So, yeah, I was wrong. He is indeed going for bottom-up politics. Which the SNP don't quite get (or rather, would prefer to deliberately misunderstand, for obvious reasons).
""After days of chaos and infighting, [umm, no] Jeremy Corbyn must use his trip to Scotland to make clear whether he is leading Labour - or whether Labour is leading him."
Well, no, because establishing a consensus isn't supposed to be about anyone leading anyone.
I suspect it may be more difficult to persuade the media that he's willing to work with people he disagrees with than it is to actually work with people he disagrees with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34405505
Yay! The Anti-Blair has arrived.
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider l do see what appears to me as infighting. Not from what l see as grassroots as they do not get media time, expect social media that is. The Labour parliamentary party does seem to be doing a lot of fighting. Or have l mis understood. In that one view on Trident and austerity yet a different one taken by the leader. I'm sure my many of the grass roots supporters. Again maybe l misunderstand?
ReplyDeleteRobert French
ReplyDeleteMost grassroots supporters will support corbyn I believe, he's taking labour back to its roots before new labour dragged it to the middle.
There is a lot of infighting, most labour mp's are centrist neoliberal blairites yet there is a resurgence of left wing ideas within the party. Supporters who are on the fence are less likely to vote for a party that is moving away from the centre.
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you're meaning with your line about the snp, mind elaborating?
I have to be brief because I'm waiting for my flight back to Cardiff.
ReplyDeletePeople having different views isn't necessarily infighting. Hillary Benn is shadow foreign secretary, but disagrees with Corbyn (as do I) on the nuclear deterrent. I'm not seeing any signs of a revolt (let alone chaos), despite the media rumours (and yes, a few genuine politicians predicting an "annihilation"). Of course, it might happen.
It is in SNPs interests to spin any disagreement - even a very civil, polite, respectful disagreement - as "chaos and infighting". It makes Labour sound incompetent and unprofessional.
But now I have a plane to catch !
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteCorbyn and his followers disagree with new labour on pretty much every fundamental issue.
You can bury your head in the sand, but if the leader, who has a sizeable following, is at odds with most of his partys mp's and a huge chunk of centrist voters, then there's no other word for it. It's infighting.
All of the people who became disillusioned with politics because they realised that their vote wouldn't change anything, they're getting the same austerity and imperialism with either party, are going to flock to corbyn. His fanbase has grown drastically, but the party is full of centrists. Unfortunately you can't have a successful labour party without appeasing the middle ground voters and far left policies are going to alienate them. They don't vote based on policies, they vote based on what they read in the Sun on voting day.
The snp are calling it what it is, a 'civil war'. Neoliberals are nothing more than tory-lites, now that labour is actually providing an opposition to tory policies (which up until now only the snp were doing) they aren't going to be very happy.
Interesting "SNPs interests to spin any disagreement" what about Lib Dem, Conservative, UKIP, are they some how disinterested by standers?
ReplyDeleteIs that comment from a disinterested point of view? The SNP have done well in Scotland, at the expense of the Labour Party. Oh dear the question that is not being tackled is WHY?
From where l see things and yes l live in Scotland. Nothing Labour has done would make me vote for them. Currently l am waiting and it may never come, for Mr Corbyn to correct his statements he made regarding Scotrail and CalcMac, for starters.
Can l also say that have a great deal of time for My Corbyn, and l was delighted to see him win. Yet so far l do not see his "bottom-up politics" being applied to Scotland. That is just how l see it.
Mittviche 01 Ok l remember that when listening to Mr Cameron, Mr Farage, any person speaking on behalf say EDL, BNP, Marine Le Pen or most politicians
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ turned things on their head when he said to love your enemies, people still do not like....
Mittviche 01 can you give me the quote in context? So l can research it?
ReplyDeleteOff topic so no replies.
ReplyDeleteMittviche 01
ReplyDeleteLol not sure if trolling or retarded.
Some classic Godwin's Law fails here. Can't seem to figure out how to disable comments on my phone. Dang.
ReplyDeleteTo answer some of the more reasonable points raised :
ReplyDelete"You can bury your head in the sand, but if the leader, who has a sizeable following, is at odds with most of his partys mp's and a huge chunk of centrist voters, then there's no other word for it. It's infighting. "
No, not at all ! Merely having a disagreement doesn't constitute any kind of fighting unless, well, an actual argument breaks out. Not a debate, but a row. People who are prepared to work with people they disagree with (and publically say, "I disagree with this person on this issue") are not automatically engaged in infighting. Being able to compromise isn't necessarily automatically a bad thing. That is the essence of bottom-up politics, giving the electorate more of a say in the policies they want their MPs to stand for as well as choosing the MPs themselves.
Of course, that is not to say that chaotic infighting may not eventually happen, just that I see no evidence of it actually occurring yet. Especially "chaos", which looks to be sheer political hyperbole. In what way is any kind of "civil war" happening ? At the moment, I'm seeing nothing more than a rather measured discussion. "Infighting" would be more along the lines of people failing to cooperate, publically attacking the leader's suitability for the job, bitterly resigning from posts (yeah OK, a handful of people have quietly stepped aside) and/or resorting to ad hominem attacks on the leader (yes, a handful of MPs have forecast disaster).
I disagree with some of my closest friends about Trident; that doesn't mean we're no longer on speaking terms.
" Interesting "SNPs interests to spin any disagreement" what about Lib Dem, Conservative, UKIP, are they some how disinterested by standers?"
Well, yeah, but the quote was from the SNP. If it had been from the other parties the same would apply, but it wasn't. Nothing about stating that the SNP oppose Labour in any way implies that the other parties don't also oppose Labour.
The party is so divided on pretty much every issue that certain mp's are refusing to join the cabinet, the mood is pretty civil right now but if the UK had a proportional election system there's no doubt that the party would have split by now.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have doubts. :)
ReplyDeleteIf we had a proportional system there's no way of knowing what on Earth would be happening right now, because that's never been tried in the UK. Assuming that everyone voted in the same way as they did in the real election, the number of seats would have been roughly :
Conservatives : 239
Labour : 221
UKIP : 84
Lib Dem : 51
SNP : 31
Green : 25
The Tory / Lib Dem coalition would fall short of a majority. It's not credible to suggest the Tories would do a deal with the SNP or the Greens; UKIP might be possible but extremely difficult with Cameron being in favour of staying in the EU. A Labour-LibDem-SNP-Green coalition would achieve a majority but probably be too complicated to be workable, especially given Miliband's anti deal-with-SNP stance. Finally, people voted in the election under the condition of first-past-the-post, there's no way of knowing how differently they would have voted in a proportional system.
Therefore it is not at all creditable to suggest that there's "no doubt" Labour would have split in a proportional system.
I only brought up a proportional system because first past the post is the only thing that's keeping the party United. If there was less incentive to be as large as possible I do believe that the party would simply split, even though they'd be largely part of the same voting bloc.
ReplyDeleteA few have jumped, chuka ummuna, yvette Cooper.
ReplyDeleteThey won't leave the party but they'll refuse to serve on the frontbench and will probably go against the labour whip in most cases anyway.
Don't think they'll form a new party lol. They'd get nowhere and they know it.
ReplyDeleteIf people want to vote for neoliberal cronies they'll simply vote tory, same difference.
Worst case scenario is a second election wipeout followed by a new party leadership race, which will most likely be won by a centrist.
New new new labour?
The centrists have to either wait it out or follow the left agenda.