Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
The Gift That Just Keeps On Giving
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the far left are determined to increase their control of the party (in fact they aren't really in control of it as such at the moment). So there would be a move to keep him in place for a while until they could be guaranteed a successor. Corbyn might even offer to put himself up for the leadership again, if he was confident that he'd win, but the prospect of the continuation of his leadership, or even that of another left winger with more natural leadership abilities (none spring to mind with the possible exception of Clive Lewis) would certainly drive more moderates away and I think we'd be looking at a new party at some point.
You may be sure that Corbyn will never admit that he is to blame for labour's forthcoming defeat, whatever happens, which is why I suspect the aftermath will be messy.
You may be sure that Corbyn will never admit that he is to blame for labour's forthcoming defeat, whatever happens, which is why I suspect the aftermath will be messy.
The standard form for a leader who loses an election is that they stand down - the unspoken inference being that they have been personally rejected by the electorate, and therefore they are not fit to remain as leader.
The difficulty with Mr Corbyn is that he doesn't see the up-coming failure as being connected either to him personally, or to his leadership, and for that reason, he intends to stay.
This presents a serious dilemma for the Party - the parliamentary party already want him gone, the membership may well vote for him to stay if a challenge is mounted to oust him.
To all those who put him up for the leadership post - be careful what you wish for ...
The difficulty with Mr Corbyn is that he doesn't see the up-coming failure as being connected either to him personally, or to his leadership, and for that reason, he intends to stay.
This presents a serious dilemma for the Party - the parliamentary party already want him gone, the membership may well vote for him to stay if a challenge is mounted to oust him.
To all those who put him up for the leadership post - be careful what you wish for ...
It wouldn't surprise me at all if he didn't resign after the election. The fact that he's said as much in the past confirms my opinion of his motives. I don't think he cares particularly about being PM, or Labour winning. He is just happy to remain the revered leader of what's fast becoming a vaguely creepy personality cult. He and his acolytes are on a mission to return the Labour party to it's socialist roots, and if that means it will never see power again, so be it.
Whether the party membership will continue to be happy with state of affairs is another matter.
Whether the party membership will continue to be happy with state of affairs is another matter.
Quoi - //Do you think if he stood down now, I mean today, would that help to prevent this expected 'landslide'? //
To stand down now would be to admit that he is unfit, and so are his party, and however much the electorate may underline that perception when the time comes, it would not make any difference if he stood down now, except to make life even more difficult for his successor, inheriting a party which threw in the towel is not a good start!
To stand down now would be to admit that he is unfit, and so are his party, and however much the electorate may underline that perception when the time comes, it would not make any difference if he stood down now, except to make life even more difficult for his successor, inheriting a party which threw in the towel is not a good start!
Ludwig - I'd have to agree entirely with your assessment.
I think Corbyn does believe that Labour should return to its 'great days', but that means he does not acknowledge just how much the world has changed in the interim.
If he seriously believes that returning Labour to its past - which is never going to happen - would return the rest of the world to those times as well, then he is seriously deluded.
I think Corbyn does believe that Labour should return to its 'great days', but that means he does not acknowledge just how much the world has changed in the interim.
If he seriously believes that returning Labour to its past - which is never going to happen - would return the rest of the world to those times as well, then he is seriously deluded.
JC was elected leader with the biggest ever majority in a leadership election, not once but twice; the second time with an even bigger majority, by which time the party had had 9 months to digest where he intended taking the party. the parliamentary party might not like it, but the membership will soon deselect any mp who doesn't fit the new image of the party.
returning labour to its past is just where the party's journey is intended to take it, and all those who deserted the party of brown and miliband for not being left wing enough, will return and sweep them to power. allegedly.
returning labour to its past is just where the party's journey is intended to take it, and all those who deserted the party of brown and miliband for not being left wing enough, will return and sweep them to power. allegedly.
"He and his acolytes are on a mission to return the Labour party to it's socialist roots"
I disagree with that. Labour has always been a party which has been primarily founded in its MPs. What Corbyn, or more particularly his backers, want is actually to overturn all that and turn it into an anti-Parliamentary campaigning movement. If they do that they will effectively be forming a new party and one which is doomed to become a minority interest group. It's as yet impossible to know what will happen after the election. I somehow feel that Corbyn WILL stand down, or be forced to. It depends on what the moderates want: how badly they want to rescue the party and whether they think it's possible. If the will to keep plugging away evaporates then they'll all leave and a new party will emerge
I disagree with that. Labour has always been a party which has been primarily founded in its MPs. What Corbyn, or more particularly his backers, want is actually to overturn all that and turn it into an anti-Parliamentary campaigning movement. If they do that they will effectively be forming a new party and one which is doomed to become a minority interest group. It's as yet impossible to know what will happen after the election. I somehow feel that Corbyn WILL stand down, or be forced to. It depends on what the moderates want: how badly they want to rescue the party and whether they think it's possible. If the will to keep plugging away evaporates then they'll all leave and a new party will emerge
"If I stood for the Tories in Hackney against Diane Abbott I would expect to lose. Doesn't make me useless, though. "
That is a poor analogy. Labour has gone from landslide in '97, to probable landslide the other way in 2017. Corbyn was always a disastrous choice as leader, a throwback to the past churning out outdated slogans. The irony is that May is now pinching some of the reviled "Red Ed's" policies, but because it's her and not him no one seems to mind. How personalities, or the perception of them DO matter indeed. Corbyn could announce he was joining the Tory party: it might be the only way of stopping the Tories :-)
That is a poor analogy. Labour has gone from landslide in '97, to probable landslide the other way in 2017. Corbyn was always a disastrous choice as leader, a throwback to the past churning out outdated slogans. The irony is that May is now pinching some of the reviled "Red Ed's" policies, but because it's her and not him no one seems to mind. How personalities, or the perception of them DO matter indeed. Corbyn could announce he was joining the Tory party: it might be the only way of stopping the Tories :-)
jackdaw - //Why should a person resign just because he lost an election? If I stood for the Tories in Hackney against Diane Abbott I would expect to lose. Doesn't make me useless, though. //
He is't 'a person' though, he is the leader of a major political party, and if his party is defeated, then by default, he is defeated, and deemed not to be the electorate's choice.
In that position, the honourable thing to do is to resign, Foot, Kinnock, Milliband and Cameron all did it - because it is the honourabl thing to do.
He is't 'a person' though, he is the leader of a major political party, and if his party is defeated, then by default, he is defeated, and deemed not to be the electorate's choice.
In that position, the honourable thing to do is to resign, Foot, Kinnock, Milliband and Cameron all did it - because it is the honourabl thing to do.
Kinnock of course did not resign in '87: it depends on the nature of the defeat. In '87 it was felt that Labour would need another go to overturn such a huge majority. Foot was thrashed, so was Major, Miliband lost unexpectedly, as did Kinnock eventually in '92
The only saving grace for Corbyn is that no one expects him to win, but no one can see him EVER winning.
The only saving grace for Corbyn is that no one expects him to win, but no one can see him EVER winning.
jackdaw - //I disagree. Attlee, Churchill and Gaitskell didn't resign merely because they lost. //
I think the political landscape - and the public perception of party leaders, has changed out of all recognition since those days.
These days, the political climate does align the responsibility for a loss with the party leader - and resignations are the form these days.
I think Corbyn won't go - which does leave something of a dilemma for Labour - they can't ditch him because he is popular with the party members, if not the MP's, and they can't get elected with him in charge.
I think the political landscape - and the public perception of party leaders, has changed out of all recognition since those days.
These days, the political climate does align the responsibility for a loss with the party leader - and resignations are the form these days.
I think Corbyn won't go - which does leave something of a dilemma for Labour - they can't ditch him because he is popular with the party members, if not the MP's, and they can't get elected with him in charge.
It depends on a lot of things as to whether Corbyn is "unremovable"
For one thing many of the members who used to support him no longer have any confidence in him, and others who support him now have indicated that that support would be withdrawn were he to lose an election. He couldn't, of course, simply carry on as though nothing had happened. There is a constituency of hard core leftists who want a left wing replacement but whether there are enough to be able to hold him in place until a rule change allows another hard left candidate to stand is another matter. I cannot see Corbyn remaining as leader for any length of time for any other reason than as that sort of "place holder" figure.
For one thing many of the members who used to support him no longer have any confidence in him, and others who support him now have indicated that that support would be withdrawn were he to lose an election. He couldn't, of course, simply carry on as though nothing had happened. There is a constituency of hard core leftists who want a left wing replacement but whether there are enough to be able to hold him in place until a rule change allows another hard left candidate to stand is another matter. I cannot see Corbyn remaining as leader for any length of time for any other reason than as that sort of "place holder" figure.
Latest Posts
Animals & Nature1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
