Vengeance of Pandas posted:

There's also the First Past the Post electoral system which screws things even more.

Gort posted:

Any left-wing leader would get the same treatment Corbyn would. They're not against him, they're against the idea of the Labour party being left-wing.

Ludicro posted:

Which ironically might be one of the main things preventing UKIP from getting any real power in Parliament.

Zalakwe posted:

I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done.

Ewan posted:

I totally understand the love for Corbyn's policies here, and why he is seen as somewhat of a "saviour" of left wing politics and I respect the efforts he has taken to try to bring Labour back to its roots. I agree UK politics having a political party more truly to the left in order to give the electorate more of a choice of centre-right vs centre-right is long overdue and reflect the views of a large chunk of the wider Labour party.

BUT, I revert to my previous point, however amazing or visionary his policies are, he is simply not a natural political leader and he has failed to bring factions of the party together. For a start (I will repeat this ad infinitum), he lacks energy, wit, charisma and charm.

But, as I said above, I am sure most other prospective Labour leaders will similarly fail with the current bunch of snakes in the PLP. But someone with more charisma would at least have an automatic head start over him.

Zalakwe posted:

I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done.

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Actually, I've been leafing through the Labour Party Rule Book, and it seems to me that candidates for Westminster are supposed to be chosen by trigger ballot by the CLPs. Have I misread this? Can somebody explain to me how the Blairite parachuting worked / how this went wrong?

Vengeance of Pandas posted:

Bollocks, the vast majority of people are not members of any political party in the UK.

From Wiki the current registered membership numbers.


• Conservatives - 150k
  
• Labour - 554,272 split between 380k full members and 170k registered supporters
  
• SNP - 110k
  
• Lib Dems - 66,905
  
• Green Party of England and Wales - 60,000
  
• UKIP - 27,517
  
• Socialist Worker's Party - 2300

Munin posted:

The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic).

Zalakwe posted:

I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done.

JeffersonClay posted:

I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted?

Munin posted:

The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic).

Zalakwe posted:

I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done.

Munin posted:

The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic).

JeffersonClay posted:

I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted?

quote:

I have invited you here today to announce my candidacy to become the Leader of the Conservative Party – and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
And I do so for three clear reasons.
First, following last week’s referendum, our country needs strong, proven leadership – to steer us through this period of economic and political uncertainty, and to negotiate the best possible terms as we leave the European Union.
Second, we need leadership that can unite our Party and our country. With the Labour Party tearing itself to pieces, and divisive nationalists in Scotland and Wales, it is nothing less than the patriotic duty of our Party to unite and govern in the best interests of the whole country.
And third, we need a bold, new, positive vision for the future of our country – a vision of a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us.
...
Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that.
Second, there should be no general election until 2020. There should be a normal Autumn Statement, held in the normal way at the normal time, and no emergency Budget. And there should be no decision to invoke Article Fifty until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear – which means Article Fifty should not be invoked before the end of this year.
Third, we should make clear that for the foreseeable future there is absolutely no change in Britain’s trading relationships with the EU or other markets. And until a new legal agreement is reached with the EU, which will not happen for some time, the legal status of British nationals living or working in Europe will not change – and neither will the status of EU nationals in Britain.
And fourth, while it is absolutely vital that the Government continues with its intention to reduce public spending and cut the budget deficit, we should no longer seek to reach a budget surplus by the end of the Parliament. If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.
...
Looking ahead, negotiating the best possible terms as we leave the European Union will be crucial to our future prosperity. And that is going to require strong, proven leadership. I intend, in the coming weeks, to set out in some more detail my proposed negotiating principles, but for now I want to make two important points about the way we conduct this negotiation.
First, nobody should fool themselves that this process will be brief or straightforward. Regardless of the time it takes to negotiate the initial deal, it is going to take a period lasting several years to disentangle our laws, rules and processes from the Brussels machinery. That means it is going to require significant expertise and a consistent approach. I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.
The second point is while the ability to trade with EU member states is vital to our prosperity, there is clearly no mandate for a deal that involves accepting the free movement of people as it has worked hitherto. Now is not the time for me to set out my full negotiating principles – that will come later. But I want to be clear that as we conduct our negotiations, it must be a priority to allow British companies to trade with the single market in goods and services – but also to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe. Any attempt to wriggle out of that – especially from leadership candidates who campaigned to leave the EU by focusing on immigration – will be unacceptable to the public.

Cerebral Bore posted:

This is incorrect, because nobody with the politics of Corbyn would have been able to win over the Blairites regardless of their personal qualities.


Tony Blair himself has literally stated that he'd rather lose an election than win one on a left-wing platform. The Labour right started shouting about rebelling against Corbyn before Corbyn was even elected. The current spat is damaging the party completely needlessly.

The idea that the Labour right are some kind of savvy operators that ate all about winning elections at any cost should really be considered dead and buried by now.

Firos posted:

The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members.

Firos posted:

The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members.

Vengeance of Pandas posted:

Bollocks, the vast majority of people are not members of any political party in the UK.

[list]From Wiki the current registered membership
Simple truth is most people are too busy dealing with the daily grind of life to think much about politics beyond the headlines or in the weeks leading up to an election.

MrL_JaKiri posted:

Pretty much everything they do gets them less than 50k new members

Zalakwe posted:

My point isn't that they are savvy operators, it's that they care more about their electability than their ideology.

JeffersonClay posted:

I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted?

Firos posted:

The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members.

Hitler B. Natural posted:

Zalakwe posted:

Tony Blair isn't pulling the strings. My point isn't that they are savvy operators, it's that they care more about their electability than their ideology. The fact they do or do not like Corbyn's ideology isn't the deciding factor for many of them, or at least not the only one. You can tell this from the fact that they haven't stated an aim beyond a desire to be electable again.

Edit: They also want to be in charge, elected and in charge is the totality of their vision.

MrL_JaKiri posted:

And that point is wrong.

OvineYeast posted:

Nah, they talk about electability because to be open about the other option (they are opposed to socialism) would destroy them utterly in the party.

LemonDrizzle posted:

Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.html


"No change for the foreseeable future" sounds very much like "no Article 50 for the foreseeable future".

LemonDrizzle posted:

Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.html


"No change for the foreseeable future" sounds very much like "no Article 50 for the foreseeable future".

Jose posted:

since i don't think anyone linked me reminder this man wants to be prime minister

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/677024011658919936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Grondoth posted:

So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what?

Grondoth posted:

So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what?

GaussianCopula posted:

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/748604008508628992

forkboy84 posted:

So who is the least awful candidate the Tories have? Considering we are likely to be stuck with them for 4 years. Obviously they are all terrible, but does any of them have any characteristics that aren't utterly awful? Or the charisma of a damp rag, increasing the Labour Party's hopes of winning? Should I be hoping for Gove or Fox?

Grondoth posted:

So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what?

radmonger posted:

Someone who doesn't care enough about politics to join a left wing party is, by definition, less left wing than someone who does.

radmonger posted:

Thanks for the numbers -you seem to be agreeing with what I said (or at least meant to say; maybe it was a bit compressed).

Someone who doesn't care enough about politics to join a left wing party is, by definition, less left wing than someone who does.