Random thoughts

[Jason]

^^^
Not immediately.
What were they thinking?
Not likeable. Not sellable. Not rational. Not inspiring. Not loyal to the party.

Let's put it simply: he's a bit thick.

He can't put together a reasoned argument. He has no comprehension of nuanced academic argument. He doesn't have even the most basic understanding of economics or law or business. He does not have the skills to give a speech. He cannot find ways of compromising with people he doesn't agree with. He has anger management issues. He's lazy. He's scruffy. He has the vanity of thinking that saying what he believes is integrity.

There are some astute brains in Labour. Quite how they are going to get rid of Corbyn I cannot really imagine but it will be interesting to watch.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

There are some astute brains in Labour. Quite how they are going to get rid of Corbyn I cannot really imagine but it will be interesting to watch.

But how in the world did he get in?
I haven't heard any remark about him that wasn't dismissive.
How can this happen?
Is Labour suicidal?

 

[Jason]

But how in the world did he get in?
I haven't heard any remark about him that wasn't dismissive.
How can this happen?
Is Labour suicidal?

* Labour are funded and run by the Unions. They tolerated New Labour and Blair as better than Thatcher. After Labour's 2010 defeat the Unions took Labour to the left under Ed Miliband. There has been talk of the Unions creating their own hard-left party, but they decided instead to take over Labour. They thought they were going to get Burnham (hard left) then in a few years someone further to the left, but then realised ultra-left Corbyn could win and switched their might behind him. They now have control of Labour once again. They have the party apparatus, the funds, the premises, the databases. The real fire-brands are looking at a general strike and installation of Labour through a coup. The people's flag is red with blood.
* He's thick. When it suits the unions to ditch him they will. Probably they will go for Burnham, which is why Burnham is in Corbyn's cabinet, but it will be a Burnham pulled well to the left by the Unions.
* In the same way that the evil of socialism holds sway in Russia and China.
* The Unions who in effect own Labour are not at this time concerned with Labour winning an election. The power of the Unions is declining steadily. They want Labour as a sort of in-parliament pressure group. Labour cannot win but can get them more members by making left-wing politics look fun. They are thinking strikes, demonstrations, occupy camps, mass squats, picket lines, all the things that activists love.

 

[Jason]

Headline stories in tomorrow's papers:
* Corbyn has a "relationship" with Diane Abbot (she's a hard left MP for Tower Hamlets, and is black).
* Mark Carney (Bank of England) slates Corbynomics.
* Assem Allan says he will fund Labour MPs to jump ship and form a new party.

These are all big stories - however funding for a new party is the key one. I don't see how the moderates can regain control of Labour. They can however form a new party. Right now in the Commons they have 232 MPs. If 117 join a new party - say New Labour - then as the second largest party in the Commons they are the official opposition. I'm sure this is the idea under discussion. In order to make this work they need an agreed leader, some funding and a bit of gumption. In the UK we elect people as MPs, not parties. There is no requirement for them to seek re-election if they change party.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

The real fire-brands are looking at a general strike and installation of Labour through a coup.

Are you serious?

The Unions who in effect own Labour are not at this time concerned with Labour winning an election. The power of the Unions is declining steadily. They want Labour as a sort of in-parliament pressure group. Labour cannot win but can get them more members by making left-wing politics look fun. They are thinking strikes, demonstrations, occupy camps, mass squats, picket lines, all the things that activists love.

Reality principle bad, pleasure principle good.
This all sounds farfetched, but the election of Corbyn is one of the most farfetched things I've seen in a long time.
Perhaps this will be a triumph of your black, dispiteous vision.
I've been waiting, you know.
(Actually, the situation is fascinating and I expect to enjoy watching the spectacle unfold.)

 

[Jason]

Are you serious?

Yes.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Yes.

Well, that's pithy.

 

[Jason]

Well, that's pithy.

You want less pithy? The narrative Corbyn's Labour party is asserting is that everyone in the UK supports them and therefore they should be in government. As evidence they point to Corbyn's landslide victory, social media (particularly Twitter) and the backing of the Unions (who claim to speak for very large memberships). They argue that everyone is against Cameron and the Tories. They point out that if you take the Conservatives' share of the vote at the last election and multiply it by the percentage who bothered to vote, the Conservatives have something like 24% support, therefore 76% support Corbyn.

The Union's are planning this winter a day of co-ordinated strikes. The key point is that most of these will not have the level of support from members which the new legislation requires for a strike to be legal. The Unions are therefore planning a day of mass law-breaking. Presumably there will be arrests and charges, and the Unions (and Corbyn) will love this. It's credible that Corbyn will do everything in his power to get himself arrested. While I have a certain level of sympathy with the idea of throwing into gaol a friend of terrorists it would of course be problematic - with a bit of luck the police response will be non-confrontational. However the Unions intend to continue with stunts until there is a major confrontation.

The fictional development is that someone asserts that the government is illegitimate, that communism is the choice of the people, and we have a coup. In the UK the armed forces answer directly to the Queen, so a coup should be impossible. In this hypothetical scenario it would seem that only a terrorist insurrection could give practical support to the communist coup. The concern is that senior people in Labour have expressed their support for terrorism. McDonnell eulogises the IRA. Corbyn calls terrorists his friends. He's a fan of Putin.

Democracy requires eternal vigilance. In my view Corbyn, McDonnell and the Labour party they have produced are a direct threat to democracy as well as a direct threat to the security of the UK.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

You want less pithy? The narrative Corbyn's Labour party is asserting is that everyone in the UK supports them and therefore they should be in government. As evidence they point to Corbyn's landslide victory, social media (particularly Twitter) and the backing of the Unions (who claim to speak for very large memberships). They argue that everyone is against Cameron and the Tories. They point out that if you take the Conservatives' share of the vote at the last election and multiply it by the percentage who bothered to vote, the Conservatives have something like 24% support, therefore 76% support Corbyn.

The Union's are planning this winter a day of co-ordinated strikes. The key point is that most of these will not have the level of support from members which the new legislation requires for a strike to be legal. The Unions are therefore planning a day of mass law-breaking. Presumably there will be arrests and charges, and the Unions (and Corbyn) will love this. It's credible that Corbyn will do everything in his power to get himself arrested. While I have a certain level of sympathy with the idea of throwing into gaol a friend of terrorists it would of course be problematic - with a bit of luck the police response will be non-confrontational. However the Unions intend to continue with stunts until there is a major confrontation.

The fictional development is that someone asserts that the government is illegitimate, that communism is the choice of the people, and we have a coup. In the UK the armed forces answer directly to the Queen, so a coup should be impossible. In this hypothetical scenario it would seem that only a terrorist insurrection could give practical support to the communist coup. The concern is that senior people in Labour have expressed their support for terrorism. McDonnell eulogises the IRA. Corbyn calls terrorists his friends. He's a fan of Putin.

Democracy requires eternal vigilance. In my view Corbyn, McDonnell and the Labour party they have produced are a direct threat to democracy as well as a direct threat to the security of the UK.

Sounds like they are fated to crash and burn.
They must be the best gift the Conservatives have had in many decades.

 

[Jason]

Sounds like they are fated to crash and burn.
They must be the best gift the Conservatives have had in many decades.

Yes I think they will crash and burn, and yes I think the Conservatives are the likely beneficiaries. The Conservative party won the election just a few weeks ago with a slim majority. Not even the Conservatives expected this! Cameron had speeches written for possible coalitions and various levels of disaster but hadn't written a speech for the impossible outcome of an overall Conservative victory. Labour were so sure they were getting into government (albeit with SNP) that they were still saying this when the results were showing they were wrong. Now we're in a position where Labour has committed such a self-damaging act that it looks as if the party could be destroyed.

There's serious chatter concerning Labour MPs about to defect to both Conservative and LibDems. There's chatter about MPs going to become independents, or form a brand new party.

Labour has consolidated its Union funding but lost just about every other source of funding. This makes Labour totally dependent on the Unions. It's also vulnerable to potential legislation on the funding of political parties. At present all Union members either pay part of their Union dues to the Labour party or (through a complex process few use) may pay to charity. The new system would be that members individually decide which political party or charity they wish to support.

The dream outcome is that this destroys Labour and socialism utterly and the LibDems become the opposition party. Within the Commons it is possible to imagine this. It is far more problematic at local council level. If Labour councillors start defecting there are many councils which would change control.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Yes I think they will crash and burn, and yes I think the Conservatives are the likely beneficiaries. The Conservative party won the election just a few weeks ago with a slim majority. Not even the Conservatives expected this! Cameron had speeches written for possible coalitions and various levels of disaster but hadn't written a speech for the impossible outcome of an overall Conservative victory. Labour were so sure they were getting into government (albeit with SNP) that they were still saying this when the results were showing they were wrong. Now we're in a position where Labour has committed such a self-damaging act that it looks as if the party could be destroyed.

There's serious chatter concerning Labour MPs about to defect to both Conservative and LibDems. There's chatter about MPs going to become independents, or form a brand new party.

Labour has consolidated its Union funding but lost just about every other source of funding. This makes Labour totally dependent on the Unions. It's also vulnerable to potential legislation on the funding of political parties. At present all Union members either pay part of their Union dues to the Labour party or (through a complex process few use) may pay to charity. The new system would be that members individually decide which political party or charity they wish to support.

The dream outcome is that this destroys Labour and socialism utterly and the LibDems become the opposition party. Within the Commons it is possible to imagine this. It is far more problematic at local council level. If Labour councillors start defecting there are many councils which would change control.

Thank you, Jason, for a typically interesting reply.
We hear a bit about Corbyn's victory over here, but surprisingly little, considering how unbelievable many of the details and likely consequences are.
I will be more alert going forward.

Was Labour completely bereft of stronger candidates?

 

[Hoss]

It's amazing how ancient some of those politicians seemed last night at the after debate orgy (of self promotions).

 

[Jason]

Was Labour completely bereft of stronger candidates?

No.

Chuka Umunna looked strong, was nominated, then withdrew his candidacy for no reason that makes any sense.
Liz Kendall could have won in 2020 - a moderate, very talented.
Yvette Cooper - clever politician, been around the block, could win in 2020.
Andy Burnham - to the left of the party and arguably the Conservatives' favourite as the least likely to win in 2020. Unlike Corbyn and McDonnell he doesn't support terrorism and would have held the party together.
Harriet Harman - acting leader, did a thumping good job.
Tristram Hunt, PhD from Cambridge, a lot of sense
There are perhaps another dozen who could have done the job.

Corbyn was backed by the Unions. Towards the end of his campaign that made him the only candidate.

 

[Jason]

We hear a bit about Corbyn's victory over here, but surprisingly little, considering how unbelievable many of the details and likely consequences are.

Right now there is a surprising story which the media is scarcely reporting because there are too few details though no-one disputes the facts:
* A UK General (unnamed) has told the Ministry of Defence the effect of a Corbyn victory on the armed forces.
* There would be "mass resignations at all levels" which would amount to a "mutiny".
* The MofD has "rebuked" the General.
There's a little more here.

He appears to be saying that the Generals would organise a mass resignation - without organisation it is hard to see how it would be "at all levels". This would result in control by the government of the armed forces being severed. In the UK the armed forces are ultimately in the control of the Queen. It seems very close indeed to a statement that a Corbyn-led Labour party would not be allowed to govern. In theory there is no requirement for the Queen to appoint the leader of the largest party as PM, nor for her to give assent to legislation passed by parliament. If the Generals and the Queen (possibly a near synonym) do decide that Corbyn cannot be PM, well that's that. Monarchy is the ultimate safeguard of democracy, including safeguarding democracy from the voters.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Right now there is a surprising story which the media is scarcely reporting because there are too few details though no-one disputes the facts:
* A UK General (unnamed) has told the Ministry of Defence the effect of a Corbyn victory on the armed forces.
* There would be "mass resignations at all levels" which would amount to a "mutiny".
* The MofD has "rebuked" the General.
There's a little more here.

He appears to be saying that the Generals would organise a mass resignation - without organisation it is hard to see how it would be "at all levels". This would result in control by the government of the armed forces being severed. In the UK the armed forces are ultimately in the control of the Queen. It seems very close indeed to a statement that a Corbyn-led Labour party would not be allowed to govern. In theory there is no requirement for the Queen to appoint the leader of the largest party as PM, nor for her to give assent to legislation passed by parliament. If the Generals and the Queen (possibly a near synonym) do decide that Corbyn cannot be PM, well that's that. Monarchy is the ultimate safeguard of democracy, including safeguarding democracy from the voters.

It would surely depend on what proportion of the army resigned, whether or not the government would actually lose control of the army. (Why would this be a mutiny? Are soldiers not allowed to resign?) That said, this is quite an extraordinary statement.
There is probably no legal stipulation that the Queen appoint the leader of the largest party in the Commons as PM, but there is a very well entrenched tradition. I doubt that this is a case in which Her Majesty would contest the vote of the people.
More likely (and I hope I am not talking à travers mon chapeau), so many Labour MPs would withdraw support from Corbyn that he would be unable to claim the confidence of the House.
The Queen would then turn to the next most likely aspirant.
Should I take my hat off, or eat it? Advice from Squire Jace urgently sought.

 

[Jason]

It would surely depend on what proportion of the army resigned, whether or not the government would actually lose control of the army. (Why would this be a mutiny? Are soldiers not allowed to resign?) That said, this is quite an extraordinary statement.
There is probably no legal stipulation that the Queen appoint the leader of the largest party in the Commons as PM, but there is a very well entrenched tradition. I doubt that this is a case in which Her Majesty would contest the vote of the people.
More likely (and I hope I am not talking à travers mon chapeau), so many Labour MPs would withdraw support from Corbyn that he would be unable to claim the confidence of the House.
The Queen would then turn to the next most likely aspirant.
Should I take my hat off, or eat it? Advice from Squire Jace urgently sought.

Well no, soldiers are not allowed to resign, they enlist for a period. At the moment in the UK army it is at least four years, often longer. There are medical and dishonourable exit routes for individuals. However a mass resignation is a mutiny. If a majority of Generals and a lot of others resigned then the government would have lost control over the army.

The Queen is head of the armed forces. I think the logic is that the Generals and everyone else would resign their pay but remain loyal to the Queen. In addition to the Queen as head, the Royal Family have numerous personal attachments. The Prince of Wales is Colonel-in-Chief of about two dozen regiments. It is hard to overstate the extent of the links between Crown and Armed Forces. For a General to speak of a situation which would cause a mutiny (and preserve his anonymity, and supposedly get a reprimand from the MofD, which is not authorised to reprimand him) is as near as we're ever going to get to the Queen not approving such a situation. My assumption is that the General cleared his comments with the Queen first, or was instructed to make them.

You are right Conan it would all be smoke and mirrors. Indeed it all is smoke and mirrors now. I can't actually see the constitutional crisis happening, rather the nation will act to avoid embarrassing the Queen. Remember Blair and Brown had a private chat with the Queen (no minutes taken) at least once a week. She knows them very well. Blair and Brown will be pulling every possible string behind the scenes to get Corbyn out.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Well no, soldiers are not allowed to resign, they enlist for a period. At the moment in the UK army it is at least four years, often longer. There are medical and dishonourable exit routes for individuals. However a mass resignation is a mutiny. If a majority of Generals and a lot of others resigned then the government would have lost control over the army.

The Queen is head of the armed forces. I think the logic is that the Generals and everyone else would resign their pay but remain loyal to the Queen. In addition to the Queen as head, the Royal Family have numerous personal attachments. The Prince of Wales is Colonel-in-Chief of about two dozen regiments. It is hard to overstate the extent of the links between Crown and Armed Forces. For a General to speak of a situation which would cause a mutiny (and preserve his anonymity, and supposedly get a reprimand from the MofD, which is not authorised to reprimand him) is as near as we're ever going to get to the Queen not approving such a situation. My assumption is that the General cleared his comments with the Queen first, or was instructed to make them.

You are right Conan it would all be smoke and mirrors. Indeed it all is smoke and mirrors now. I can't actually see the constitutional crisis happening, rather the nation will act to avoid embarrassing the Queen. Remember Blair and Brown had a private chat with the Queen (no minutes taken) at least once a week. She knows them very well. Blair and Brown will be pulling every possible string behind the scenes to get Corbyn out.

Do you mean Blair and Brown would be now in cahoots with a range of figures including the Queen?
You do suggest that the unnamed General has already had Royal instruction.
I can't feature this, Jason. I think she would want to keep very distant from such machinations ... would not even want to hear of them.
This is 2015.

 

[Jason]

Do you mean Blair and Brown would be now in cahoots with a range of figures including the Queen?
You do suggest that the unnamed General has already had Royal instruction.
I can't feature this, Jason. I think she would want to keep very distant from such machinations ... would not even want to hear of them.
This is 2015.

The General will have been given verbal instructions. The media have been very well handled. The story is out there but as a paragraph tucked away in a routine MofD document, and no-one will give them any more info. The story is dying because there is absolutely nothing to prop it up - no name, no photos, no further details.

Of course Blair and Brown will support the Queen against Corbyn. I can't stand either Blair or Brown but they do they do have some grasp of the difference between right and wrong. The group against him also includes the Bank of England (and absolutely the whole of the City) and may well soon include the judiciary. There are also other groups swinging into opposition. For example he's appointed a man who has served a long prison sentence for arson as his shadow minister for schools and who needs to go into schools - but a convicted arsonist would not get the clearance to work at a school in any capacity (including cleaner). On the international scene he's opposed by the Commonwealth, the EU, the USA. The issue right now is how he's kicked out and what will be left of the Labour party afterwards. There's a risk that we're going to end up without a viable opposition.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

The General will have been given verbal instructions. The media have been very well handled. The story is out there but as a paragraph tucked away in a routine MofD document, and no-one will give them any more info. The story is dying because there is absolutely nothing to prop it up - no name, no photos, no further details.

Of course Blair and Brown will support the Queen against Corbyn. I can't stand either Blair or Brown but they do they do have some grasp of the difference between right and wrong. The group against him also includes the Bank of England (and absolutely the whole of the City) and may well soon include the judiciary. There are also other groups swinging into opposition. For example he's appointed a man who has served a long prison sentence for arson as his shadow minister for schools and who needs to go into schools - but a convicted arsonist would not get the clearance to work at a school in any capacity (including cleaner). On the international scene he's opposed by the Commonwealth, the EU, the USA. The issue right now is how he's kicked out and what will be left of the Labour party afterwards. There's a risk that we're going to end up without a viable opposition.

You don't think he will be allowed to contest the next election? After all, he was elected leader by a historically huge majority, IIRC. Then, after all Labour fall collectively on the Corbyn sword, he will be gone, poof!, history.

 

[Jason]

You don't think he will be allowed to contest the next election? After all, he was elected leader by a historically huge majority, IIRC. Then, after all Labour fall collectively on the Corbyn sword, he will be gone, poof!, history.

He must not win. A Corbyn win with fantasy economics crashes our economy. I'm not talking about a depression but a total failure of all aspects of the economy. The scenario of a surprise win on an election day in 2020 (Thursday) would mean the markets cease to function on Friday: banks closed, stock-market worthless. The betting organisation Ladbrookes have said that they won't offer odds on Corbyn winning because in the event of a victory they would be unable to pay out. Such a British calamity of course also causes a global depression.

I think a Corbyn victory would result in a mobilisation of the army to try to keep order, with the Queen (ie the Generals) nominating someone in the House of Lords as prime minister. The General who has spoken out has made it clear that the armed forces will not serve under Corbyn. I don't think it would be possible right now to find a soldier who would serve under Corbyn. The response of soldiers to a man who supports IRA (who has murdered hundreds of soldiers and maimed thousands) and who supports the terrorists we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is utter contempt.

The point is that Corbyn as PM will not happen. It may be that Labour will manage to sort out its problems before 2020 - the so-called "French Resistance" approach where Labour MPs manage to claw back power. Of course there's a fundamental problem with a Labour party that is now in effect a Communist party owned by the Unions, and any Labour MPs that get control of the parliamentary party have to resolve this. (It probably means offering the Unions a compromise of a less extreme but still pro-Union leader). The other approach is the "Free France" approach where sane members of the Labour party leave, presumably forming a new party. This isn't easy to do but it is nonetheless possible.

There's also the possible calculation that Corbyn will be way behind in the polls and that therefore the establishment will play a long game. If Cameron has a big lead this may be a solution, and the problem of a Corbyn-style leader is kicked forward to 2025. There's also the idea that events may take their course. Corbyn is bone-idle and would ordinarily be looking to retirement. He might decide enough is enough. Or he might actually give an interview (at the moment he's refusing everyone) and fly into a temper or perhaps say how much he hates the Queen, the UK, the army, Jews, women, the press, the electorate or any of the other groups he has previously attacked. Maybe he will in effect destroy himself.