in Labour who are not brand loyal and push them to the Lib Dems.

    As for being heard, how well that will help him is questionable. What is important to voters? A strong economy, strong public services (which is trumped by the economy the vast majority of the time), strong leadership, strong defence. On the economy the Tories have a natural advantage, Labour need to work particularly hard to win there which means tacking to the right, a la Blair. Corbyn being heard wouldn't help him much because it turns things to "Corbyn cannot be trusted on the economy" you get talk of a big deficit, high taxes, inflationary policies, etc.

    Services are Labour'#s stomping ground, but given the Tories will control the debate for the most part a lesser matter. May needs to act as if she is helping them if she isn't. She needs to crush the BMA rather than caving early to show that actually it wasn't dangerous, and get the 7 day NHS is late in the term so it can be said to have been done but there are get out clauses if actually it wasn't a good idea. Grammar schools in poor areas will help the social mobility argument, especially if the current 20 is just a pilot with more being opened elsewhere later.

    On defence, it's not a hard argument, Corbyn is a unilateralist pacifist, the argument on nuclear weapons has been going on for a long time, it's not like they're unknown, and most of the public still back an independent deterrent. May has stated, whether actually true or not, that she would be a strong enough leader to actually use the deterrent if the time came, she claims to be willing to kill millions just so the deterrent can deter. On top of that you get natural conservative strength on defence.

    And finally you get a strong leader, quite simply May is seen as strong, Corbyn is seen as weak, and it's unlikely he will be able to turn that around. Weak leader, weak on defence, weak on the economy is nothing but a losing combination, whether people hear what he has to say or not.
    Again most of what you say is true and will probably be very appealing to Tory voters. Another reason for Labour not to bother try to woo them.
    On the economy by 2020 the Tories may be starting to look weak, as austerity is intrinsically not good for the economy, and it is so far only managing to massage the figures with QE and falling wages, as things bite, tax revenues are going to fall. Corbyn's investment policy is actually better for the economy, and particularly for those finding it harder to find decent paying jobs, it may start to be attractive, cutting into the traditional Tory strength. As for his policies on services, these are likely to appeal to just about anyone not voting Tory. As for strong leadership, if Corbyn comes through this gruelling contest and manages to unite the party, he will be the 'Rocky Bilbao' of leaders, in the eyes of the public.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What do you mean his "old ones"?

    Obviously you don't think for yourself and lap up Corbynite propaganda. Smith has always been on the soft left of the party, that's exactly why Corbyn appointed him to the DWP portfolio

    Didn't hear a single Corbynite complaint at the time
    Owen Smith has moved left from where he was before Corbyn was elected. Corbyn has had a policy of being inclusive in his appointments, and is also not exactly spoilt for choice either. I personally don't have an issue with Owen Smith being left or not, it is more to do with him being inconsistent, and also not speaking up about the way the coup was handled, and the partisan meddling in the leadership election rules. You just get the impression he is acting for the audience.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Owen Smith has moved left from where he was before Corbyn was elected.
    It's completely unclear what you're trying to say; do you even know? What are you claiming his policies were before, and what are you claiming they are now? How have they changed?

    You're just repeating platitudes and general nonsense. Be specific, evidence your claims or withdraw them

    it is more to do with him being inconsistent
    How is he being inconsistent? Name three examples.

    the partisan meddling in the leadership election rules
    What partisan meddling?

    You just get the impression he is acting for the audience.
    That's a completely subjective, worthless and unverifiable assertion so I'm going to let it pass.

    By the way, when did you join the Labour Party?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37026145

    The GMB union, one of the three "big beasts" of the trade union movement affiliated to Labour, with 600,000 members, has balloted its members over who to support in the Labour leadership race. They voted 60% to 40% to support Owen Smith.

    One should remember GMB is the union that represents workers at the Barrow shipyards that produce the nuclear submarines that defend our country and provide our nuclear deterrent. They also represent many workers in defence industries. They know that Jeremy Corbyn wants to put them out of a job, and have voted accordingly.

    By contrast, Unite led by Len McCluskey decided to back Corbyn in this contest without balloting their members. Talk about hypocrisy given how much he bangs on about member democracy
    Unite came out in favour of Trident as well - they also have a lot of workers in the nuclear subs business. Pretty sad stuff really - the unions are traditionally always for progressive change unless some of their members work in deeply horrible industries, at which point they flip instantly over into the reactionary equivalent of the missionary position.

    The GMB vote makes no difference on the ground as the unions no longer have a block vote and very few union members who are members of the Labour Party will be influenced by what their conference or leaders say when it comes to the vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's completely unclear what you're trying to say; do you even know? What are you claiming his policies were before, and what are you claiming they are now? How have they changed?

    You're just repeating platitudes and general nonsense. Be specific, evidence your claims or withdraw them



    How is he being inconsistent? Name three examples.
    Difficult to find three specific instances as he has only been an MP since 2010. Abstained on the welfare bill then opposed on the 3rd reading. Softer on taxation for the very rich. Voted for military involvement in Libya and Iraq. Resigned from shadow cabinet rather than support Corbyn's more left policies. Whilst he has not particularly opposed anything more on the left, he hasn't exactly championed anything either.



    What partisan meddling?
    Trying to exclude Corbyn from even standing. Then the very strange rulings on excluding 'unchecked' members in the last 6 months, on the grounds of possible infiltration, but then allowing them to vote anyway, so long as they can pay £25 and register in a three day time window, before the challengers have even been announced. Plus not even putting it on the agenda at the hastily convened special NEC meeting.

    By the way, when did you join the Labour Party?
    I am not a member of any political party. I don't vote, as I refuse to vote for the lesser evil. I have never wanted to support any political party, as politicians have always appeared to act solely in their own interests, rather than representing what is best for the bulk of the population. I am interested in Corbyn as for once it seems there might actually be a politician with the will and a bit of a chance to do something for the population. If he wins I may even join, but until then I would rather not waste my money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    So it's completely valid to point out a majority of actual Labour Party members (not £3 Trots and Tories like Toby Young) voted against the Dear Leader
    What your analysis assumes is that not a single member who voted for any of the others would have voted for Corbyn. It also ignores that many affiliates would be members if they weren't already affiliates, and that among the '£3 Trots' are a lot of former members who left during the Blair years, particularly after Iraq.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 17, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.