It was bad enough watching Ed Miliband rather out of his depth as leader of the Labour party. He seemed to sit back in his study quite a lot, talking with his inner circle. He did quite well at PMQs sometimes. But you got the impression that he wasn’t really fully in charge. This was made worse by unfortunate (and somewhat irrelevant) incidents such as the bacon sandwich episode.
I don’t for a moment wish to patronize Labour supporters and members who are supporting Jeremy Corbyn. I also realize that I should be knocking the Tories – not Labour. But I knocked the Tories yesterday and got called a hypocrite for my troubles so today I am focusing on something which interests me also.
I just simply state that I find it very difficult to imagine Jeremy Corbyn actually leading the Labour party. There are many Labour MPs who have never met him and he has rarely attended Parliamentary Labour party meetings.
I’m just trying to imagine him sitting at the head of the shadow cabinet with his vest showing. I can’t. Who would be round the table? Tom Watson? Denis Skinner? The awkward squad. Numerous key Labour players have said they won’t serve in his shadow cabinet. If it means signing up to withdrawing from Nato, I’m not surprised.
I’m also trying to imagine him taking on Cameron at PMQs. I imagine Cameron (unfairly – in the usual fifth form way of the Commons at PMQs) making mincemeat of Corbyn. He just has to read out a list of all the things Corbyn has supported in the past. A laugh a minute. PM yells: “Hamas” – Tory backbenchers yell: “Yes!” – “Putin” – “Yes!” – “Chavez” – “Yes!” – “Hezbollah” – “Yes!”.
Never mind the right or wrong of his policy positions. I just can’t imagine Jeremy Corbyn actually giving out instructions that anyone of any significance in the Labour party would follow.
He would make John Major look like Superman.
He is an inspirational speaker, no doubt. He presents a proposition which is attractive for many, no doubt. But I have never heard that he actually has ever shown any evidence of demonstrating the level of executive or managerial skills required to lead a modern political party. I’m sure he could run a whelk stall. But I very much doubt he could run the Labour party. Maybe he doesn’t have to. Maybe he would leave the party machine to work on “cruise mode” – I don’t know.
Featured post thumbnail photo is by lewishamdreamer1
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Public opinion in turbulent times: Neville Chamberlain's approval ratings - The Week in Polls
How Multi-Academy Trusts have diverted education funds into executive salaries
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
Mark Paine
expats
Mick Taylor
Thelma Davies
Joseph Bourke
64 Comments
How would Jeremy Corbyn actually lead the Labour party?
Hopefully just well enough that he remains Leader for the longest possible period. Unfortunately I don’t think he is in any way up to the job, so won’t be around as long as many of us would like.
Next business.
I find it difficult to imagine Jeremy Corbin leading the Labour party or facing David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but isn’t that the reason why politics keeps throwing up people from a similar background. We have a pre-conceived idea of what a successful politician should look like and how s/he should behave? Could this be the reason we get so many identikit politicians? Do we want more managerialism?
All this talk of Jeremy Corbin just seems to be making some people think more deeply about politics. To me, he was just a name on the Anti-war Coalition website compared to the instantly recognisable Caroline Lucas. Now thanks to all this hullabaloo, I have to pinch myself to stop myself thinking , why not?
In my opinion, what other more conventional politicians should be asking, is why so many people are prepared to take a risk and a leap into the as yet, unknown.
I have wondered the samething Paul after reading that many labour MPs would refuse to accept him as their leader and plot against him. Let me answer your question with another question because the answer to my question affects the answer to yours: How easy is it to de-select a sitting labour MP and do you think the members would (if they could) de-select the dozens of labour MPs that won’t accept the wishes of the supporters and members in the event that Jeremy wins?
@jayne. Totally agree. I guess that explains why all the leaders look like spineless clones of each other. If the labour MPs accept him, Corbyn could win an election. Many of his policies are very popular with the voters and he comes across as a sincere man how believes in the greater good rather than just another clone from the political machine.
“How easy is it to de-select a sitting labour MP and do you think the members would (if they could) de-select the dozens of labour MPs that won’t accept the wishes of the supporters and members in the event that Jeremy wins?”
Harder than it used to be before Kinnock abolished mandatory reselection for sitting MPs. But it can be done – I recall one particularly useless and lazy Labour MP in a Scottish safe seat being turfed out in 2010.
Well said, Paul. A Corbyn led Labour Party would prove no more attractive to the majority of the British electorate than was a Michael Foot led Labour Party in 1983! As someone who has been ‘active’ in politics since the 1970s and a councillor at various levels since 1987, I have seen many bandwagons roll down the hill and disappear down the other side. Short termism has influenced the political agenda for far too long.
Call me cynical if you like; but I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the electorate has little real interest in politics any more; but is quite willing to blame politicians they often elect by default when things go wrong. Could we be entering what might be called a post political age, when single issues and sound bites appear to be the way forward and people expect instant solutions to what are complex problems? For those who just shrug their shoulders and say “So what? I’m doing OK.” (the fact is that many people are) I am reminded of the famous quote from Pastor Martin Niemoeller : “First they came for the Socialists….” One day we might just wake up before it’s too late.
It might suit Cameron to respond with a straight bat and give Corbyn a relatively easy time.. Cameron might well leave it to others to pull apart Corbyn’s policies and put him on the spot.
Although Corbyn has been a fairly committed constituency MP, h has had a relatively easy life. He has not had to struggle with the difficult decisions of government; he has not had to flesh out policies in a shadow cabinet, I would not be surprised if he stumbles over the details of policies.
A young firebrand politician has the advantage of little history, but Corbyn has been around long enough to have acquired plenty of hostages to fortune which will continually put him on the defensive. It would not be too long before an issue would arise that would put him at odds with many others in the parliamentary party. Corbyn has rebelled as a matter of conscience too often to deny others the same luxury. Doubtless the Tories would look out for opportunities to exploit this.
Corbyn is claiming that he seeks consensus, but what if he is in disagreement with his own shadow cabinet? He would no longer have the option to vote in a different way..
A change to constituency boundaries could be a tipping point, it would be likely to lead to Labour MPs without seats, exacerbating tensions between different factions of the Labour party. Another danger point is an EU referendum, I do not think Corbyn knows his position with respect to the EU and he would have little control over his parliamentary party; in this respect Corbyn could be a headache for Cameron too.
One or two things spring to mind. Who in the Labour party approved such a shambolic electoral system ? Selling voting rights at £3 a go ! Having, so it appears, at least 70 members of staff working round the clock to verify the political leanings of those who were led to believe that they were entitled to vote. DEMOCRACY DOESN’T WORK LIKE THIS . Democracy can’t be safe in Labour or Tory hands.
How will Labour in the House of Lords respond to a Corbyn leadership ? The whole scenario gets more fantastic as the days pass.
I have to say, I’m still wondering whether Burnham is more likely to seize the crown than people may realise. Psychically foreknowing the actions of 600,000 individuals of whom more than half were previously inactive where there has never before been an election with this electoral system in this country on this scale is … problematic. I think it’s fair to say that only a Kendall victory is categorically unlikely.
And I think Burnham would do a worse job than Corbyn. Burnham is the flip-floppers’ flip-flopper.
If Corbyn ends up with a good deputy leader, he could possibly be the charismatic figurehead whilst others organise the army.
But I still think the Tories are sharpening their knives for whoever wins, and will try their ‘coalition of chaos’ strategy again, making everything a dualist struggle between Good (that’s Dave) and Evil (that’s everyone else).
In an early draft of article about referenda, wher eI was trying to explore how false and oppositional our political culture is, I wrote something like, ‘the only thing that depresses me more than Corbyn hypothetically claiming he’s ‘saved’ the Labour party is Dave Cameron hypothetically claiming he’s going ‘save’ me from Corbyn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
Matt (Bristol) 25th Aug ’15 – 3:53pm
” … danger point is an EU referendum, I do not think Corbyn knows his position with respect to the EU …”
If he is elected and has a honeymoon period of, say, 12 months, the EU referendum would be within it.
I think he would attempt to be conciliatory and grown up. The evidence is that he avoids conflict and personal attacks. To be honest the thing that has surprised me the most is how childish the other candidates are being and how willing to damage their own party the Blairites are. It’s like a reversal of their old militant tendency problem with the internal enemies now coming from the Right of their Party. Whoever takes the leaderships is going to have problems and will have to acknowledge the reality that New Labour is basically dead. They may find it expedient to freeze out some of the old guard. The Blair brand is pretty toxic, probably more so than Thatcherism was for the Tories. and I think this is why Corbyn is ahead so far. From an outsiders POV, whilst I do not intend to vote Labour I think a shift from the centre right orthodoxy in public discourse opens things up and may help the Lib Dems., but I don’t think this is because Corby is anymore unelectable than the other candidates. What it will do is give progressive politics a little more leg room in the media. The political situation is very different to the 1980s, jobs are less secure, home ownership is down, disposable incomes weaker and the public mood generally more anti establishment. This to me favours actual liberalism rather than some misguided attempt to occupy a middle ground.
Ok now this is quite an interesting topic and I have to say Corbyn has livened things up no end! It’s to his credit that Corbyn has conducted a “grown-up” campaign and made the other candidates look like petulant schoolboys. If he carries on like that and refuses to engage in ‘yah-boo’ politics, would the Lib Dems support him in altering the tone of PMQs?
Richard, that’s Martin’s quote.
The Lib Dems are being starved of National coverage and if not careful will just vanish without trace in large parts of the country..Please please concentrate on building the party back up after the mauling in May..the country needs a strong Lib Dem party..please get on with it.
Correction.
Martin 25th Aug ’15 – 3:43pm
” … danger point is an EU referendum, I do not think Corbyn knows his position with respect to the EU …”
If he is elected and has a honeymoon period of, say, 12 months, the EU referendum would be within it.
Richard,
I believe he has come out quite clearly in favour of the EU, but wanting to push for democratic reform of it. Sounds pretty similar to the Lib Dem position…
For those cynics, I suspect that politics goes in cycles, like everything else. There is only so low the public’s interest can go before someone can recapture the attention of the disillusioned. I also get the feeling that the whole countries appetite for Corbyn is bigger than anything in my lifetime. I may count as young, but I was around during the rise of new labour, and what is different this time is that the politician actually believes in something. He is pushing things in the opposite direction of the dictatorial style of Blair, and those that are not taking him seriously need to prepare for exit strategies, as people like Andy Burnham and Polly Toynbee are already doing, otherwise they risk being cast out into the political wilderness (and no, that is not a threat, just an observation. Why would you put on record that you don’t want to work in the cabinet of a frontrunner, like Liz Kendall, Chuku Umuna and Yvette Cooper have all done, if you are not planning to oppose him completely).
Jamie Stewart 25th Aug ’15 – 4:30pm
A Labour MEP addressed the West Kent European Movement recently, before JC became prominent. She was worried that a left wing government in Greece would cause a negative attitude to the EU among the lefty in the UK.
Phyllis – absolutely, yes. But I fear JC would be drowned out by the baying of the Tory mob. Sad but true.
@ Richard,
Jeremy Corbyn has said that he would be for leaving the EU if there is any weakening of workers rights or environmental protection.
I wouldn’t even know about this if people on here didn’t keep banging on about him and making me curious.
Jayne Mansfield 25th Aug ’15 – 5:29pm Thank you. i am waiting for the election result before forming views, but would probably respect the analysis of Charles Clarke on Newsnight as an academic labour elder statesman.
Paul, the “baying mob” will be there no matter who is leader of the opposition. If it had been Nick Clegg they would have shouted “Calamity Clegg” at him, or found another epithet. That’s what bullies do. Heavens, they even heckled Clegg when he was on their side! If Burnham gets in, they will shout “Bendy Burnham” at him, and ” Mid-Staffs”. The Lib Dems used to believe in “grown-up politics”. If Corbyn, as I suspect, rises above this and also responds with a bit of wit, he may come across as the person with gravitas being shouted down.
Would it not be an idea for all the Opposition parties to make a stand against the baying mob? As a viewer, it puts me off politicians, especially those who are better than that. Cameron comes across very badly when he reverts to Flashman.
Jamie Stewart “Why would you put on record that you don’t want to work in the cabinet of a frontrunner, like Liz Kendall, Chuku Umuna and Yvette Cooper have all done, if you are not planning to oppose him completely).”
I suspect that those people have an over-inflated sense of their own importance and think that if they say that, people will think twice before voting for Corbyn. I’ve seen this hubris in people in my own workplace in the past, they attain a senior position and think that makes them very important.
Sadly none of the other candidates come across as authentic in any way. It’s a great shame but there’s a huge gap (and not just) in the Labour Party in terms of “big beasts”. These things are cyclical though.
I like your comments normally Richard, but choosing to respect Charles Clarke because he is an “academic labour elder stateman” is too much deference! He is as opinionated as any human, more than average probably, and will feel that to support Corbyn is to go against the New Labour legacy which he was such a big part of.
I joined the Lib Dems originally in large part because of their pro-EU stance, but I worry about the Lib Dem’s over-attachment to ideas in unquestioning ways. My big recent issues were the coalition (a failed coalition would have reflected just as badly on the conservatives as the LDs if not more so if it had been over a point of LD principle such as tuition fees) and Scottish independence. I supported independence, because the “academic” ideal of a federal UK was not on the table, and looked a million miles from the table. The strength of the Yes campaign has raised the possibility of the LDs pushing forward this sensible devolution proposal, and yet it isn’t a priority of Tim’;s at the moment.
It should be.
Whilst I have enjoyed reading bits of total speculation, it is nothing more than that. Do any of us actually know how Corbyn would respond to the role of leadership, should he be selected? Of course not. Throughout history a number of people who were regarded as ‘not up to the job’ actually proved to be fantastic leaders when their ‘time came’. Why not give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt?
It’s hard to say. It is plain that Corbyn carries a certain baggage. I don’t think anyone serious would deny that. But then every candidate has some level of baggage, including Tim Farron. The voters aren’t dumb and are quite free to form a value judgment. That’s always been the way. Will a graduate loaded with debt in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job care what Corbyn once said about Ireland?
Obviously there is a wider problem that Corbyn is not exactly in much of a position to ask for loyalty and unity.
But then on the other hand I do have to ask whether his platform is quite all the media and the internet tell me it is. If you read his stuff (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/investment_growth_and_tax_justice) there is wriggle room there. In fact parts of it would not look totally out of place in other parties. It looks a long shot, but I don’t think the idea of Corbyn producing something that is acceptable within Labour is quite as far-fetched as it sounds.
On the EU it is far from theoretical that within 12 months we will see a Corbyn/ Cameron YES platform.
In fact the one place where I can see Corbyn getting into real bother is the one subject he’s been rather coy on – immigration.
Jamie Stewart –
‘I also get the feeling that the whole countries appetite for Corbyn is bigger than anything in my lifetime.’
Can you elaborate on this?
To get back to back to the original question How will Corbyn lead Labour hopefully into oblivion but to echo Silvio lets get on with rebuilding the Liberal Democrats like Tim said ward by ward division by division seat by seat so that there is a credable opposition to the conservatives.
Corbyn has 2 big advantages over Milliband & Brown – hes a good speaker & he seems comfortable in his own skin. Of course he will have big problems with his Parliamentary colleagues but then Parliament isnt central to his project, he can largely ignore it. Rebellious MPs will get the “sad face” treatment from Corbyn himself while his followers do the dirty work. He could get a honeymoon with voters seeing him as a breth of fresh air.
Paul Barker – ‘Of course he will have big problems with his Parliamentary colleagues but then Parliament isnt central to his project, he can largely ignore it.’
In the short-term that’s probably true, but I don’t think he can sustain that for any great length of time. Put at its most brutal, gloriously authentic, principled heavy defeat is still defeat. This is (or should be) the business of winning elections and if he doesn’t do that, like any leader, he would have to account.
Corbyn will destroy Cameron (or Gideon) easily. However he may be destroyed by his own party.
Little Jackie Paper 25th Aug ’15 – 6:39pm
“Will a graduate loaded with debt in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job care what Corbyn once said about Ireland?”
I am a train driver. Corbyn is the only MP who is a prospective party leader, who has signed Early Day Motions and stood up for my guard colleagues on trains. Claire Perry the current Rail Minister wants guards axed off trains and the responsibility for dispatch at platforms, and therefore criminal liability if passengers misbehave handed over to drivers, on top of our other duties. Passenger behaviour is a massive distraction if we are supposed to be concentrating on signals.
Equally if we run someone down and are in a state of shock, are we the best people to single handedly deal with passengers who will be massively disrupted on our own train?
Labour despite receiving union money did very little to stop the removal of train guards.
Given the fact that we can find links to dodgy figures with all politicians (Clegg was an understudy for Leon Brittan after all – and Blair had many), why should I not support Corbyn? Ultimately he has proven he will stand up for the likes of me, and my guard and platform staff colleagues.
And for the record, I could believe that someone like Charles Kennedy would have done too, but I know New Labour and the other 3 figures standing won’t and the Tories broadly (Peter Bottomley has stood up for us) want rail workers out of a job. As for what the Lib Dems are now, I am not sure what they stand for, although I think Farron is a better man than Clegg.
Let’s see how Jeremy Corbyn the new Muesli Munching Manager at Head Office supposedley traditional Labour ilk gets on in Scotland and with the SNP. Jeremy Muesili Munching Corbyn 30 years in Westminster and has not got a clue about Scotland, what’s up did he never go into the subsided bars to listen to the chortle of his Scottish Labour careerist cronies before they got the boot from Westminster. Anyway I would never trust a man who is into Muesili I always stick with porridge and I put salt in it only not sugar or jam.
Corbin won’t last long – there are already reports of some union members voting twice for him, which (along with everything else) will be an excuse to void the election and/or get shot of him in the meantime. He has very little real support anyway (most of it is just the usual crew of UAF-type shouty lefties). There aren’t many members of the Labour Party in comparison to the whole electorate and the election is just something for the newspapers to focus on during the quiet summer recess.
If he ever did get into a position of real power, he’d soon get a visit from men in grey suits to tell him to be sensible and not cause the country too much harm.
In the meantime, relax, get out the popcorn, sit back and laugh as the Labour Party try and extricate themselves from another fine mess!
Maybe like Clegg he would lead the parliamentary party just well enough to ensure near oblivion.
I think the past 24 hours have shown us, in fact what a Corbyn leadership could look like:
– There are rail strikes on or threatened.
– Corbyn makes several vague statements about the railways (including the segregated carriages thing), which sort-of-not-quite add colour and detail to his known and not very detailed desire to return the railways to governmet management.
– Everybody on social media is talking about whether ‘we’ (ie the people, the state) should segregate carriages — not something that the state in theory has any direct control over.
– Union members and railway staff are all over social media pushing politicians on whether they support state intervention in the railways like Corbyn.
Ta-da, Overton window moved left, at least in the commentariat and internet world. Top-down solutions all the way.
Corbyn has made no detailed proposals, Labour have made no collective decision (and Corbyn himself is just demurely saying he is ‘proposing’ these ‘ideas’, not saying they should be party policy without consultation), but the public’s perception is being shifted.
I think this man knows how to play the liberalish, leftish media. He knows how to court public opinion on the leftward side of the nation.
I can easily see Corbyn floating around, being polite, making speeches, discussing ‘ideas’, fronting campaigns, chatting to journalists, whilst Tom Watson and the Whips’ office cajole, twist arms and bang heads and tell MPs how they are going to vote once the party has had its mind made up for itself.
It could work, actually. But will it carry the nation?
One thing that that is useful about Corbyn being given such prominence is his publicity for People’s QE.
He has his mentor on this, Richard Murphy.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/03/economist-defends-corbynomics-criticism-richard-murphy-jeremy-corbyn-qe
However, both Corbyn and Murphy fall down by not really understanding that the Bank of England cannot be ordered by the Government to create Sovereign Money (AKA Fiat Money).
That way is fraught, as politicians have an insatiable appetite for money to spend on pet projects, and in producing feel-good electorates before election-time.
Sovereign Money Creation (SMC) is a well-thought out history going back to the Chicago School in the 1930s, and supported in substance by Keynes and Friedman, and lately by Lord Adair Turner of the FSA, Bert Bernanke of the Fed, and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times.
Its tenets were discussed at length last year on 20th November at an all-party debate at the House of Commons .
http://positivemoney.org/2014/11/mps-debated-money-creation/
However, the movement properly is led by the Positive Money movement http://positivemoney.org/
There, Ben Dyson et al state the essential failing of Corbynomics is that creation and spending aspects of this new money MUST be separated.
Thus the BoE independently decides the amount of new money needed by the economy for growth and controlling inflation at that time – just as the BoE’s MPC does now in deciding interest rate levels.
It then regularly transfers that money to the Treasury for the Government to decide on what it wishes to spend this debt-free, non-taxed money, that will make not a ha’porth of difference to the Deficit or the National Debt.
BTW it is nonsense that such a strategy would cause either inflation or deflation – see http://positivemoney.org/2015/08/sovereign-money-common-critiques/
We really should study this and incorporate it into our economic strategy and as quickly as possible.
Jamie Stewart 25th Aug ’15 – 5:51pm Thank you. Two or three points about Charles Clarke
1) When Charles Clarke was Home Secretary there was a well publicised problem about asylum, criminals and immigration. Charles Clarke was not in a position to sack the person responsible, who was Tony Blair.
2) Charles Clarke was defeated as an MP by a Liberal Democrat.
3) Charles Clarke has become an academic. Please see “The too difficult box” a collection of essays about things that were not done during thirteen years in government and need attention. (Source material for LDV?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_difficult_box
Jamie Stewart 25th Aug ’15 – 5:51pm ” … sensible devolution proposal, and yet it isn’t a priority of Tim’s at the moment.”
Tim Farron has said that in his constituency in Cumbria they get broadcasting from Scotland.
He dislikes the SNP for the same reasons he dislikes Labour.
Jayne Mansfield : The people who want to take that risk are the same type of people who always wanted to do that but have only been able to vote Green or UKIP or possibly Liberal Democrat and now for the first time since 1983 they might be able to vote for one of the two big parties . They are the traditional hard left who hate the cautious and responsible people who are careful with their own and other people’s money and as one of them said sneeringly ” like to squirrel it away” i.e. save it and not squander it. There are also the idealistic people who never see the downside of any of their ideas and the naïve young people who only see things from their own point of view without any understanding of the views and needs of others because they have no experience of having to work and manage their lives and those of their dependents and families. And last but not least the spiteful and the desperate who hate those who try to make something of themselves and are prepared to make sacrifices to do it.
She will care that Corbyn once honoured spokespeople from a group that at that time regarded her as a legitimate military target.
(Pronoun “she” chosen purely to have an unambiguous referent.)
Don King 25th Aug ’15 – 8:16pm Overground or underground? Driverless trains in London? Boris?
@Little Jackie Piper “Will a graduate loaded with debt in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job care what Corbyn once said about Ireland?”
A graduate in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job has no effective debt.
@Richard Underhill [to the tune of The Wombles]: “Underground, overground, driverless trains; there’s one thing we’re sure of, in August it rains.”
Sadly although saying “A graduate in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job has no effective debt.” may enable some of us to persuade ourselves that things are OK, it’s how the graduate sees it that counts. I have found that to be very different.
@Little Jackie Piper “Will a graduate loaded with debt in a £6.50 an hour zero-hours job care what Corbyn once said about Ireland?” An important point about what seems to be a strong level of support for “leftist” amongst a lot of the population. Large numbers of young people who took the time to become educated and ran up debts doing it now find themselves in badly paid jobs with little future. They are accumulating further debts, paying high rents, have little chance of owning their own home or enjoying the kind of lifestyle that those who benefitted from the economic post-war boom have enjoyed. They are young enough not to be bothered about what a politician did in the 1980s, legends of “the Winter Of Discontent” or whether nationalised railways or water was any good or not. They are poor and “Leftism” might offer them some kind of hope.
Frankly, as a radical Liberal who paid my first sub well over fifty years ago I find a lot of the Corbyn bashing in this thread disappointing and lacking in original or creative thinking. It echoes much of the knee jerk right wing Tory Press owned by the Murdoch, Rothermere and Desmond (of UKIP and Asian babes fame) empires – all of which will never do any favours for Liberal Democrats.
“With his vest showing” (crossed out) is a bit gratuitous and ( being crossed out ) reveals a lack of conviction by the author . As for Tom Watson, why have a go at him ? He gave a most moving, kind and sensitive speech in the Charles Kennedy tribute debate. Look it up on youtube. His contribution to the Leveson Inquiry was impressive. His book, ‘Dial M for Murdoch’ ought to be compulsory reading for every Liberal who wants to know what we are up against from the lurking crocodiles of News International. As for dear old Dennis Skinner – the man’s a national treasure and should have a preservation order slapped on him. Skinner’s speech on Thatcher still makes the spine tingle (again on youtube). A member of the Shadow Cabinet ? No way would he want it – though he’s younger than Gladstone was when he formed his last government.
Corbyn can and should be listened to with a critical ear, but his instincts and personal humanity deserve respect as does his analysis of austerity, Trident renewal, poverty, inequality and unaccountable multinational corporate power. He has tapped into a public mood with overflow meetings akin to Gladstone’s ‘Fiery Cross’ Midlothian campaign. Tim Farron would give his back teeth for such a response.
Now it’s just possible Corbyn may have a wider appeal than some on this board appreciate. Instead of contemplating co-operation with a feral Tory Party, Lib Dems would be well advised to discuss issues with Corbyn (if he wins), with Caroline Lucas and yes, even with the SNP. Whatever else it would do it would start to diminish our discredited Coalition tar baby reputation.
@Matt (Bristol),
“I can easily see Corbyn floating around, being polite, making speeches, discussing ‘ideas’, fronting campaigns, chatting to journalists, whilst Tom Watson and the Whips’ office cajole, twist arms and bang heads and tell MPs how they are going to vote once the party has had its mind made up for itself.”
What has surprised me most is that so few people seem able to give the man some credit for what he’s actually done here, if he wins. It’s quite a feat to go from obscure backbencher to front-runner like this.
People also seem unable to recognise that Corbyn has an excellent team. His chief of staff, for instance, kept Ken Livingston as mayor of London for many years despite desperate attempts of the Blairites to get rid of Livingston. This leadership election seem to be a rerun, only on a larger scale, of the crushing defeat that Frank Dobson suffered against Livingston in 2000. Then, Dobson was selected as the Labour candidate for Mayor after an intense and dirty Blairite campaign. Livingston ran as an independent and crushed Dobson.
Ken Livingston was a very flawed character who did some really odd things. Corbyn doesn’t share those flaws. And from what I’ve seen of the man, he has a steel will and a very high degree of stubbornness. Two qualities which will help him.
As to the general question of how he will lead: he will lead from where he is strong. Conference will become a much larger part of the party. The CLPs are flooded with new members now, and they will shortly decide the NEC, the NPC, and so on. Blairites will find themselves isolated, and there will always be a charge ready that they are “undemocratic” and “going against the members expressed will” with a de-selection hanging over their heads. Not as an outrightly expressed thing. Not so crude as that. But people with very sharp elbows will take MPs into some little room and explain things to them, in a comradely fashion. They will lay down the law.
No, they will not break off and join the LibDems. They know what happened to the SDP. And your party should not want them to, unless your party still has a suicide wish. I know it’s difficult to be so reduced, but accepting the Blairite defectors wouldn’t do any good. It would mean accepting into the party ranks cuckoos who will push everyone else out of the nest.
We should discuss issues with the Greens and SNP, yes. And with Labour led by any of the present candidates EXCEPT for Corbyn. Corbyn may not share Livingstone’s character flaws, but he does have the same poor political judgement, fondness for gesture politics and tendency to associate with inappropriate people. We should treat a Corbyn-led Labour party in exactly the same way as we would the Tories if they were led by someone who had openly associated with the KKK, the EDL, violent Northern Irish loyalists and the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
@ Alex Macfie
1.. “with Labour led by any of the present candidates EXCEPT for Corbyn……….” 2. ” he does have a tendency to associate with inappropriate people”.
1. Sorry, Alex, don’t agree. Liz Kendall – absolutely not, Cooper – possibly, with wariness – Burnham – possibly, but more of a flop than a flip. Don’t fall for the right wing press demonisation of JC – he’s addressing real issues.
2. ” inappropriate people” …………. that was Cleggy and Danny’s problem in coalition when they associated with Osborne, IDS, Gove, Pickles and Grayling (who banned books for prisoners). Can’t say any of that lot were particularly appropriate. And don’t forget Blair, Major and Whitelaw (as surrogate for Thatcher) were all negotiating with the IRA.
Corbyn was NOT “negotiating” with the IRA: he was expressing solidarity with them. He was a “Troops Out” person who basically agreed with the aims and objectives of Sinn Fein/IRA. There is a massive difference: Blair and the rest of them were trying to move the IRA away from violence, while Corbyn (and Livingstone) was trying to move a future Labour government towards the Sinn Fein/IRA position on Northern Ireland.
Our friends in the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland opposed full talks with Sinn Fein until there was a ceasefire.
There is also a big difference between going into government with the Tories, admittedly a nasty bunch but nonetheless supporters of pluralistic democracy, due to the electoral arithmetic, and honouring terrorists and dictators out of choice. When people make this sort of comparison I think of Simon Titley’s article in Liberator from a over a decade ago, in which he pointed out that whatever you think of the Tories, Labour (then under Blair), Bush et al, they do all operate in the same moral universe as us; the sort of people that Corbyn chooses to call his comrades and friends do not.
In response to Colin and David Raw:
I was being a bit flip, but I really do think Corbyn could potentially lead the Labour Party more effectively than Burnham, for eg, which is a shift from my opinion at the start of the campaign. I agree with David Raw that his leadership style could easily be that of Gladstone in his later years, which was spretty much as I outlined, giving speeches etc, floating ideas, whilst other people imposed party discipline (and I do not regard the Liberal Party of the 1880s and 1890s as an inherently democratic body, by the way). I agree with Colin that Livingstone was more effective than people give him credit for, and his experiment in charge of London proves that Blair was not inherently correct when he claimed that his was the only way for Labour.
However, I am still sceptical that a Corbyn-led party is likely to win the nation as a whole given the changed situation in Scotland since the 90s, and I do not partiuclarly want him to win, and I really do not think he presents more opportunities for liberal ideas and politics.
I do respect Tom Watson to an extent, but I think you have to admit that if he wins the deputy leadership context, as one of the last Brownites standing, he will attempt to hold the party together at all costs and will be prepared to engage in backroom skullduggery to do it.
On the whole, I think the way the leadership contest is panning out is:
– Corbyn: ‘New Left’
– Burnham: effectively the Milibandite continuity candidate, although he’d dispute that, I’m sure (I’d regard both him and Miliband as dissident Brownites)
– Cooper: the Brownite continuity canndidate
– Kendall: the Blairite revivalist
I think the contest has proven how hollow the various Brownites have become as both the ‘centre-ground’ of the Labour party and the ‘leftwing’ of the New Labour era. They are out of touch with their members, they don’t know how to campaign, they have little new ideas and they are betraying Social Democracy’s traditions by their incompetence. They deserve to be put to the sword by Corbyn, to be honest.
That should read ‘skullduggery’. I have no idea how that got through, and it was a typo!
Alex Macfie
Where are you getting your history of Northern Ireland from? That is a serious question. You seem to be hopelessly wrong on a number of matters of fact.
For example (and there are people much more knowledgeable than me on the subject) The Alliance party only came into existence in 1970. Check it out on Wiki —
“..Founded in 1970 from the New Ulster Movement, the Alliance Party originally represented moderate and non-sectarian unionism. However, over time, particularly in the 1990s, it moved towards neutrality on the Union”
Yet whilst the Alliance Party was only a few months old Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were smuggled into Chelsea to have talks with ministers of Edward Heath’s Conservative Government. Was Willie Whitelaw a dangerous Torskyite for speaking to Sinn Fein?
The “Troops Out Movement” which according to the website still exists was not formed until 1973.
What precisely is it that you have against theTroops Out Movement?
As for meeting with and talking to Sinn Fein, did you miss the years when The Revd Dr Ian Paisley shared ministerial office with the man from Sinn Fein, not to mention our old friend David Ford of The Alliance?
Are you suggesting that they are dangerous Trotskyite fellow-travellers as well?
Almost every politician has a hinterland and I do think it’s jolly unfair to hold things they did in the past against people and not to allow for people maturing, or changing their views and indeed their associations. The past is a different country, as someone said.
Alex Macfie 27th Aug ’15 – 10:33am ” .. We should treat a Corbyn-led Labour party in exactly the same way as we would the Tories if they were led by someone who had openly associated with … the Apartheid regime in South Africa.”
Such as Mrs Thatcher’s husband?
John Tilley: Where did I say anything about when the Alliance Party came into existence? Nowhere. And how is it relevant? All I said was that Alliance would talk officially to Sinn Fein only after a ceasefire. When the Troops Out movement was formed is also totally irrelevant to my point.
And you missed my point that Willie Whitelaw was negotiating with Sinn Fein representatives to persuade them to renounce violence, not to give them the government’s blessing (whereas Corbyn was essentially giving them his blessing).
And of course, the Paisley/Adams partnership in the Northern Ireland government is AFTER the IRA cceasefire. I’m talking about how Jeremy Corbyn and other trendy lefties behaved as if Sinn Fein should get a seat at the main negotiating table without having to renounce violence and disarm.
@John Tilley you seem to misunderstand Alex’s point. He wrote:
“Our friends in the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland opposed full talks with Sinn Fein until there was a ceasefire.”
Given that the Alliance Party was, as you point out, founded in 1970, and the cease fire that led to the Good Friday Agreement took place in 1997, they had some 27 years to oppose dealing with Sinn Fein.
@John Tilley “As for meeting with and talking to Sinn Fein, did you miss the years when The Revd Dr Ian Paisley shared ministerial office with the man from Sinn Fein, not to mention our old friend David Ford of The Alliance?”
The crucial difference being that they by that point they had specifically renounced violence, the IRA and the reunification of Ireland by means other than through the ballot box.
Jeremy Corbyn is an intelligent man with excellent campaign support. He has demonstrated in many areas he has been years ahead of politicians of all parties in his studies and thinking. Many of us may not agree with his conclusions, but Corbyn has abilities and attitudes ideally suited to the New Politics.
In that he has been helped by the failure of any other candidate to rise above the uniform, identikit ordinaryness of everyday politicians. It is sad for the Labour party and British politics that there is no outstanding personality able to offer more inspiration. than perspiration.
Anyone who is capable of attracting the levels of support that Corbyn has achieved in a short period should be able to lead a political party, even though he may be more policy-led rather than acting the showman. If he wins despite the dirty tricks of the Labour establishment (and Andy Burnham getting his second preferences) no-one else has the credibility to oppose him.
It is unlikely the other three would actually work together in a party-within-a-party to outvote him. None of the current shadow cabinet is a strong enough political personality to attract much notice or lasting effect is they refuse to join Corbyn’s cabinet.
An SDP-type breakaway is out of the question given the pygmy-like political stature of the main contenders. None would metaphorically rise above the knees of Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Bill Rogers or David Owen. Their only hope lies with one man.
If Alan Johnson were to make it known he would be ready to come to the aid of the party after a couple of years of Corbyn leadership, we might see changes — depending on how well Corbyn performs, and keeps his new-found following.
Corbyn has tuned into a new mood among voters, happy to reject the Old orthodoxy of politicians of all parties. It sets a challenge for Tim Farron, but one I believe he is quite capable of rising to it and more than meeting it.
.
.
As far as I’m concerned the Young Liberal association with Sinn Fein and the Troops Out movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s was a serious mistake, and something difficult to square with the party’s formal link to the non-sectarian Alliance Party. Paddy Ashdown was clearly on the right side on the debate back then, and (correct me if I’m wrong) there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position of significance in the party now who thinks that the support for SF by a faction of the party was doing over 30 years ago was a good thing (assuming they are even aware of it). [As an aside, during my time in LDYS in the 1990s I found no support for Sinn Fein; we were firmly supportive of the Alliance Party.] On the other hand Corbyn has not renounced his giving uncritical hospitality to Sinn Fein when the IRA was bombing Britain, and his supporters are spinning it so that it sounds like he was the peacemaker for doing so. Therefore it is legitimate to criticise him now for that.
As for “How would Jeremy Corbyn actually lead the Labour party?………………………..“I don’t think we can go on having policy made by the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary Labour party. It’s got to go much wider. Party members need to be more enfranchised. Whoever is elected will have a mandate from a large membership.”……….
If only we’d allowed such ‘heresy’…..
The one thing obvious is that the Westminster bubble and its cohorts are very afraid of Corbyn hence the daily vitriolic personal attacks. He is the last chance for the Labour Party which I and many left when Blair became leader. If Cooper gets in then that will be the end of all values, she brought in the dreadful WCA which has caused so much fear, desperation and death. I can see a split whatever happens and that would be the best thing to ever happen.