Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Thrugelmir

gadgetmind wrote: »

Wow, this one is worth reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

"I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn't stand it."

"He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country."

Labour leader "fundamentally misunderstands" the nature of the security threat we face, and that he has shown in recent days, that "none of his gut instincts chime with the public beyond his niche group".

With your own party saying things like that, either he goes or there'll be a massive schism.

Now one understands why after years as an MP. Corbyn has always remained a back bencher. The Unions choice of leader has seriously backfired.

Thrugelmir

setmefree2 wrote: »

I just watched the last hour (of one and a half hours) of HoC debate on the Paris Attacks - I've never seen anything like it - the Labour MPs were attacking Corbyn and Stop the Wars position more than Cameron. I've never heard Cameron say "I agree with you 100%" or "Of course my R honorable friend the Labour party member for .....is 100% correct" -

When it's up on you tube watch Ian Austin Labour MP - practically accused Corbyn and Stop the War of fueling terrorism in the UK.

Honestly never seen anything like it.

Some matters transcend politics. This is one of those occasions.

setmefree2

Today brought another show of defiance by the sensibles. During a sombre Commons session on the Paris attacks they rose, one-by-one, and gave voice to universalist, liberal, inquisitorial instincts too often absent on the part of Labour’s leadership. Emma Reynolds asserted that the guilt for the attacks lay solely with the attackers (that this even needs saying in today’s Labour is an indication of the moral depths in which the party now lurks). Pat McFadden noted that claiming anything else means “infantilising terrorists and treating them as children”. Mike Gapes urged the prime minister to offer immediate air support for the Kurds. Chuka Umunna echoed Mr Cameron’s commitment to national security and urged him to set out the framework by which British police may use lethal force.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/11/corbyn-labour-and-paris

setmefree2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Some matters transcend politics. This is one of those occasions.

No it really wasn't that. They were all gunning for Corbyn and Stop The war.

setmefree2

Still, the last few days matter for Labour because they have moved the party a little closer to the recognition that its leader is hopeless. This may be accentuated early next month, at the Oldham West and Royton by-election. One of the starkest claims made by Mr Corbyn’s supporters in the leadership campaign was that his straight-talking style would help the party win back Old Labour voters in seats where the populist UK Independence Party is now a serious presence. The by-election will put this to the test and—if my visit to the seat last week is anything to go by—find it wanting. To quote from my column:

Arriving home, a resident in a high-vis jacket confesses that he is Labour by habit and UKIP by preference. “He’s an idiot,” he adds matter-of-factly of Mr Corbyn: “his foreign policy is totally out of date.” A couple of houses down an old man in a vest declares himself a convinced socialist, a scion of a “strong army family” and utterly alienated by the unwillingness (as he sees it) of Mr Corbyn, a unilateral nuclear disarmer, to defend Britain.

If Labour’s win in the seat is anything but resounding—as seems entirely possible—MPs across the party should worry about their prospects. But will they act? In my view, having followed the Paris attacks and the party’s response, it is no longer a question of whether it will breach 30% in the next election but whether it will cut 20%. Voters pay very, very little attention to the daily political churn. But a few things go noticed. Labour’s uncertainty about the extent to which it should stand up for British citizens is one, as my afternoon on the Oldham doorsteps (even before the Paris attacks) revealed. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party's image. Its moderates are adopting a (rightly) different emphasis from that of their leader and waiting for him to slip away eventually. But the last days have shown that this is not enough. They must start thinking about actively unseating him and building a grass-roots base to rival the one that put him in a post he did not deserve to win.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/11/corbyn-labour-and-paris

gadgetmind

Cameron ought to call another GE now just for giggles. Dunno what's the largest majority the Conservatives have ever got, but they could maybe set a record!

Generali

gadgetmind wrote: »

Cameron ought to call another GE now just for giggles. Dunno what's the largest majority the Conservatives have ever got, but they could maybe set a record!

According to Wiki, after Universal Suffrage, Maggie had the biggest majority with 144 in 1983 (predictably).

Stanley Baldwin got a majority of 210 in 1924 when women over 30 and men over 21 could vote. That was the Zinoviev Letter election, whereby the Daily Mail published a letter claiming to be from Mr Zinoviev, a leading light in the Soviet Union (link - interesting if you don't know about it). It was also the end of the Liberal Party as a significant point in British Politics, arguably up to 2010!

The biggest ever is Churchill's wartime National Government but I'm not convinced that counts. FWIW, the majority was 609. I don't know if there was an opposition and if so how it worked. I'd be interested if anyone knows. A very quick and rather lazy Google shows up nothing.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

According to Wiki, after Universal Suffrage, Maggie had the biggest majority with 144 in 1983 (predictably).

Stanley Baldwin got a majority of 210 in 1924 when women over 30 and men over 21 could vote. That was the Zinoviev Letter election, whereby the Daily Mail published a letter claiming to be from Mr Zinoviev, a leading light in the Soviet Union (link - interesting if you don't know about it). It was also the end of the Liberal Party as a significant point in British Politics, arguably up to 2010!

The biggest ever is Churchill's wartime National Government but I'm not convinced that counts. FWIW, the majority was 609. I don't know if there was an opposition and if so how it worked. I'd be interested if anyone knows. A very quick and rather lazy Google shows up nothing.

The Conservatives were in power in the leadup to the war (which I don't imagine did them any favours later on).

Instead of having a 1940 election Churchill formed a national unity Government of the three biggest parties. There was an election after the war in 1945 by which time everything that smacked of right-wing politics was shunned by the electorate. There were two Liberal parties around wartime but I'm not sure whether the Liberals or the Liberal Nationals were in the coalition.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

The Conservatives were in power in the leadup to the war (which I don't imagine did them any favours later on).

Instead of having a 1940 election Churchill formed a national unity Government of the three biggest parties. There was an election after the war in 1945 by which time everything that smacked of right-wing politics was shunned by the electorate. There were two Liberal parties around wartime but I'm not sure whether the Liberals or the Liberal Nationals were in the coalition.

I was more wondering if there was an official opposition and if so, who was in it. AIUI there is an important constitutional role for an opposition so you'd presumably need one even if it was pretty notional.

Generali

Found it, albeit rather unsatisfactorily:

In 1940 the three largest parties in the House of Commons formed a coalition government to continue to prosecute the Second World War. This coalition continued in office until shortly after the defeat of Germany in 1945. As the former Leader of the Opposition had joined the government the issue arose of who was to hold the office or perform its functions. Keesing's Contemporary Archives 1937–1940 (at paragraph 4069D) reported the situation, based on Hansard:

The Prime Minister replying to Mr Denman in the House of Commons on 21 May, said that in view of the formation of an Administration embracing the three main political parties, H.M. Government was of the opinion that the provision of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, relating to the payment of a salary to the Leader of the Opposition was in abeyance for the time being, as there was no alternative party capable of forming a Government. He added that he did not consider amending legislation necessary.

The Daily Herald reported that the Parliamentary Labour Party met on 22 May 1940 and unanimously elected Dr H.B. Lees-Smith as Chairman of the PLP (an office normally held by the party leader at that time) and as spokesman of the Party from the opposition front bench.
After the death of Lees-Smith, on 18 December 1941, the PLP held a meeting on 21 January 1942. F. Pethick-Lawrence was unanimously elected Chairman of the PLP and the official spokesman of the party in the House of Commons while the party leader was serving in the government. After the deputy leader of the party (Arthur Greenwood) left the government on 22 February 1942 he took over these roles from Pethick-Lawrence until the end of the coalition and the resumption of normal party politics.