The Battle for Labour 1 reply

Please wait...

FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

269,296 XP

15th December 2002

85 Uploads

22,518 Posts

1,747 Threads

#1 2 years ago

Labour MP's seem to be very keen to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, yet it looks like he will likely win this Saturday at the party leader election.

Most of the front-bench are set to walk out of he does. The thing is, I like Corbyn for the most part, but his very presence at this point is tearing the party apart, especially when you consider the large number of new, random party members who have registered to vote for Corbyn, potentially, some argue, as a way of sabotaging Labour.

I'm honestly wondering if he should just step aside at this point for the greater good of the party?


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#2 2 years ago

I think if he steps aside the Labour party will remain just another flavour of Conservative with slightly less violent social policies but no real goals of their own in terms of the future of the nation. Which is what it was at the last election.

There's a major problem in British politics that for the last few elections the Labour party hasn't had anything to sell besides the fact that they're not the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats did have a vision, and they gained momentary political power on the back of that - which they bargained extremely poorly, but nonetheless that was why they had that power. Because people wanted to believe in something better than this, better than the grey future of hate and poverty and fear that we're peddled so frequently. The Conservative's vision of the future is based on a model of economics that doesn't really exist any more - at least in terms of the modal wealth of people within the nation - but it's a vision, it's something you can stand up and promote. All the Labour party had to sell was that they had a different name, and as it turns out not very many people bought that.

Corbyn, I suspect, will lose the next election. Whether he'll be able to stay on after that I doubt. But the Labour party needs to change. The Liberal Democrats have destroyed their chances for an entire generation with this alternate vote BS when what we wanted was proportional representation - they're unlikely to be a threat to the ruling party in our lifetimes. Labour is, I suspect, the sole remaining viable alternative to a party that seems so dramatically at odds with the common good that they're difficult to take seriously in any role but cartoon villains.

Parties tend to fall apart after they've been in power for a long time and then lose that power. Ed Milliband did an incredible job of keeping the Labour party together following their fall from grace. I think the cost he paid in doing so was too high. There was a reason that the Labour party lost power, and that was not addressed. There needs to be that process of change. You're not going to get something worthwhile without changing and selecting over the result of that change.  And without both parts of that, the change and the selection, what you have is either cancer or stagnation.

It's not about the good of the party, not in terms of keeping it together at any cost at least. It's about there being anything of worth left in British politics. Corbyn presents a vision of politics that is different from the Conservative vision, which is desirable to have in your sole remaining viable alternative. And if the cost of that is the party being weakened in the short term, losing a few elections, in the long term it's worth it for the good of the nation.

The best thing he could do, I think, would be to disregard winning the next election. To focus on changing his party and using the next election to promote that change. Whether he's the sort to fall on his sword, effectively, in that manner I don't know.