Blairites staging a coup...

[cashead]

The Whigs were an entrenched serious force for 170 years. No one is immune from history.

Sure, but they failed to adapt to changes in circumstances, and besides, the Republicans are basically a rebrand of the Whigs, seeing as how the GOP was formed from ex-Whigs.

[Lizard]

The Whigs were an entrenched serious force for 170 years. No one is immune from history.

Sure, but they failed to adapt to changes in circumstances, and besides, the Republicans are basically a rebrand of the Whigs, seeing as how the GOP was formed from ex-Whigs.

I'm talking about the British Whig party.

[UGagain]

They certainly think it a good time to oust a lefty leader who's only popular with the lefties, and not what one might actually call popular.

Perhaps the more progressive elements of labour think the traditionalists can be brought around, and the lefties might think there's a chance the general electorate will agree with them - if so both are looking wrong.

There's a lot more lefties in the general population than you apparently believe.

And if they get them all out to vote then Labour already hold something like 93/100 of the lowest voter turnout constituencies, so it'll make sod all difference (and that ignoring Corbyn would lose seats). And to give some perspective I could be called centre left, maybe, and allowing that on some issues I'd come down centre right, but Ed Milliband was beyond the pale in my estimation so Corbyn is just a bad if not pathetic joke. Also whilst I've never in my life voted labour there's no way I'd vote for Johnson, Gove or May, just as things stand there's no way I'd think of voting Labour either. 'tis possible that with Dave Milliband in charge and with an alternative of say Gove I could vote Labour, but absent of Dave, or perhaps a Chuka Umunna, and a sensible manifesto then it's a non starter

What you call a 'sensible manifesto' I'd call a neoliberal pig's breakfast of the failed policies of the past.

You might be 'centre left' of the political media circus bubble but in the real world you're way over on the right.

The electorate, in my view, understands what you apparently don't. Neoliberalism has to go. Austerity has to go. Corporatism has to go.

Some of that anger is being channelled to UKIP, but a sensible non-neoliberal Labour Party would be the natural home of that part of the electorate.

The sort of "Labour" people you like lost that vote. And rightly so. They are the problem, not the solution.

Milliband and Ummuna are Tories in the wrong party. Most of the PLP darlings are. They're not labour representatives. They're billionaires' puppets.

[UGagain]

The mythical wanking "centre".

Well I don't think it's mythical, and it's my strong preference over having candidates more akin to Chavez or Le Pen

Your 'centre' is the extreme right in economic terms.

People don't want that shit anymore.

It doesn't work.

[cashead]

The Whigs were an entrenched serious force for 170 years. No one is immune from history.

Sure, but they failed to adapt to changes in circumstances, and besides, the Republicans are basically a rebrand of the Whigs, seeing as how the GOP was formed from ex-Whigs.

I'm talking about the British Whig party.

I was wondering where you got the 170 years from, since the Whigs I was thinking of were only formally around for 30 years or something - although informally for about 120.

[Sandydragon]

Sure, but they failed to adapt to changes in circumstances, and besides, the Republicans are basically a rebrand of the Whigs, seeing as how the GOP was formed from ex-Whigs.

I'm talking about the British Whig party.

I was wondering where you got the 170 years from, since the Whigs I was thinking of were only formally around for 30 years or something - although informally for about 120.

The British liberals got swatted away by the rise of the Labour Party. Suddenly they seemed less relevant. Maybe labour will be swatted by UKIP? It's too easy to see UKIP built up and then let down at a GE so it's hard to tell, but they do have support from many labour voters.

[UGagain]

The mythical wanking "centre".

Well I don't think it's mythical, and it's my strong preference over having candidates more akin to Chavez or Le Pen

Your 'centre' is the extreme right in economic terms.

People don't want that shit anymore. Or the wars that go with being lackeys of foreign powers.

It doesn't work.

[Digby]

The mythical wanking "centre".

Well I don't think it's mythical, and it's my strong preference over having candidates more akin to Chavez or Le Pen

Your 'centre' is the extreme right in economic terms.

People don't want that shit anymore.

It doesn't work.

I'd agree in part it doesn't work, but more I think I'd say the free market is contradictory, as indeed are people. I'd also agree the mess it can create will be frightening to any number of people, and indeed just flat out unfair at times, and for those and other reasons I'd be happy to see discussion on regulation such there's corporate responsibility and society feels the economy is playing a role in the growth of society. But for all the uncertainty of the free market, and even with how some people behave as Phillip Greens within such model I wouldn't be close to wanting to move away from a free market based economy. I'd happily go along with transport, utilities and the like being nationalised once more, it never made sense to me to privatise power companies in the first place so they could compete over whose letterhead was used whilst no one builds any infrastructure, but that's as far over on the left as I'd be moving (though to me that's common sense rather than left/right), and it might be from my position on the far right as you see it I'll lose badly in forthcoming elections, I have my doubts.

Btw, what is the economic centre ground? Keynes being typically thought of as centre left, but I'm assuming for you also somewhere over on the right?

[Stom]

I'm talking about the British Whig party.

I was wondering where you got the 170 years from, since the Whigs I was thinking of were only formally around for 30 years or something - although informally for about 120.

The British liberals got swatted away by the rise of the Labour Party. Suddenly they seemed less relevant. Maybe labour will be swatted by UKIP? It's too easy to see UKIP built up and then let down at a GE so it's hard to tell, but they do have support from many labour voters.

Yet again, you're conflating lack of support for support.

The issue isn't that Labour have not said they'd do something about immigration, it's that they haven't provided an alternative.

They have also failed to speak the language of their voters.

Just look at the sheer numbers of non-voters. A strong Labour should be hoovering those up. It should use clever rhetoric, well placed adverts and clearly defined policies to represent themselves as the party of the people.

But they don't. They have consistently failed to communicate their core message or strategy. No-one knows what Labour stands for. We can blame the Blairites all we like for drawing the party too close to the other 2, but Corbyn and his team should not have tried to appease those same Blairites. He should have stuck to his guns and appointed a shadow cabinet that agreed with him, cutting out the Blairites immediately. Instead he will have to do so now, when Labour should be at their strongest, shouting down the Tories and offering a clear, understandable alternative.

[UGagain]

Well I don't think it's mythical, and it's my strong preference over having candidates more akin to Chavez or Le Pen

Your 'centre' is the extreme right in economic terms.

People don't want that shit anymore.

It doesn't work.

I'd agree in part it doesn't work, but more I think I'd say the free market is contradictory, as indeed are people. I'd also agree the mess it can create will be frightening to any number of people, and indeed just flat out unfair at times, and for those and other reasons I'd be happy to see discussion on regulation such there's corporate responsibility and society feels the economy is playing a role in the growth of society. But for all the uncertainty of the free market, and even with how some people behave as Phillip Greens within such model I wouldn't be close to wanting to move away from a free market based economy. I'd happily go along with transport, utilities and the like being nationalised once more, it never made sense to me to privatise power companies in the first place so they could compete over whose letterhead was used whilst no one builds any infrastructure, but that's as far over on the left as I'd be moving (though to me that's common sense rather than left/right), and it might be from my position on the far right as you see it I'll lose badly in forthcoming elections, I have my doubts.

Btw, what is the economic centre ground? Keynes being typically thought of as centre left, but I'm assuming for you also somewhere over on the right?

I would put standard Keynesianism close to the centre of a capitalist national system.

But Keynes has limits and there are a lot of politicians, economists and journalists who claim to be Keynesian who very clearly are neoliberals. I think the old fellow would be rolling in his grave at some of these 'leftist' clowns who claim to follow him. They all still talk about deficits and debt like they matter.

Full employment should be the priority goal of any responsible government.

But in today's zeitgeist, that's akin to being a communist.

[fivepointer]

Problem for Corbyn was in finding enough people in the PLP ready to back him. Its been his achilles heel from the outset. He simply doesnt have enough support from his own MP's, several of whom have actively sought to undermine him from day one.

The frustrating thing is that there is a real opportunity for Labour to reach out to disenchanted voters. They have to get themselves together and formulate simple, clearly defined policy proposals and project them in a united manner. A distinct left of centre social democratic offering, rejecting neoliberalism/austerity, while accepting some control of immigration, would have broad appeal.

Who who to lead it though? The membership like a lot of what Corbyn says. Politically they are closer to him than many in the PLP. Going for a Blairite right winger would be unacceptable.

But Corbyn is a bit of an amateur, artless at times when dealing with the media, which is vital to the task of getting your message over. He is reluctant to give up and I can see why he would want to hang on, but if you cannot get your MP's behind you, leading the party is always an uphill struggle.

Nothing's easy here. There's not a big queue of young, energetic MP's with good presentation skills who could a)unite the PLP, b) satisfy the membership and c) reach out to voters.

[Digby]

I would put standard Keynesianism close to the centre of a capitalist national system.

But Keynes has limits and there are a lot of politicians, economists and journalists who claim to be Keynesian who very clearly are neoliberals. I think the old fellow would be rolling in his grave at some of these 'leftist' clowns who claim to follow him. They all still talk about deficits and debt like they matter.

Full employment should be the priority goal of any responsible government.

But in today's zeitgeist, that's akin to being a communist.

I think the UK does have a commitment to full employment as it happens, dating back decades to actual legislation, though clearly it's not always an active goal. But what sort of employment, what sort of benefits, what sort of entitlements, what sort of contracts, what rates of pay, what sort of pension, and obviously what does full employment even mean as in economic terms just saying full employment leaves huge wriggle room on the actual answer? Also if you create such position by crowding out private enterprise your net delivery might be worse anyway.

And too we've seen a lot of Keynesian economic drivers for a long while now, not least with all the printing of money we've been doing (and managing to avoid inflation on the back of). But what Keynes wouldn't recognise is that such moves have come from an economy built on credit, that simply wasn't around when he was around, though when he was around he was a very successful day trader and not actually much of a lefty. And so whilst we've seen a lot of Keynesian economics across the Western World much of it has been pissed up the wall to cover for everyone aping the US system where a country runs on credit, rather than being actual investment.

[UGagain]

I would put standard Keynesianism close to the centre of a capitalist national system.

But Keynes has limits and there are a lot of politicians, economists and journalists who claim to be Keynesian who very clearly are neoliberals. I think the old fellow would be rolling in his grave at some of these 'leftist' clowns who claim to follow him. They all still talk about deficits and debt like they matter.

Full employment should be the priority goal of any responsible government.

But in today's zeitgeist, that's akin to being a communist.

I think the UK does have a commitment to full employment as it happens, dating back decades to actual legislation, though clearly it's not always an active goal. But what sort of employment, what sort of benefits, what sort of entitlements, what sort of contracts, what rates of pay, what sort of pension, and obviously what does full employment even mean as in economic terms just saying full employment leaves huge wriggle room on the actual answer? Also if you create such position by crowding out private enterprise your net delivery might be worse anyway.

And too we've seen a lot of Keynesian economic drivers for a long while now, not least with all the printing of money we've been doing (and managing to avoid inflation on the back of). But what Keynes wouldn't recognise is that such moves have come from an economy built on credit, that simply wasn't around when he was around, though when he was around he was a very successful day trader and not actually much of a lefty. And so whilst we've seen a lot of Keynesian economics across the Western World much of it has been pissed up the wall to cover for everyone aping the US system where a country runs on credit, rather than being actual investment.

The neoliberals have redefined what governments now mean when they say "full employment" to get around that aim (and the UN declaration on Human Rights). It means something quite different now i.e. an effective deliberate strategy of maintaining about 5% of the available labour force idle and then punishing them and belittling them. It's great divide and conquer strategy while it works.

We haven't had any Keynesian economics since the late 70s. Governments the world over are underspending and 'deficits' still dominate the discourse. Underspending and/or overtaxing creates unemployment.

'Money printing' doesn't mean anything. All money is credit

Governments need to be undertaking massive fiscal stimulus, far greater deficit spending on employment rich projects and hopefully jobs guarantees.

[Sandydragon]

Problem for Corbyn was in finding enough people in the PLP ready to back him. Its been his achilles heel from the outset. He simply doesnt have enough support from his own MP's, several of whom have actively sought to undermine him from day one.

The frustrating thing is that there is a real opportunity for Labour to reach out to disenchanted voters. They have to get themselves together and formulate simple, clearly defined policy proposals and project them in a united manner. A distinct left of centre social democratic offering, rejecting neoliberalism/austerity, while accepting some control of immigration, would have broad appeal.

Who who to lead it though? The membership like a lot of what Corbyn says. Politically they are closer to him than many in the PLP. Going for a Blairite right winger would be unacceptable.

But Corbyn is a bit of an amateur, artless at times when dealing with the media, which is vital to the task of getting your message over. He is reluctant to give up and I can see why he would want to hang on, but if you cannot get your MP's behind you, leading the party is always an uphill struggle.

Nothing's easy here. There's not a big queue of young, energetic MP's with good presentation skills who could a)unite the PLP, b) satisfy the membership and c) reach out to voters.

Wheres Alan Johnson when you want him? He isn't young, but I think he still has considerable respect and would do an admirable job pending the next GE.

[Sandydragon]

Tom Watson has told Corbyn that he has to go.

News also reporting that he has replaced all the resigned shadow cabinet members and TU leaders are on side. This could get bloody; there was an article yesterday of a shadow Labour party emerging which might have enough MPs to be seen as the official opposition.

Interesting times.

[Digby]

I would put standard Keynesianism close to the centre of a capitalist national system.

But Keynes has limits and there are a lot of politicians, economists and journalists who claim to be Keynesian who very clearly are neoliberals. I think the old fellow would be rolling in his grave at some of these 'leftist' clowns who claim to follow him. They all still talk about deficits and debt like they matter.

Full employment should be the priority goal of any responsible government.

But in today's zeitgeist, that's akin to being a communist.

I think the UK does have a commitment to full employment as it happens, dating back decades to actual legislation, though clearly it's not always an active goal. But what sort of employment, what sort of benefits, what sort of entitlements, what sort of contracts, what rates of pay, what sort of pension, and obviously what does full employment even mean as in economic terms just saying full employment leaves huge wriggle room on the actual answer? Also if you create such position by crowding out private enterprise your net delivery might be worse anyway.

And too we've seen a lot of Keynesian economic drivers for a long while now, not least with all the printing of money we've been doing (and managing to avoid inflation on the back of). But what Keynes wouldn't recognise is that such moves have come from an economy built on credit, that simply wasn't around when he was around, though when he was around he was a very successful day trader and not actually much of a lefty. And so whilst we've seen a lot of Keynesian economics across the Western World much of it has been pissed up the wall to cover for everyone aping the US system where a country runs on credit, rather than being actual investment.

The neoliberals have redefined what governments now mean when they say "full employment" to get around that aim (and the UN declaration on Human Rights). It means something quite different now i.e. an effective deliberate strategy of maintaining about 5% of the available labour force idle and then punishing them and belittling them. It's great divide and conquer strategy while it works.

We haven't had any Keynesian economics since the late 70s. Governments the world over are underspending and 'deficits' still dominate the discourse. Underspending and/or overtaxing creates unemployment.

'Money printing' doesn't mean anything. All money is credit

Governments need to be undertaking massive fiscal stimulus, far greater deficit spending on employment rich projects and hopefully jobs guarantees.

There are being huge stimulus packages being run, and being run on the back of money printing. They're not achieving what many might want, but that's because we're starting from a position of such credit and cashflow problems. But they're not not stimulus packages. And full employment could always have meant a variety of things, from the straightforward literal, to what it means within the context of any number of economic theories, and even if you want the straightforward literal you really should allow that mayn't be the best net scenario.

I think we should leave it here though, partly we're so divergent what's the point, and too if you think money printing doesn't mean anything then too what's the point. Just on the money printing I know it's being labelled quantitative easing, but only because it sounds better than printing money, and I'll be surprised to hear as a manifesto promise from any party we'll get a future contraction in money supply to offset the early release we're seeing now, it'll all be washed out in inflation is my guess.

[Banquo]

The Eagles have now landed. I don't see how he can avoid another leadership contest.

[Digby]

The Eagles have now landed. I don't see how he can avoid another leadership contest.

Worth trying to impersonate a German whilst also impersonating Michael Caine I suppose, and I wouldn't think he's tried that yet. Tbh I'm not sure I've ever seen this number of resignations before, mainly I suppose I can't think of anyone who's tried to hang onto office for so long in the face of anything approaching such. It might be for the best were the Labour party to split, though I've thought that of the Conservatives for a while too.

[Sandydragon]

The Eagles have now landed. I don't see how he can avoid another leadership contest.

Worth trying to impersonate a German whilst also impersonating Michael Caine I suppose, and I wouldn't think he's tried that yet. Tbh I'm not sure I've ever seen this number of resignations before, mainly I suppose I can't think of anyone who's tried to hang onto office for so long in the face of anything approaching such. It might be for the best were the Labour party to split, though I've thought that of the Conservatives for a while too.

Assuming that Corbyn is automatically entered onto any leadership nomination (that is to be confirmed I believe - but I can't see him getting enough MPs to nominate him) then there is every chance that the wider party membership will reelect him. I f that happens then I can see MPs walking. If they don't, I think they will be lucky to keep their seats anyway as there will surely be moved to deselect them. Perhaps they will speak to the Liberals?

[Digby]

Assuming that Corbyn is automatically entered onto any leadership nomination (that is to be confirmed I believe - but I can't see him getting enough MPs to nominate him) then there is every chance that the wider party membership will reelect him. I f that happens then I can see MPs walking. If they don't, I think they will be lucky to keep their seats anyway as there will surely be moved to deselect them. Perhaps they will speak to the Liberals?

From Corbyn to Farron, hardly the stuff of dreams. I do like the Lid Dem movement on getting us back into the EU, but Farron seems another weak leader on a national/global stage. With the next election being a possible choice between Johnson/Gove, Corbyn and Farron I wonder how many would now tick a box for Cameron and Clegg

[fivepointer]

Desperate times for the party.

This is now a major revolt and doesnt just involve Blairites but some MP's on the left who have been broadly sympathetic and loyal to Corbyn. From what those resigning are saying it does seem Corbyn isnt the easiest man to deal with and has failed to drive new policy, or to engage with all sections of the party.

Some good people have jumped ship; they are not all Blairite stooges.

[Banquo]

Desperate times for the party.

This is now a major revolt and doesnt just involve Blairites but some MP's on the left who have been broadly sympathetic and loyal to Corbyn. From what those resigning are saying it does seem Corbyn isnt the easiest man to deal with and has failed to drive new policy, or to engage with all sections of the party.

Some good people have jumped ship; they are not all Blairite stooges.

Loving the new politics

[Sandydragon]

Assuming that Corbyn is automatically entered onto any leadership nomination (that is to be confirmed I believe - but I can't see him getting enough MPs to nominate him) then there is every chance that the wider party membership will reelect him. I f that happens then I can see MPs walking. If they don't, I think they will be lucky to keep their seats anyway as there will surely be moved to deselect them. Perhaps they will speak to the Liberals?

From Corbyn to Farron, hardly the stuff of dreams. I do like the Lid Dem movement on getting us back into the EU, but Farron seems another weak leader on a national/global stage. With the next election being a possible choice between Johnson/Gove, Corbyn and Farron I wonder how many would now tick a box for Cameron and Clegg

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

[Digby]

Assuming that Corbyn is automatically entered onto any leadership nomination (that is to be confirmed I believe - but I can't see him getting enough MPs to nominate him) then there is every chance that the wider party membership will reelect him. I f that happens then I can see MPs walking. If they don't, I think they will be lucky to keep their seats anyway as there will surely be moved to deselect them. Perhaps they will speak to the Liberals?

From Corbyn to Farron, hardly the stuff of dreams. I do like the Lid Dem movement on getting us back into the EU, but Farron seems another weak leader on a national/global stage. With the next election being a possible choice between Johnson/Gove, Corbyn and Farron I wonder how many would now tick a box for Cameron and Clegg

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

[Sandydragon]

From Corbyn to Farron, hardly the stuff of dreams. I do like the Lid Dem movement on getting us back into the EU, but Farron seems another weak leader on a national/global stage. With the next election being a possible choice between Johnson/Gove, Corbyn and Farron I wonder how many would now tick a box for Cameron and Clegg

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

Agreed. It would be a bold move by Labour MPs who could overnight lose their local support, although the Liberals tend to be well motivated at a local level so perhaps not such a risk as just stepping out on their own entirely.