British Politics thread

I think it's an elegant summary of the far Left in most Western societies.

I still can't get over Corbyn wanting to nationalise the railroads, frankly. Sadly it's not atypical of that side of politics. Try sitting in on a political philosophy tutorial these days, it's scary.

Should jettison Corbyn to some distant island like St. Helena or something, let him govern it as he sees fit. Sort of a work experience.

When it's done, exile him to Russia. In the diplomatic pouch.

So what are the mechanisms by which Labour MPs could remove Corbyn as leader? Would the rank-and-file have a say given that they have a say in the election of leaders?

It's all a bit foreign to me given that the norm over here has been for party leaders to be selected by fellow MPs (though federal Labor introduced rank-and-file voting two years ago, but the membership's preferred candidate still lost to the chap whom MPs preferred).

An MP would need to get a certain amount of support within the parliamentary party to trigger a leadership election. I believe it is 15% of current MPs. Labour is a very tribal party and it runs on a kind of Führerprinzip, with MPs hesitant to depose even blatantly unelectable leaders like Brown and Miliband - last year the popular Labour veteran Alan Johnson had a pretty good opportunity to rescue Labour from Miliband but he turned it down.

The Tories under current rules simply need to have 15% of MPs declare no confidence in the leader, but under Labour rules that 15% would have to rally around a single candidate to trigger the race. In 2009 they couldn't get enough momentum because splits in the party meant that certain opponents of Brown couldn't back a coup if it meant supporting David Miliband for leadership. Simon Danczuk has already declared that he's willing to put himself up against Corbyn but he's on the right of the party - strongly suspected last year of being the Labour MP who called Douglas Carswell after UKIP won their first seat to discuss defection - and as such would probably fail to spark the kind of split necessary to trigger a leadership election.

Even if one were called, it would be run like the previous election - one member, one vote, with student slacktivists being able to buy a vote for £3. The only thing that could be done is that the Labour NEC could declare that the incumbent needs to be nominated again to be eligible to run in the contest, which would be difficult for Corbyn since he was nominated out of pity by a number of non-supporters who thought he didn't have a chance, who presumably wouldn't make that mistake again - although excluding him from a subsequent leadership election would probably be the death of the party in terms of grassroots activists. One of the people who nominated him sincerely is actually dead, which I guess points to the difficulty of maintaining yourself when your internal base is composed of geriatric old commies who don't know the Cold War is over.

All eyes are now on Oldham West and Royton, where a parliamentary by-election takes place in early December. It's a very safe Labour seat but UKIP ran them a very close second in a similar seat late last year - coming within 600 votes of winning without having applied proper resources to it (it was held on the same day as the more important Clacton by-election). If something similar happens again pressure will mount on Corbyn. If they somehow lose the seat (UKIP's odds shortened from 8/1 to 4/1 after the Paris shooting) I don't really see how the party can let him carry on.

So David Cameron met with Bart De Wever?

That's a bit odd, considering it's rare for a British PM to meet with a Belgian PM, let alone just a Belgian politician who does not even hold a senior position in the federal government.

Cheers, HJackson. Interesting stuff.

Certainly a messy process. You'd think they'd at least require 12 months of financial membership before giving someone the chance to pick the national party leader. Crazy.

n

Beautiful.

Unfortunately I can't bring myself to share that optimism just yet.

n

Quoting Mao is all the rage these days.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-for-malcolm-turnbull-the-reformer-being-prime-minister-is-just-the-start-20151023-gkha44.html

Quote :

[Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull] cites the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong, in a famous declaration attributed to him in the creation of the People's Republic of China in 1949 when he said: "The Chinese people have stood up!" And Turnbull adapts it for Australia: "Modern China is built upon an assertion of national sovereignty. And that is why we say to China, 'The Australian people stand up!"' repeating it in Mandarin.

Give it a decade or two and pollies will be citing Gaddafi's Green Book (whilst surrounded by bikini-clad bodyguards).

m

It's raised my awareness, amongst other things.

John McDonnell is against bombing in Syria but in favour of bombing British pubs and hotels.

v

Kissinger seems like an odd type of role model, considering how his strategies in regard to Vietnam (and by extension Cambodia) panned out.

n

It's not really about morality but results. At least that was the basis of my argument.
In fact, I would argue that results are the only basis on which you can judge the purely pragmatic.
And morality does come into play. It did back then, as well as today. Hence why so far the IS controlled oil fields have been largely left unharmed (even though they apparently primarily serve their 'domestic' needs). Or to speak specifically about Vietnam, the relative restraint in destroying civilian infrastructure in the North-Vietnamese urban areas. Which could have easily been wiped off the map had the US chosen to do so.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

And morality does come into play.

Well, of course it does. My argument is that it shouldn't. Though the current example you give is incorrect - preserving the oilfields is all about economics. Morality doesn't come into it.

Actually, since most of it seems to be used on the domestic market (the supposed illegal trade with Turkey has not yet been proven) it is a moral and not an economic decision.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Fact is, the last time I saw any impressive realpolitik from the UK was when Margaret Thatcher encouraged the Iran-Iraq war; by all means let two pieces of shit beat the crap out of each other.

Which is all fine until one faction decides to export the bloodshed to our shores.

The reality is that with the already ongoing campaign of airstrikes, it's not really that important if Britain joins in or not.
What is really needed is what all Western powers are refusing to commit to: boots on the ground.

So Labour is self-imploding over the Syria vote.

It would have been worse had Corbyn attempted to whip the vote. From the debate so far Labour MPs seem more concerned about getting Cameron to apologise for calling Corbyn - who for several years attended memorial services for dead IRA terrorists - and McDonnell - who called for the IRA to use bullets and bombs in their campaign for a united Ireland - terrorist sympathisers. I very much hope this backfires and simply draws more attention to the real substance of these accusations, but sadly the "conservative" media has no interest in properly publicising these truly horrific revelations.

HJackson wrote:

It would have been worse had Corbyn attempted to whip the vote. From the debate so far Labour MPs seem more concerned about getting Cameron to apologise for calling Corbyn - who for several years attended memorial services for dead IRA terrorists - and McDonnell - who called for the IRA to use bullets and bombs in their campaign for a united Ireland - terrorist sympathisers. I very much hope this backfires and simply draws more attention to the real substance of these accusations, but sadly the "conservative" media has no interest in properly publicising these truly horrific revelations.

The feminists are up in arms over the fact that Stella Creasy might be deselected.

Even though the likely person to replace her would be another woman.

Though likely not the "right kind" of woman?

MPs have just voted to commence air strikes in Syria.

Read a letter at the weekend suggesting that a Grand Alliance as in WWII is needed to defeat these people. ISIS not Labour. The West and Russia together again taking them on.

You probably wouldn't even need a "Grand Alliance" to defeat ISIL in a conventional ground war. They're not the Wehrmacht, they're a pack of neckbearded losers who can't even operate RPGs without blowing themselves to shit. The question is whether the air campaign will actually destroy ISIL rather than (at best) contain it within the territory it already holds.