= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Corbyn has caused a massive spike in Labour membership, but has not been able to translate that into a great deal of activism outside of campaigning for Corbyn in internal leadership contests.
Labour has an enormous paper membership, but really struggles to get the best out of it. And on this score Labour actually compare really badly with rival parties.
As an example, we have county council elections due in a few weeks. The Tories have heavily targeted the ward where I live, bringing in activists from further afield. But for Labour it still seems to be the same husband & wife couple (one of whom is the incumbent councillor) doing all the leafleting. This is one of the big reasons why it looks very likely that we will lose a very good Labour councillor.
It gets worse when you look at Momentum, who are more interested with protesting against the New Statesman for not offering 30 pages of uncritical pro-Corbyn coverage or calling for Tom Watson to be replaced as Labour's deputy leader by Emily Thornberry of all people. 
In fact the more you look at Momentum, the more angry you get about the way that all that energy Corbyn and his followers originally brought to the table is being wasted on petty infighting rather than working to avoid an electoral bloodbath.
Without it, a constituency party has no way at all of holding the MP that clp worked to elect and re-elect to any level of accountability at all. If the MP has no accountability to the constituency party, there's no real reason for the constituency party to exist-for that matter, there's no reason for party membership to exist if people within a party have fewer means to hold their party's parliamentarians and candidates to any set of expectations at all. At that point, you've reduced the notion of a party to a leader who imposes policy solely from above, an arrogant, self-entitled parliamentary elite who feel no respect either for the party's values or those who will do most of the work of electing them(it's fairly unlikely that anyone has ever been elected by treating their party's principles dismissively), and a core of party workers which is slowly dwindling towards extinction.
No party with that sort of internal political culture is going to be sustainable and electable.
I can make that assertion because what I've described there is the political culture of the Labour party since at least the accession of Gordon Brown-a party that had failed to win even 31% of the vote in the last two elections on the type of manifesto you prefer, the type of it's-enough-that-it's-US-making-the-cuts policies that had no chance of ever leading to an increased vote for Labour at any possible future election or of providing effective governance if it did.
It's a culture whose defenders within the party are currently working with all their might to sabotage their own party's leader DURING the current general election campaign, and who, on a milder level essentially did the same thing to Ed Miliband during the 2015 campaign, simply because Ed was a few micro-millimetres to the left of Tony Blair(too few for anyone to matter, but still too intolerably many for the sectarian Blairite-Brownites, a cult that could tolerate no deviation at all from "Bambi Thought"
.
And just so you know, Labour HQ(still controlled by the anti-Corbynite party bureaucracy), mandated the reselection of all sitting MPs including the member for Barrow and Furness who insisted on demanding Corbyn's resignation while announcing that he himself wanted to stand for another term, so all the arrogant parliamentary elitists are exempt from any accountability from the people whose hard work is needed to keep them in their jobs.
I'd really like to know how you think Labour can ever regain power by continuing to treat its most committed activists as a nuisance at best and a menace to be crushed at worse. It's not as though Labour can win solely due to focus group tested phrases in a party political broadcast or the bland, empty pronouncements of a "Great Leader" figure. And there's really no good reason to keep punishing Labour activists for the Eighties-most left-wing campaigners now weren't even born then.
The best way to prevent it is for everyone on the left or "center-left"
if that second grouping is really anywhere on the left side of the spectrum at all)to stop attacking Corbyn and rally to Labour as the only party that can defeat the Tories. It's too late to change Corbyn as leader.
I don't favor mass deselections, never have. I favor accountability, a means to remind MPs that they are simply one group of people, rather than a parliamentary elite whose boots no one else in the party is fit to lick.
I get it that there will be shades of opinion in ANY party, anywhere, but the anti-Corbyn MPs(the ones who started all of the trouble by refusing to accept the outcomes of TWO legitimate democratic leadership elections) are acting as if they are ABOVE the rest of the party, that they owe the party whose rank-and-file activists keep them in office by doorbelling for them in elections NOTHING AT ALL, that they have no obligation to be significantly to the left of Theresa May at all that it's enough for them to call themselves "Labour MPs".
An MP should no to be treated like a demigod. She or he needs to feel some obligation to at least not sabotage the party-and what the anti-Corbynites have done is nothing but sabotage. They want Labour to go from having a leader with principles to having a leader who will join them in perpetually pushing the party further and further right(voting to cut benefits and support the benefits, as most of these people wanted Labour to start doing after the election, is voting to abandon the last meaningful difference that still existed between the parties. There was nothing else non-Tory left in the Labour program once the poor were officially abandoned and subjected to Victorian sanctimony, nothing at all). Those in the PLP who pushed for the final abandonment have learned nothing at all. They STILL think the party should have just endorsed the Tory manifesto and be done with it.
I want Labour to win. That can only happen if everybody in the party unites behind the winner of the leadership election. What you don't seem to get is that if Corbyn WERE forced out, no one who replaced him(no one to the left of Yvette Cooper would be allowed to by the PLP)would have no right to ASK Corbyn's supporters(who are still the majority of Labour members and supporters)to unite behind them, since that person would only be in the job because the PLP refused ever to reunite behind Corbyn.
Blame the sabateurs if May wing...not the people whose only crime was supporting the leader.
It was a tragedy that Leave won.
The only point of disagreement you and I have is that I think it's hopeless to try to reverse the EU decision.
Why do you think it's even possible now?
And what good would have come of Labour going all out to reverse it if their doing so ended up giving UKIP 40 seats in the North of England and if it would have required Corbyn to agree to abide by the pointless EU diktat that all EU countries have a balanced budget(a requirement that makes reversing the Tory cuts in the welfare state impossible)?
It's bad that Leave won...it actually sickens me...but I can't see how there was ever any chance of reverse it.
And it's hard to see how punishing Labour for not fighting a hopeless battle can lead to anything good down the road.
If May gets a majority, it won't really matter if the Tories are beaten in any future election. Every right-wing policy will pretty much be carved in stone and social services will just keep shrinking for the rest of eternity if that happens, as far as I can see.
The other problem that always comes up is this:
If Corbyn had been(or somehow still is)forced out as leader, we can assume that the PLO will only allow someone from the extreme right wing of the party, like Liz Kendall, to be elected leader. Labour will still need to hold the votes of everyone who is loyal to Corbyn. How could they possibly obtain the loyalty of that very large group of people when no one who could possibly be imposed as leader now(I'm assuming it would have to go back to the reactionary method of just having the PLP choose somebody)when that person would have to have been part of the anti-Corbyn plotting and would be incapable of saying anything the majority of Corbynites might possibly agree with?
How could there possibly be unity behind a Kendall, or an Yvette Cooper(who was just barely to Kendall's left) or a Chuka Umunna(the guy who thinks you can still be Labour after calling human beings "trash" ?
Doesn't that just drag Labour back into the dead zone politics of 2010 and 2015?
