Is the Labour Party destroying itself? Watch

Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Corbyn is destroying labour. Like some Trotskyite dictator he is getting rid of any labour minister who doesn't agree with him. Freedom of speech in labour is being taken away. People like Hiliary Benn are facing dismissal for speaking his mind.

The Labour Party is becoming increasingly unelectable, its far leftwing policies alienate the traditionally centrist electorate.
For example crime. Blair said tough on crime and tough on the causes. But labour these days is the opposite. They intend to abolish indeterminate sentences and reduce life sentences back to what they were before 1997, with murderers serving less than 10 years. Then there are plans for open door immigration, which would see Britain letting in more migrants than Germany does.

The problem is Corbyn is making himself un removable, by getting rid of any opposition it will be impossible for labour to declare a 'vote of no confidence' in Corbyn. Labour could be stuck with him or his zealots for decades.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I don't think Corbyn is destroying labour, it's the political activists who are cut from the same cloth as Dianne abbott and Ken livingstone who are doing this
1
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
Corbyn is destroying labour. Like some Trotskyite dictator he is getting rid of any labour minister who doesn't agree with him.
No, he's not. He sacked Michael Dugher presumably because he was one of the Shadow Ministers anonymously briefing the press and trying to undermine his leadership and thereby the overwhelming democratic will of Labour Party members. There are plenty of Labour ministers who don't agree with him, both in the Shadow Cabinet and on the backbenches. How, exactly, is he getting rid of them? Answer: he's not.

Also, it's called a reshuffle - every leader does it. They're not Trotskyite dictators.

(Original post by Ambitious1999)
Freedom of speech in labour is being taken away. People like Hiliary Benn are facing dismissal for speaking his mind.
Actually, the membership is taking a more active role in the party under Jeremy Corbyn: he's democratising the Labour Party and reducing the concentration of power in the hands of the PLP (which consists significantly of special advisers who were parachuted into safe constituencies by Blair to maintain his control of the party).

As for potential dismissals, how about the mainstream media report on the news after it's actually happened? You know, like they're meant to. Our press shouldn't become a celebrity gossip section.

First it was "revenge reshuffle... evil purge by Stalinist Corbyn", now it's "reshuffle turns to farce".(Oh yes, I do wish the press would settle on whether Corbyn is a Stalinist, a Maoist or a Trotskyist). It's hilarious that the media feel at liberty to invent their own narrative and then blame Jeremy Corbyn for it not having turned out that way. Our press is owned by a handful of media barons and oligarchs, so it's not surprising that they're so hysterically opposed to someone who represents ordinary people and who isn't a politician they can buy (for that, see Cameron partying at Rupert Murdoch's place - it's funny how the free-market capitalists who swear that they're not in favour of corporatism and crony capitalism continue to support a party - the Conservative Party - which is the very essence of corporatism).

Also, before Corbyn was being blamed for having his Shadow Cabinet divided. Now, if he wants to fix it, it's "revenge", as opposed to, you know, having the Shadow Cabinet speak with one voice so as not to have a confusing message and ensuring that members of the Shadow Cabinet aren't anonymously briefing the press to undermine Corbyn's mandate.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail and even the Guardian manage not to disappoint!

(Original post by Ambitious1999)
The Labour Party is becoming increasingly unelectable, its far leftwing policies alienate the traditionally centrist electorate.
What far-leftwing policies? If Corbyn and Labour were given a fair chance to make their case to the people without having the media hysterically attack them, then the notion that it's becoming increasingly unelectable would vanish. Labour want to take our railways back into public ownership to stop taxpayers' money being used to subsidise rail corporations; introduce rent controls; clamp down on tax avoidance and tax evasion; raise the minimum wage to a Living Wage; abolish tuition fees, and so on. These aren't far-left policies; rather, many are in place in countries from Germany to Scandinavia. And, the majority of the British electorate support them, too. Are they all far-left too?

These policies provide a base from which Corbyn and Labour can argue their case on other issues on which the public is more divided. The job of a political party is not to change its mind according to what the electorate thinks, but to convince them that their policy proposals would be best for the country, and/or change the narrative.

The British public have some worryingly false beliefs on some issues (the ones which the media try to drill into us), from immigration (they think that immigration levels are far higher than they actually are) to benefits (they think that the amount of benefits fraud that occurs is much higher than it actually is) to foreign aid (they think that our spending on foreign aid is much higher than it actually is, with a worrying number of people thinking that foreign aid is one of the top three government expenditures). Just because the public hold these false beliefs, doesn't mean that Labour should hold them or encourage them; rather, it should seek to change attitudes. That's not to say that a political party shouldn't have some support to build on, but Labour quite clearly does and has a number of policies which the majority of the British public support anyway (in fact, all of the policies in Labour's manifesto in 2015 were supported by the majority of the electorate, significantly beating out the Conservatives' manifesto, whose most popular policies were linking the minimum wage to the personal allowance and preventing above inflation rail fare increases - both 'left-wing' policies).

(Original post by Ambitious1999)
The problem is Corbyn is making himself un removable, by getting rid of any opposition it will be impossible for labour to declare a 'vote of no confidence' in Corbyn. Labour could be stuck with him or his zealots for decades.
No, he's not making himself unremovable. You're talking complete and utter nonsense.
10
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by viddy9)
No, he's not. He sacked Michael Dugher presumably because he was one of the Shadow Ministers anonymously briefing the press and trying to undermine his leadership and thereby the overwhelming democratic will of Labour Party members. There are plenty of Labour ministers who don't agree with him, both in the Shadow Cabinet and on the backbenches. How, exactly, is he getting rid of them? Answer: he's not.

Also, it's called a reshuffle - every leader does it. They're not Trotskyite dictators.



Actually, the membership is taking a more active role in the party under Jeremy Corbyn: he's democratising the Labour Party and reducing the concentration of power in the hands of the PLP (which consists significantly of special advisers who were parachuted into safe constituencies by Blair to maintain his control of the party).

As for potential dismissals, how about the mainstream media report on the news after it's actually happened? You know, like they're meant to. Our press shouldn't become a celebrity gossip section.

First it was "revenge reshuffle... evil purge by Stalinist Corbyn", now it's "reshuffle turns to farce".(Oh yes, I do wish the press would settle on whether Corbyn is a Stalinist, a Maoist or a Trotskyist). It's hilarious that the media feel at liberty to invent their own narrative and then blame Jeremy Corbyn for it not having turned out that way. Our press is owned by a handful of media barons and oligarchs, so it's not surprising that they're so hysterically opposed to someone who represents ordinary people and who isn't a politician they can buy (for that, see Cameron partying at Rupert Murdoch's place - it's funny how the free-market capitalists who swear that they're not in favour of corporatism and crony capitalism continue to support a party - the Conservative Party - which is the very essence of corporatism).

Also, before Corbyn was being blamed for having his Shadow Cabinet divided. Now, if he wants to fix it, it's "revenge", as opposed to, you know, having the Shadow Cabinet speak with one voice so as not to have a confusing message and ensuring that members of the Shadow Cabinet aren't anonymously briefing the press to undermine Corbyn's mandate.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail and even the Guardian manage not to disappoint!



What far-leftwing policies? If Corbyn and Labour were given a fair chance to make their case to the people without having the media hysterically attack them, then the notion that it's becoming increasingly unelectable would vanish. Labour want to take our railways back into public ownership to stop taxpayers' money being used to subsidise rail corporations; introduce rent controls; clamp down on tax avoidance and tax evasion; raise the minimum wage to a Living Wage; abolish tuition fees, and so on. These aren't far-left policies; rather, many are in place in countries from Germany to Scandinavia. And, the majority of the British electorate support them, too. Are they all far-left too?

These policies provide a base from which Corbyn and Labour can argue their case on other issues on which the public is more divided. The job of a political party is not to change its mind according to what the electorate thinks, but to convince them that their policy proposals would be best for the country, and/or change the narrative.

The British public have some worryingly false beliefs on some issues (the ones which the media try to drill into us), from immigration (they think that immigration levels are far higher than they actually are) to benefits (they think that the amount of benefits fraud that occurs is much higher than it actually is) to foreign aid (they think that our spending on foreign aid is much higher than it actually is, with a worrying number of people thinking that foreign aid is one of the top three government expenditures). Just because the public hold these false beliefs, doesn't mean that Labour should hold them or encourage them; rather, it should seek to change attitudes. That's not to say that a political party shouldn't have some support to build on, but Labour quite clearly does and has a number of policies which the majority of the British public support anyway (in fact, all of the policies in Labour's manifesto in 2015 were supported by the majority of the electorate, significantly beating out the Conservatives' manifesto, whose most popular policies were linking the minimum wage to the personal allowance and preventing above inflation rail fare increases - both 'left-wing' policies).



No, he's not making himself unremovable. You're talking complete and utter nonsense.
Interesting interview with Michael Duger on radio 4 this evening giving his take on things.

He seems to be more concerned about Corbyn supporters acting like attack dogs against anybody that didn't vote a certain way during an open vote.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8706630

Thankfully all of this is making labour look rather silly and unelectable by the public at large. (Party membership doesn't equate to popular support)
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
Corbyn is destroying labour. Like some Trotskyite dictator he is getting rid of any labour minister who doesn't agree with him. Freedom of speech in labour is being taken away. People like Hiliary Benn are facing dismissal for speaking his mind.

The Labour Party is becoming increasingly unelectable, its far leftwing policies alienate the traditionally centrist electorate.
For example crime. Blair said tough on crime and tough on the causes. But labour these days is the opposite. They intend to abolish indeterminate sentences and reduce life sentences back to what they were before 1997, with murderers serving less than 10 years. Then there are plans for open door immigration, which would see Britain letting in more migrants than Germany does.

The problem is Corbyn is making himself un removable, by getting rid of any opposition it will be impossible for labour to declare a 'vote of no confidence' in Corbyn. Labour could be stuck with him or his zealots for decades.
The Bolsheviks did not allow the membership to elect someone like Corbyn... The Blairites were more Trotskyite than Corbyn if we are comparing how centralized the party command structure is.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Interesting interview with Michael Duger on radio 4 this evening giving his take on things. He seems to be more concerned about Corbyn supporters acting like attack dogs against anybody that didn't vote a certain way during an open vote.
Dugher and others like him, after months of going anonymously to the press and whining, are now suddenly saying that Labour should be united and focus on attacking the Tories. This thread was not about some self-proclaimed supporters of Corbyn, and neither was the reshuffle. Dugher can try to shift the narrative all he likes, but he knows what he's done and he knows why he's been sacked. For once, Dan Hodges of the Telegraph is right: "the spectacle of the shadow cabinet debasing themselves in a frantic attempt to save their own positions has been excruciating."

Nevertheless, it should be said that these stories about Corbyn supporters acting like attack dogs are also hilariously exaggerated. See, for instance, that story about a potentially violent protest by "Corbynites" outside Stella Creasy's house which turned out to be a peaceful gathering of religious and community leaders politely demonstrating against intervention in Syria.
0
reply
BasicMistake
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
I do not understand the mindset of a lot of Corbyn supporters. They oust anybody who doesn't fit perfectly into the party and then celebrate afterwards. Since when was an election-winning strategy to reduce the number of people voting for you? Even if they aren't as left-wing as you are, their vote is still a vote so surely it's a smarter move to make them feel in some way represented?
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by viddy9)
Dugher and others like him, after months of going anonymously to the press and whining, are now suddenly saying that Labour should be united and focus on attacking the Tories. This thread was not about some self-proclaimed supporters of Corbyn, and neither was the reshuffle. Dugher can try to shift the narrative all he likes, but he knows what he's done and he knows why he's been sacked. For once, Dan Hodges of the Telegraph is right: "the spectacle of the shadow cabinet debasing themselves in a frantic attempt to save their own positions has been excruciating."

Nevertheless, it should be said that these stories about Corbyn supporters acting like attack dogs are also hilariously exaggerated. See, for instance, that story about a potentially violent protest by "Corbynites" outside Stella Creasy's house which turned out to be a peaceful gathering of religious and community leaders politely demonstrating against intervention in Syria.
Dugers storey differs somewhat. It'll be interesting if Benn goes.

You may down play the activities of party activists but they seem to be taking lessons of vitriol from the SNP.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Dugers storey differs somewhat.
Dugher's documented actions in the press speak for themselves, as do the anonymous briefings from Shadow Ministers which we've seen evidence of in virtually every article about Jeremy Corbyn.

He therefore has no story, unless he wants to deny that he's said a lot of things in the press and that this doesn't make him a prime suspect when it comes to the anonymous briefings too. In fact, he specifically said in a tweet that he was sacked because Corbyn wasn't happy with his actions in the press. So, nothing to do with the Syria vote.

(Original post by BasicMistake)
I do not understand the mindset of a lot of Corbyn supporters. They oust anybody who doesn't fit perfectly into the party and then celebrate afterwards.
Who's been ousted from the party, may I ask?

Who's even been ousted from the Shadow Cabinet, aside from Michael Dugher who has continuously briefed against Jeremy Corbyn in the mainstream media? If David Cameron identified someone in his Cabinet who was continually undermining his leadership in the media, they'd be gone immediately.

It was only a few weeks ago that people were criticising Corbyn for having a divided Shadow Cabinet. Now, when he may be addressing that, it's suddenly a "purge" or an "oust"?

I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn on some policies (raising corporation tax, scrapping tuition fees), but I wish his opponents would actually address his policies and look at what he's actually doing instead of believing media spin.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
A week is a long time in politics. Four and a bit years even longer. We don;t know who will be Prime Minister from 2019, whether it be Gideon Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Theresa May or another Conservative MP. Neither do we know if Jeremy Corbyn will be Labour leader by then.

I expect the Tories to be in power until 2025 at least, but then again in August I thought Manchester United would challenge for the Premier League this year.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
The Labour Party has problems however the focus on this reshuffle is just about the media wanting to make a story, same as it was about Corbyn not bowing deeply enough at the Cenotaph etc.

Reshuffles happen regularly and usually a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle is about the biggest non-event ever. If Ed Miliband had shuffled his Shadow Cabinet then the media would not have showed any interest. On this one they built it up in advance "Corbyn to sack Hilary Benn" like it was the biggest story in politics, and then when it didn't happen "Corbyn bottled it". That's just trying to make a story for the sake of it.

Cameron removed Michael Gove and David Willetts from the last Cabinet reshuffle (pre-election) and that was far more significant and controversial than whether or not Corbyn removes Benn.

Also it's a bit hypocritical for some of the old Blairites to start now complaining that the Labour party is becoming centralised under the hard left. Back in the early 1980s the party was very uncentralised with various checks and balances in the party constitution which meant it was difficult to have effective top-down control. Kinnock centralised things and Blair especially ran a very tight New Labour ship, controlled from the leader's office and very politically effective but this also meant that people that were deemed too left wing were frozen out of the party. Now they have created those centralised structures they don't like it that the left is now in the leadership. But Corbyn is actually making the party more accountable to its members.

I think the problem for some of the MPs on the right of the party is their argument is "the Labour party membership is wrong and they are out of touch with the country. We on the other hand are in touch with the country". The problem is a real absence of leadership from that wing of the party. Blair was able to make that argument because he actually was in touch with the Britain of the 1990s but more importantly he was a leader with a vision of where Britain could go and voters followed him. There isn't an equivalent figure now in Labour.

Once the EU referendum starts the media's interest in "civil war" will move over to the Tories because Corbyn v Maria Eagle etc is not going to be as interesting as big fish in the Conservative party in open conflict.
4
reply
BasicMistake
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by viddy9)

Who's been ousted from the party, may I ask?
I'm not talking about MPs but the party members who are less leftwing than Corbyn's Labour. Some people are too quick to brand them as 'Red Tories' and whatnot, which I believe to be extremely counter-productive.
Those who were unsure about their membership after Corbyn was elected won't exactly be encouraged to stay if they are being constantly badgered about not being a 'true Labour supporter'.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by BasicMistake)
I'm not talking about MPs but the party members who are less leftwing than Corbyn's Labour. Some people are too quick to brand them as 'Red Tories' and whatnot, which I believe to be extremely counter-productive.
Those who were unsure about their membership after Corbyn was elected won't exactly be encouraged to stay if they are being constantly badgered about not being a 'true Labour supporter'.
They're not being ousted, though. It's their choice as to whether they stay or not.

I agree, though, that branding people 'Red Tories' is counter-productive, and everyone should take the advice of Jeremy Corbyn not to engage in personal attacks. Labour should remain a broad church, in my view, and I think that the fact that it was Corbyn and Kendall who formed the closest relationship out of all of the leadership contenders (despite Burnham and Cooper being close to him ideologically) symbolises this perfectly.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Interesting interview with Michael Duger on radio 4 this evening giving his take on things.

He seems to be more concerned about Corbyn supporters acting like attack dogs against anybody that didn't vote a certain way during an open vote.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8706630

Thankfully all of this is making labour look rather silly and unelectable by the public at large. (Party membership doesn't equate to popular support)
Says the 'floating voter'.
You're nothing but a Tory cheerleader.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Bornblue)
Says the 'floating voter'.
You're nothing but a Tory cheerleader.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I am at the moment. Difficult not to be with the way the economy is at the moment.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I am at the moment. Difficult not to be with the way the economy is at the moment.
You always have been. People like you treat political parties like football teams and act as cheerleaders. It's quite sad that you are incapable of independent thought and your views are shaped entirely by the tory party line.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Yidi Amin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Bornblue)
You always have been. People like you treat political parties like football teams and act as cheerleaders. It's quite sad that you are incapable of independent thought and your views are shaped entirely by the tory party line.

Posted from TSR Mobile
You're the single worst user on this website for doing this very thing.
1
reply
Jono0812
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Hopefully.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Yidi Amin)
You're the single worst user on this website for doing this very thing.
Except i'm not. I'm not a member of any party, I dislike them all.
I just consider that labour are the least awful of a horrible bunch. I don't cheerlead for them in the same way others do for the tories.

We should be sckeptical of every political party.
2
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Prepare to be shocked...

I actually think for the most part that Corbyn has acted in the correct manner. His first act was to offer an olive branch and his second after rebellion was to sack those who have shown themselves to be his enemies. It's actually quite astute although he's made a mistake in not sacking Benn given his mandate and the fact we are more than 4 years from an election.

I still believe that Labour have elected a loser and that his extremist opinions will be his undoing (though at this point he's not even matching Miliband so he may not be around in 2020) but in terms of how he's handling the party management i think he's done pretty much what i would have (although i'd have chopped off the snake's head rather than leaving it and going for the body - i.e. underlings).

Assuming he gets rid of Benn in the summer (should the May results not be awful - though he's currently looking at large council losses to the Tories) then stage 3 should be to leave those who won't back him in the cold until say 2 years before the election when you offer an olive branch again.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How many universities have you heard back from?

14.05%
12.31%
12.43%
18%
23.23%
19.98%

Watched Threads

View All