May is nearly out and so is May

[Serial_Apologist]

What we know from the pre-election opinion polls is that a substantial number of normally Labour voters opted for either the Liberal Democrats or the Greens; we also know that a majority of Labour voters are pro-Remain, and a majority of Labour MPs are pro-Remain. The result would indicate that they were dissatisfied with Labour's message. We have an excellent (fiercely pro-Remain) local MP tweeting that canvassing had never been so disheartening for him as a member of the Labour party, with followers lining up to express support but saying they had to vote for a party whose message was clear: Remain.

Given that mainstream media's way of presenting Labour's situation, I cannot be the only one to have been surprised by the support given to pro-Remain parties in the EU election. This wasn't what voters in previously Brexit-supporting hitherto Labour-supporting heartlands had been telling street reporters, and there didn't seem to be any polls suggesting a change of mind.

For the Tories this was almost a mirror image: voters dissatisfied with the government's handling of Brexit flocked to the Brexit Party, Tory members must be pro-Brexit if they favour Johnson as next leader, Tory MPs are split.

It would seem perverse not to conclude that both parties were on the wrong side for their natural support. May and Corbyn both let their parties down, May through incompetence, Corbyn through an obstinate disregard for views other than his own, against his MPs, conference, the membership, the voters. He could not bring himself to be clear and that's why he was wittering on about other policy issues. If you believe that Corbyn was the only one in step, you might excuse him.

One could equally say that both May and Corbyn were hung out to dry by their parliamentary colleagues: May for not being voted out in the December vote of confidence; Corbyn by Labour MPs who have never accepted him as leader, but also by that part of his would-be electoral base that would be most likely to suffer the greatest consequences of leaving, with or without a deal. Placed in such a Catch-22 left neither leader with much in the way of wriggle room - May in her negotiations with the EU; Corbyn in formulating any strategy that would not be at the mercy of further developments beyond his control or anyone's ability to predict.

[eighthobstruction]

....it was obvious to me that the EU Elections would be a 'free-hit' situation and would become a quazi-mini-referendum....so then it was a binary situation pro or anti EU....Labour backed a third solution when there was no third question....Corbyn whatever his general social policies (which one takes to be those of others in Labour Party) is too guarded, too reticent, is not open, does not use the media well, too slow, he has the opportunity every day to give more interviews (at least some key-note interviews), offering a wide range of Labour Party thinking....

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, team, I think there are others of your persuasion. But I'm not one of them. Even you make his stance simply sound devious - what's going to work out best for the Labour party (and me)? Even his MPs were frustrated with that.

As for the 'liberal media should have trusted Corbyn and the Labour strategy' - that appals me. The media are under no obligation to 'trust' politicians: they report - how it seems to them, how it seems to others. They can't all be party hacks.

They might not seem to be "party hacks", but most newspaper journalists operate in line with the editorial line of their respective papers and their owners; even supposedly "liberal" The Guardian has consistently presented a distorting picture of Labour under Corbyn, as has been mentioned many times.

And Corbyn, having survived a vote of no confidence ('survived' it by taking no notice of it), has tried to railroad his MPs with three-line whips - he who rebelled against his party more often than any other as a backbencher - who ignored comments that he was not adhering to conference decisions …

Was he therefore supposed to just sit back and continue taking abuse and slander from them? As for rebelling against "his party", instead read this as rebellion against party policies continually cobbled together without recourse to membership, culminating into Blair's decision to go into Iraq. The long history of democratic gains sought and won by the left in the party up to the time of Kinnock, followed by their whittling away to the point where Blair was able to abolish Clause 4, the one statement defining the party's socialist underpinning principles, was well outlined in the BBC TV drama "Our Friends in the North", back in 1996.

He has shown himself, for years, to be UNtrustworthy - why on earth should the media trust him when only those in the charismatic wing of the party actually trust him any longer. People who rail at the Lib Dems for going into a coalition with the Tories, stick with him when he's been doing his best to follow (coincidentally) the Tory line.

The magic label 'Socialist' seems to grant him a special controlling power over people. I'm no fan of Blair, on a purely personal level I could be a very happy little socialist, but … well, it's a party matter, for members to decide …

Untrustworthy to whom? Corbyn's support for reinstating inner-party democracy restores the basis upon which his (or any other leader's) answerability can be held to account. Surely it is this the point, that has done as much as anything else to attract new members, and that so frightens those of his opponents, both inner and outer, who fear having to explain their record, or have it exposed to scrutiny?

[Serial_Apologist]

I didn't find it patronising, but when I read Richard's post agreeing with you I wondered whether some 'right-wing nutter' had invaded the discussion. I was quite surprised to find it was me

I don't know how I could be clearer: I do not find Jeremy Corbyn's policies in any way 'extreme' or in opposition to social changes that I myself would like to see. I do find his stance over Brexit to have been fundamentally equivocal; I saw the clip of his yesterday's comment about a second referendum, couched in such terms that I would not be persuaded that he was in favour (mentioned in the same sentence as a general election so it was still unclear what 'a public vote' meant; and promising to put the matter before the Labour party conference - which begins on Sept 21 and ends on the 25th: no time for a general election or a second referendum before we leave on 31 October).

This being my own view of Jeremy Corbyn as a politician, I am bewildered at how others could possibly have any confidence in him as a leader. That is a personal opinion about his practical competence as a politician. And I expressed the apparently offensive view that it must be because he professes to be - and undoubtedly is - a committed socialist, as committed as any other member of the PLP. I respect that as a political stance. But I think he is a terrible leader and his equivocations have been significantly responsible for Labour's awful performance in the EU elections.

I apologise in advance if that does offend anyone. I'm sure people will take a diametrically opposite point of view: if they explain it I'm happy to discuss it further; if they don't think it worth even bothering to respond to such comments, I respect their point of view.

Thanks for responding, ff. While I admit I was genuinely shocked by what you wrote yesterday amd responded accordingly, some of the points I have now put in response in my preceding posts will hopefully clarify where I stand.

[french frank]

This a response to your first reply!

Given that mainstream media's way of presenting Labour's situation, I cannot be the only one to have been surprised by the support given to pro-Remain parties in the EU election. This wasn't what voters in previously Brexit-supporting hitherto Labour-supporting heartlands had been telling street reporters, and there didn't seem to be any polls suggesting a change of mind.

One point about that is that it was known as soon as the verification process had been completed that turnout in Remain areas was significantly higher than in Leave areas, which might be taken to mean that following the referendum Remainers were more determined to vote than Leavers. It could still be the case that Brexit-supporters are in a majority in Leave areas, but they didn't vote last Thursday. That is something which the 'mainstream media' could neither know nor publish. Those same media, including the BBC, have been accused by both sides of being biased against them. That probably means that some reports were understood as pro-Brexit and others were interpreted as anti-Brexit. I'm not sure how that could be avoided, given the obvious divisions of opinion throughout the country.

One could equally say that both May and Corbyn were hung out to dry by their parliamentary colleagues: May for not being voted out in the December vote of confidence; Corbyn by Labour MPs who have never accepted him as leader, but also by that part of his would-be electoral base that would be most likely to suffer the greatest consequences of leaving, with or without a deal. Placed in such a Catch-22 left neither leader with much in the way of wriggle room - May in her negotiations with the EU; Corbyn in formulating any strategy that would not be at the mercy of further developments beyond his control or anyone's ability to predict.

As leaders, both May and Corbyn suffered - I would say - because of the way they, and consequently their parties, were viewed by the voters. That isn't unusual. Parliamentary colleagues have their strongly held views. If you respect Jeremy Corbyn's political integrity for rebelling 428 times against his own party because he disagreed with its stance, how can you blame MPs for doing the same over Brexit?

Meanwhile, retribution has been swift for Alistair Campbell for admitting he voted for the Lib Dems - and now Bob Ainsworth, former Labour Defence minister Bob Ainsworth admitted he voted Green. Will he be expelled too?

[Serial_Apologist]

....it was obvious to me that the EU Elections would be a 'free-hit' situation and would become a quazi-mini-referendum....so then it was a binary situation pro or anti EU....Labour backed a third solution when there was no third question....Corbyn whatever his general social policies (which one takes to be those of others in Labour Party) is too guarded, too reticent, is not open, does not use the media well, too slow, he has the opportunity every day to give more interviews (at least some key-note interviews), offering a wide range of Labour Party thinking....

There is much in what you say. If you've been watching the times whenever Corbyn's been interviewed, while there is recorded evidence to show that greater respect has been accorded of late, in the early days he was barely allowed to get halfway through a second entance before being interrupted. I am not particularly paranoid, but in his situation I would have concluded there was a media cabal conspiracy established to ensure he would never come out of interviews with his ideas presented. Fortunately John MacDonnell has made a good fist of presenting the same ideas without being subject to what is tantamount to criminal cross-examination, to a degree never inflicted on the other party leaders. Corbyn has likewise to come up with coping mechanisms in the inevitable hostile interview situation, undoubtedly.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I very much agree with French Frank's posts. I too don't trust Corbyn, or more importantly what I see as the far left insurgency enabled by Ed Milliband's rule changes - if he goes, it will likely be no better.

I can't see the British, or English & Welsh electing a Corbyn, MacDonald or Abbot into government.

[Richard Barrett]

Meanwhile, retribution has been swift for Alistair Campbell for admitting he voted for the Lib Dems - and now Bob Ainsworth, former Labour Defence minister Bob Ainsworth admitted he voted Green. Will he be expelled too?

The Labour rulebook (2.I.4) states pretty clearly that "A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate ... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member". Personally I would have referred to see Campbell expelled for other reasons, like having been responsible as Blair's propaganda chief for concocting a bogus case for war against Iraq, but you can't have everything.

[Serial_Apologist]

As leaders, both May and Corbyn suffered - I would say - because of the way they, and consequently their parties, were viewed by the voters. That isn't unusual. Parliamentary colleagues have their strongly held views. If you respect Jeremy Corbyn's political integrity for rebelling 428 times against his own party because he disagreed with its stance, how can you blame MPs for doing the same over Brexit?

Rather than blame them, I would blame a candidate selection process that had allowed them to get to where they were in the first place.

I'm just glad I'm not in the Labour Party, having voted Green last week!

[Bryn]

The Labour rulebook (2.I.4) states pretty clearly that "A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate ... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member". Personally I would have referred to see Campbell expelled for other reasons, like having been responsible as Blair's propaganda chief for concocting a bogus case for war against Iraq, but you can't have everything.

Fair enough but meanwhile a Shoah denier remains merely suspended.

[french frank]

The Labour rulebook (2.I.4) states pretty clearly that "A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate ... shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member". Personally I would have referred to see Campbell expelled for other reasons, like having been responsible as Blair's propaganda chief for concocting a bogus case for war against Iraq, but you can't have everything.

Yes, the rule book has been cited by Dawn Butler. Campbell pointed out that voting for another party, albeit 'tactically', seemed to get a quicker reaction than for those (I don't include Corbyn himsel) accused of anti-Semitism. And was viewed as infinitely worse than just voting against your party in Parliament.

[Serial_Apologist]

I very much agree with French Frank's posts. I too don't trust Corbyn, or more importantly what I see as the far left insurgency enabled by Ed Milliband's rule changes - if he goes, it will likely be no better.

I can't see the British, or English & Welsh electing a Corbyn, MacDonald or Abbot into government.

Indeed, it was views of this very kind that one heard yesterday from a man being interviewed on BBC TV in Barnsley, who argued, unchallenged as usual, that Labour no longer represented working people as it had done in the past, and that it had been taken over by a middle class lot in the south. He seemed to be about my age (73), and I'm trying to think of a time in my life when the labour Party - or any other political party in Britain including the Brexit Party - had ever been anything other than in the control of people from the middle class. I was led to wonder how far he wanted to go back. I wonder, too, where all these far left insurgents have come from, given that at their most numerous in the 1970s and early 1980s they only added up to a maximum of about 8,000 paying members in all of the far left splinter groups added together: quite a few of that number will have passed on now!

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, the rule book has been cited by Dawn Butler. Campbell pointed out that voting for another party, albeit 'tactically', seemed to get a quicker reaction than for those (I don't include Corbyn himsel) accused of anti-Semitism. And was viewed as infinitely worse than just voting against your party in Parliament.

Well, see, there's so many of them; its going to take a lot of time diggng them out and then proving they're antisemitic.

[Richard Barrett]

I wonder, too, where all these far left insurgents have come from, given that at their most numerous in the 1970s and early 1980s they only added up to a maximum of about 8,000 paying members in all of the far left splinter groups added together: quite a few of that number will have passed on now!

Yes, this "far left insurgency" narrative doesn't stand up to much scrutiny... I wonder what is so hard to believe about the idea that there are considerable numbers of people in the country whose opinions haven't been represented by any of the mainstream parties under the neoliberal consensus for many years now, and are now energised by the transformation Labour has undergone since Corbyn was elected leader.

[french frank]

He seemed to be about my age (73), and I'm trying to think of a time in my life when the labour Party - or any other political party in Britain including the Brexit Party - had ever been anything other than in the control of people from the middle class.

More so in the immediate post-war? Bevan, Bevin, Herbert Morrison - not Attlee - were they 'in control'?

I wonder, too, where all these far left insurgents have come from, given that at their most numerous in the 1970s and early 1980s they only added up to a maximum of about 8,000 paying members in all of the far left splinter groups added together: quite a few of that number will have passed on now!

The only 'far-left insurgency' I've seen is the Momentum group which has supported Corbyn (though is very anti-Brexit) which at a local level has been compared with Militant. I know there were murmurs about deselecting our local MP because she was one of the shadow ministers who resigned and backed the no confidence motion ("I backed the no confidence motion in Jeremy Corbyn as leader because I have no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader"). I don't think those who joined or paid their fee to vote in the leadership election were necessarily 'hard left' - I think they wanted the fresh approach after the disasters of Blair/Brown: many people hoped for a new dawn with a genuinely left-wing opposition. Most of us are on-lookers. We don't experience the problems that come with leadership, with or without power.