Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The practical guide to centre-left schisms

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The practical guide to centre-left schisms

The Labour party leadership election has left the Blairites looking isolated.  Some of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters have described them as viruses and cancers, and have suggested that they look for the exit.  Every Blairite from Tony Blair and Liz Kendall downwards has disavowed the idea of leaving the Labour party, but vows are spoken to be broken, and given the bitterness and the i…

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Excellent piece Antifrank
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509
    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    I see the Corbyn victory party is being organised already

    //twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/631442967774015488
  • Chris Grayling in the SDP is one of those facts that makes me think WTF.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,650
    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    politics can be quite a slow moving beast.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,392
    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044
    A fascinating piece, much appreciated. Conclusions and interpretations may well be challenged by those with deeper knowledge of these party ructions than I, but a most useful starting point for those of us with less in-depth knowledge of internal party splits.

    Maybe I should do a piece trying to compare today's parties to the factional interests of the Protectorate Parliaments - I don't really think it would work, but I at least know who they were, inasmuch as such interests can be firmly identified in pre-party times.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    I had to hugely oversimplify lots of the history, obviously. I'm not pretending that this piece is an academic dissertation on the subject; more of a lucky dip.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JEO said:

    Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Certainly at the point where vacuous politicians see it as an opportunity to drum up a few identity politics votes. What comes next ? Asking people that use a gym regularly to wear bar sumo wrestler suits in case people are made to feel insecure by their undue healthiness and likelihood of longevity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    The question of the day is do I register for Jezza .... ?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    I had to hugely oversimplify lots of the history, obviously. I'm not pretending that this piece is an academic dissertation on the subject; more of a lucky dip.
    I wasn't remotely having a go at your post, which is a damn good read. I was genuinely surprised by the assertion that the SDP split over a 1975 EU law but took six years to actual go public about it.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    By showing the 'beach body', one is against the glories of diversity, being ageist, discriminating against the over weight and obese (fatties), against the personal choice of food and probably being racist as well
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044
    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    Roy Jenkins had called for political re-alignment in the 1979 Dimbleby lecture.

    And the split was probably delayed until his term as EC Commissioner ended in January 1981.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,650
    Didn't Labour themselves split over the Great Depression?

    The 1931 election had something like 7 'major' parties

    Conservatives
    Labour
    National Liberal (under Simon)
    Liberal (Samuel)
    National Labour
    Liberal (George)
    plus another group of Independent Labour, who won a handful of seats.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
    Perhaps the only bodies shown would be those of MPs on the beach - an even stronger turn off for the electorate.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Bang goes David Gandy's career.

    And my income as a body double.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited August 2015
    If Corbyn wins the Blairites will be frozen out. All but one or two will dissapear from the political fray. Ruthless? Some were pretty ruthless with the trappings of power around them. Without power they will be dead meat.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,527
    Jack's Back!

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,974
    Cheers for an excellent and informative thread. – And not too long either.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063

    Didn't Labour themselves split over the Great Depression?

    The 1931 election had something like 7 'major' parties

    Conservatives
    Labour
    National Liberal (under Simon)
    Liberal (Samuel)
    National Labour
    Liberal (George)
    plus another group of Independent Labour, who won a handful of seats.

    Indeed they did. I selected the most interesting fragment in 1931 but it was indeed a target rich environment for writing pieces like this. I should probably at least have mentioned the Labour split though.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    RodCrosby said:

    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    Roy Jenkins had called for political re-alignment in the 1979 Dimbleby lecture.

    And the split was probably delayed until his term as EC Commissioner ended in January 1981.
    For the split to rely so heavily on one person in that way is probably one of the reasons it didn't work out in the long-term.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    AndyJS said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Indigo said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The SDP was born out of factional infighting within the Labour party. "

    No it wasn't. It was born out of the 1975 EU referendum. Food for Tory thought.

    and it took until 1981 to actually get around to doing something about it ?
    Roy Jenkins had called for political re-alignment in the 1979 Dimbleby lecture.

    And the split was probably delayed until his term as EC Commissioner ended in January 1981.
    For the split to rely so heavily on one person in that way is probably one of the reasons it didn't work out in the long-term.
    Perhaps, but he was the biggest hitter they had, or so they thought...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    edited August 2015
    Great overview. Still, I'm not sure that there's any close historical parallel to what the Labour Party is currently engaged in. Just a few weeks ago the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn might become leader of the party would have seem absurdly far-fetched even for political satire. Now the betting markets have it as a 67% chance (and that's almost certainly an underestimate IMO). Whatever happens, the damage to Labour caused by this contest will be immense.

    Will there be a split? As regards a formal split with a serious new party being formed, probably not: the folk-memory of the SDP experience is still potent. I wouldn't rule it out completely - the unthinkable seems to be happening quite often in Labour at the moment, what with mislaying their Scottish fiefdoms and now this contest. But FPTP is a cruel mistress when it comes to forgiving flirtations with new political parties, and those involved know this.

    What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament; it's hard to see, for example, Simon Danczuk retaining the whip given his recent remarks. Many more will simply lose interest, and drift away.

    As for defections either to the LibDems or the Conservatives, we may see a few. We'll certainly see the more sensible 'Blairites' (by which term of insult is now meant anyone with a vague grip on reality) accepting non-partisan roles offered by the government, as with the recent announcement that Lord Adonis has accepted a role getting HS2 delivered.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be some years before Labour is united and credible as an alternative party of government.
  • Thanks Antifank. I"d never heard of the Adullamites before. Gladstone said Robert Lowe was " wretchedly deficient " as CotE and apparently most historians agree with that judgement.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Without power they will be dead meat.

    I wonder, what percentage of labour people, from MPs to supporters, are 'blairite'?

    I personally haven't the foggiest. I'm not even sure 'Blairite' really exists.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    latest figures: 243,000 have signed up to Labour since the election...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,305
    Great article, and very relevant. One point that you understandably didn't bring up is that from the Orpington By Election in the early sixties right up to the actual formation of the SDP/Liberal Alliance the centre was attracting a lot of support and momentum. The Liberal vote was going up and even before the SDP formed there was a small stream of Labour MPs switching to the Liberals. The centre seemed a very attractive place to be. Joining up with the small tarnished rump of what remains of that long and at times rather exciting project will not look too appealing. If Labour does split, which I doubt, I would think that the only place the professional politicians would go would be direct to the Tories.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    edited August 2015
    Ed Balls.

    He is the one that did and could give the Cons a hard time. If I was Lab's Supreme Being I would start a movement to get him back in to govt with a safe seat and the promise of leadership.

    But then I am probably judging him from a vaguely sensible, if opposing political perspective,

    And in these mad days of the sans culottes, when everyone from Polly downwards is being branded Tory-lite I accept it wouldn't fly.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463
    Afternoon all :)

    I had a feeling it wouldn't be long before we had a thread like this.

    I doubt the election of Corbyn, in and of itself, will lead to more than a few resignations and the odd defection. It will be the policies created under his leadership (which I suspect, and Nick P gave a clue to this the other day) will be nowhere near as radical as some (on both sides) hope that will decide.

    The new Shadow team may be a clue as well - if Corbyn shakes out the 1997-2010 has-beens and promotes a new generation, it may be a kick in the complacency for Team Cameron (which would be no bad thing either).

    Leaving a political party isn't an easy thing to do apart from the careerist defectors. If you've been in that party for 25-30 years and staked a deal of personal, emotional and financial capital in that party, it becomes harder still.

    The SDP split from Labour principally on Europe, defence and the infiltration of local CLPs by Militant. Blair himself was elected on the 1983 Manifesto which included commitments to withdraw from the EEC (as it was) and unilateral nuclear disarmament but no one seemed to hold that against him a decade later. The Falklands War, which saved BOTH the Conservatives and Labour in different ways, ended the initial honeymoon and, apart from a brief period in the mid-80s, the rise of Kinnock (a much maligned but essential figure in recent political history) basically did for the party (as did FPTP but let's not go there).

    Europe sits as the elephant in the room for both the main parties in the near future and it will be a test for both Cameron and the new LOTO to hold their coalitions (so to speak).

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,329
    Thank you Antifrank, a most interesting and thought provoking thread.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Great overview. Still, I'm not sure that there's any close historical parallel to what the Labour Party is currently engaged in. Just a few weeks ago the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn might become leader of the party would have seem absurdly far-fetched even for political satire. Now the betting markets have it as a 67% chance (and that's almost certainly an underestimate IMO). Whatever happens, the damage to Labour caused by this contest will be immense.

    Will there be a split? As regards a formal split with a serious new party being formed, probably not: the folk-memory of the SDP experience is still potent. I wouldn't rule it out completely - the unthinkable seems to be happening quite often in Labour at the moment, what with mislaying their Scottish fiefdoms and now this contest. But FPTP is a cruel mistress when it comes to forgiving flirtations with new political parties, and those involved know this.

    What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament; it's hard to see, for example, Simon Danczuk retaining the whip given his recent remarks. Many more will simply lose interest, and drift away.

    As for defections either to the LibDems or the Conservatives, we may see a few. We'll certainly see the more sensible 'Blairites' (by which term of insult is now meant anyone with a vague grip on reality) accepting non-partisan roles offered by the government, as with the recent announcement that Lord Adonis has accepted a role getting HS2 delivered.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be some years before Labour is united and credible as an alternative party of government.

    I suggested on an earlier thread that we may see a string of by-elections, as the career-minded toddle off to jobs in industry, quangos, chat-shows, etc...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2015
    ''What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament;''

    Potentially useful to David Cameron on a vote by vote basis??
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,335
    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
    Totally agree (and sorry for misunderstanding you in the previous thread). And not just silly but dangerous - being overweight is symptomatic of a health problem. As are most things traditionally regarded as 'ugly'. In my opinion, some people are extremely blessed, and some are plainer, but ugliness is a sign of ill health, and for that reason should not be seen as the 'new average' as many seem to be pushing for.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    taffys said:

    ''What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament;''

    Potentially useful to David Cameron on a vote by vote basis??

    Definitely, on some issues at least.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited August 2015
    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    RodCrosby said:

    latest figures: 243,000 have signed up to Labour since the election...

    And all of them thoroughly checked out? Somehow, I think not.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Excellent piece antifrank, I'm interested in your use of "ruthless". Courageous is what I'd use, it will be courage that stops them splitting.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,410
    Excellent overview Antifrank (how do you find the time?).
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2015
    ''Definitely, on some issues at least.''

    Perhaps not as 'majority conservative' a government as some were hoping, then.
  • taffys said:

    ''What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament;''

    Potentially useful to David Cameron on a vote by vote basis??

    Definitely, on some issues at least.

    I think a few independents would be the best Cameron can hope for. I doubt there'll me more than 2 or 3 defections, and not necessarily to the Tories.

    But added to the fact that the UUP and DUP will be strongly opposed to Corbyn, it will help the government majority considerably.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    watford30 said:

    RodCrosby said:

    latest figures: 243,000 have signed up to Labour since the election...

    And all of them thoroughly checked out? Somehow, I think not.
    It's probably around the level of the politically movtivated left (non labour) movement.

    Just to put that into context, it's about 0.5% of the UK electorate.
  • isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    Do you think any Labour MPs will defect to UKIP should Corbyn win?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Have we experienced by-elections on that basis before in a single Parly?

    Barring ill-health/death/scandal I can only think of Mrs Mensch in recent history.
    RodCrosby said:

    Great overview. Still, I'm not sure that there's any close historical parallel to what the Labour Party is currently engaged in. Just a few weeks ago the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn might become leader of the party would have seem absurdly far-fetched even for political satire. Now the betting markets have it as a 67% chance (and that's almost certainly an underestimate IMO). Whatever happens, the damage to Labour caused by this contest will be immense.

    Will there be a split? As regards a formal split with a serious new party being formed, probably not: the folk-memory of the SDP experience is still potent. I wouldn't rule it out completely - the unthinkable seems to be happening quite often in Labour at the moment, what with mislaying their Scottish fiefdoms and now this contest. But FPTP is a cruel mistress when it comes to forgiving flirtations with new political parties, and those involved know this.

    What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament; it's hard to see, for example, Simon Danczuk retaining the whip given his recent remarks. Many more will simply lose interest, and drift away.

    As for defections either to the LibDems or the Conservatives, we may see a few. We'll certainly see the more sensible 'Blairites' (by which term of insult is now meant anyone with a vague grip on reality) accepting non-partisan roles offered by the government, as with the recent announcement that Lord Adonis has accepted a role getting HS2 delivered.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be some years before Labour is united and credible as an alternative party of government.

    I suggested on an earlier thread that we may see a string of by-elections, as the career-minded toddle off to jobs in industry, quangos, chat-shows, etc...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015
    Interesting lunchtime reading. My advice to careerist centralists is to join Labour under Corbyn. Just as to make money on the stockmarket you need to buy when everyone is selling and to sell when everyone is buying.

    Tony Blair (and who can be more Blairite) did not join the SDP, he was first elected in 1983 on the infamous manifesto that included unilateral disarmament, leaving the EU and leaving NATO etc etc. A number of other prominent New Labour figures were on that ticket too.

    The fate of splitters is oblivion but the original party is likely to re-invent itself, and joining at its nadir is the right strategy. Wannabee kippers should take note also.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,344

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    Do you think any Labour MPs will defect to UKIP should Corbyn win?
    Ironically, Carswell's "Defect = a by-election" approach has probably made that much less likely.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    Do you think any Labour MPs will defect to UKIP should Corbyn win?
    All 4 candidates are pro EU I don't see the winner making any difference.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463
    If no one has commented on this elsewhere, some interesting developments in the ongoing Tube dispute this lunchtime.

    ASLEF have said they will NOT be joining the proposed two 24-hour strikes called by RMT, TSSA and UNITE for August 25th and 27th at this time as negotiations with London Underground are continuing. This is the first glimpse of hope in this dispute for some weeks.

    It may be no coincidence this has come on the day LU have announced the new 24-hour tube service won't be launched on September 12th so as always with these disputes replacing intransigence and mutual name-calling with some goodwill achieves results as we all know you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper.

    Unfortunately, even if ASLEF aren't on strike, I suspect the RMT/TSSA/UNITE action will be enough to close down the network but the first stage (for LU) in getting this resolved has been to break the unity between the unions. The pressure will now be on RMT and the others to acknowledge LU's goodwill and at the very least keep the talking going.

    What may also be needed is a bit less of Boris's bellicose rantings (I thought Richard Tracey was incredibly unhelpful this morning banging on about how "all Londoners want driverless trains", a prime example of a comment which no proper interviewer would fail to challenge and ask for evidence) and, if he can't say anything constructive, perhaps saying nothing at all would help.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 487
    RodCrosby said:

    Great overview. Still, I'm not sure that there's any close historical parallel to what the Labour Party is currently engaged in. Just a few weeks ago the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn might become leader of the party would have seem absurdly far-fetched even for political satire. Now the betting markets have it as a 67% chance (and that's almost certainly an underestimate IMO). Whatever happens, the damage to Labour caused by this contest will be immense.

    Will there be a split? As regards a formal split with a serious new party being formed, probably not: the folk-memory of the SDP experience is still potent. I wouldn't rule it out completely - the unthinkable seems to be happening quite often in Labour at the moment, what with mislaying their Scottish fiefdoms and now this contest. But FPTP is a cruel mistress when it comes to forgiving flirtations with new political parties, and those involved know this.

    What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament; it's hard to see, for example, Simon Danczuk retaining the whip given his recent remarks. Many more will simply lose interest, and drift away.

    As for defections either to the LibDems or the Conservatives, we may see a few. We'll certainly see the more sensible 'Blairites' (by which term of insult is now meant anyone with a vague grip on reality) accepting non-partisan roles offered by the government, as with the recent announcement that Lord Adonis has accepted a role getting HS2 delivered.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be some years before Labour is united and credible as an alternative party of government.

    I suggested on an earlier thread that we may see a string of by-elections, as the career-minded toddle off to jobs in industry, quangos, chat-shows, etc...
    As long as they dont take an office of profit under the Crown, then they would be free to continue to take their MP's salary and never even set foot in the Commons. But being principled servants of the people I am sure that no Labour MP would behave like that.
  • Excellent piece, antifrank!

    BTW I registered as a "supporter" yesterday evening :)
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,344
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    Have we experienced by-elections on that basis before in a single Parly?

    Barring ill-health/death/scandal I can only think of Mrs Mensch in recent history.

    RodCrosby said:

    Great overview. Still, I'm not sure that there's any close historical parallel to what the Labour Party is currently engaged in. Just a few weeks ago the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn might become leader of the party would have seem absurdly far-fetched even for political satire. Now the betting markets have it as a 67% chance (and that's almost certainly an underestimate IMO). Whatever happens, the damage to Labour caused by this contest will be immense.

    Will there be a split? As regards a formal split with a serious new party being formed, probably not: the folk-memory of the SDP experience is still potent. I wouldn't rule it out completely - the unthinkable seems to be happening quite often in Labour at the moment, what with mislaying their Scottish fiefdoms and now this contest. But FPTP is a cruel mistress when it comes to forgiving flirtations with new political parties, and those involved know this.

    What I think we may see is some Labour MPs becoming independents for the remainder of this parliament; it's hard to see, for example, Simon Danczuk retaining the whip given his recent remarks. Many more will simply lose interest, and drift away.

    As for defections either to the LibDems or the Conservatives, we may see a few. We'll certainly see the more sensible 'Blairites' (by which term of insult is now meant anyone with a vague grip on reality) accepting non-partisan roles offered by the government, as with the recent announcement that Lord Adonis has accepted a role getting HS2 delivered.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be some years before Labour is united and credible as an alternative party of government.

    I suggested on an earlier thread that we may see a string of by-elections, as the career-minded toddle off to jobs in industry, quangos, chat-shows, etc...
    David Miliband, Tony Blair are the 2 obvious ones that come to mind. Also there are plenty of 'taking another political job' - EU Commissioner, London Mayor, Police Commissioner etc.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,305
    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    I think this ought to be the starting point for anyone trying to fix the Labour Party.
  • AllanDAllanD Posts: 1
    Missed out the National Labour Organisation which supported Ramsay MacDonald in his decision to form the National Government in 1931 and was only wound up in 1945. Not only included Macdonald but also his son, Malcolm, who also served in the Cabinet and many diplomatic & colonial governor posts after WWII, the writer & diplomat, Harold Nicolson, and also Harold Wilson's predecessor in his first seat as an MP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labour_Organisation
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Welcome to PB, Mr D.
    AllanD said:

    Missed out the National Labour Organisation which supported Ramsay MacDonald in his decision to form the National Government in 1931 and was only wound up in 1945. Not only included Macdonald but also his son, Malcolm, who also served in the Cabinet and many diplomatic & colonial governor posts after WWII, the writer & diplomat, Harold Nicolson, and also Harold Wilson's predecessor in his first seat as an MP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labour_Organisation

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044

    Excellent piece, antifrank!

    BTW I registered as a "supporter" yesterday evening :)

    But Sunil means Blue, that should have been, ironically, a red flag to them, surely? Ok, you're not actually a Tory, I believe, but they cannot take the chance!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550
    edited August 2015
    kle4 said:

    Excellent piece, antifrank!

    BTW I registered as a "supporter" yesterday evening :)

    But Sunil means Blue, that should have been, ironically, a red flag to them, surely? Ok, you're not actually a Tory, I believe, but they cannot take the chance!
    Somehow I voted Labour on May 7th :)

    Also tweeted this during the campaign!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894
    edited August 2015
    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited August 2015

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    Do you think any Labour MPs will defect to UKIP should Corbyn win?
    No idea really. Frank Field and Jon Cruddas would be nice, and I reckon Cruddas would win Dagenham as UKIP
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    FPT, the Militant programme from 1982 showing Tony Mulhearn...

    He's still around. And unsurprisingly... (second article)
    http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Socialist_Party_and_CWI_public_figures/Tony_Mulhearn/21160/05-08-2015/jeremy-corbyn-thousands-rally-to-anti-austerity-appeal

    "Andy Burnham last night warned some may be signing up who “don’t have Labour’s best interests at heart”. He said he was stunned to have seen ex-Militant Tony Mulhearn at a Jeremy Corbyn rally in Liverpool..."
    http://www.sunnation.co.uk/corbyn-camp-fear-witchhunt-in-labour-leadership-vote/

    Stunned?
    LOL
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894
    Roger said:

    Jack's Back!

    More a naughty boy .... :smile:

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063

    Interesting lunchtime reading. My advice to careerist centralists is to join Labour under Corbyn. Just as to make money on thd stockmarket you need to buy when everyone is selling and to sell wheneveryone is buying.

    Tony Blair (and who can be more Blairite) did not join the SDP, he was first elected in 1983 on the infamous manifesto that included unilateral disarmament, leaving the EU and leaving NATO etc etc. A number of other prominent New Labour figures too.

    The fate of splitters is oblivion but the original party is likely to re-invent itself, and joining at its nadir is the right strategy. Kippers should take note too!

    Except for individual splitters, splitting can be no barrier to career advancement. The SDP split is very much the exception that proves the rule.

    I don't expect the right of the Labour party to shear off. Apart from anything else, there seems to be a huge dollop of tribal loyalty there even among those who are being most aggressively abused as closet Tories. But if they do, the Liberal Unionist approach is the way to go. If they were shameless enough, the likes of Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna could be Cabinet ministers within a year or so.
  • What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    That is a very funny advert.

    I loved this one - to promote using TV adverts - the paw on the steamy glass...

    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    I think this ought to be the starting point for anyone trying to fix the Labour Party.
    Such a party would be electorally ineffective in a FPTP election. This is not the 1920's with 60% of the population in manual work. People are more middle class now, with a lower non-working class group below the traditional working class. Increasingly the C2DE groups are also migrant derived groups and with weaker ties to other groups.

    Also what is meant by socially conservative? Rates of churchgoing are lowest in working class ethnic Brits (highest in East European and African derived communities). Gay marriage is now polling widespread support as are support for abortion, divorce and single parenthood. The world has moved on.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550
    edited August 2015
    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    "I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better!" :lol: :lol:
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    Because some of them resemble a divvy ?!?

  • JackW said:

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    Because some of them resemble a divvy ?!?

    Jack, is back! Hope you are well!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    It's a little misleading to say that all of these were splits in progressive parties...certainly the Liberal Unionists were not progressives as we would think of them today!

    As an aside, a lot of people lump the Liberal Unionists into one group, whereas in fact there were two distinct strains. I would argue that these two strains are the core of the split in today's Conservative party - and that, in fact, the Conservative party has much more in common with the Liberal Unionists than the nineteenth century Tories (who would probably be more at home in UKIP).

    Those groups are the Hartington Whigs (who split first - led by Hartington, Lansdowne and Goschen) who are direct forerunners of today's One Nation Tories: paternalist, concerned about national cohesion and gradualist in nature. They were particularly strong in the West Country, the Summer Country, the areas around Northants and Lincolnshire and down into Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. Paddy Mayhew and Douglas Hurd are great modern examples of this grouping; and I suspect Cameron would be one as well. The second group are the Radicals, who joined shortly afterwards, led by Chamberlain and Bright: they are the party of Thatcher - middle class, small businessmen, centred around industrial towns and the Midlands. It was this combination that set the scene for the Tories to become the dominant party of the twentieth century.

    It's a tremendous example of an infusion of significant politicians, radical thinking, contacts, organisation, infrastructure and money which resulted in them completely taking over the host over time...

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Yup.

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    I think this ought to be the starting point for anyone trying to fix the Labour Party.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894
    Plato said:

    That is a very funny advert.

    I loved this one - to promote using TV adverts - the paw on the steamy glass...

    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

    Yes but who is picking up the benefit bill for the offspring and is the French poodle mother just a NHS health tourist .... surely the Daily Express is on the case ?!?

  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 270
    There won't be a split unless Corbyn is considerably more successful as leader than is widely predicted.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    I'm amazed Dave Nellist is still about too. He was spotted trying to join the £3ers wasn't he?
    RodCrosby said:

    FPT, the Militant programme from 1982 showing Tony Mulhearn...

    He's still around. And unsurprisingly... (second article)
    http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Socialist_Party_and_CWI_public_figures/Tony_Mulhearn/21160/05-08-2015/jeremy-corbyn-thousands-rally-to-anti-austerity-appeal

    "Andy Burnham last night warned some may be signing up who “don’t have Labour’s best interests at heart”. He said he was stunned to have seen ex-Militant Tony Mulhearn at a Jeremy Corbyn rally in Liverpool..."
    http://www.sunnation.co.uk/corbyn-camp-fear-witchhunt-in-labour-leadership-vote/

    Stunned?
    LOL

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    Pulpstar said:

    The question of the day is do I register for Jezza .... ?

    I've just registered. Will support Kendall, as the best option for the country, and probably Jezza #2 as if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.

    In my view Burnham or Cooper would resolve nothing; in 2020 we will be where we are today, and Labour still won't be an effective opposition.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The question of the day is do I register for Jezza .... ?

    I've just registered. Will support Kendall, as the best option for the country, and probably Jezza #2 as if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.

    In my view Burnham or Cooper would resolve nothing; in 2020 we will be where we are today, and Labour still won't be an effective opposition.
    I've registered too - may well go with that option myself ;)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873
    Charles said:

    In my view Burnham or Cooper would resolve nothing; in 2020 we will be where we are today, and Labour still won't be an effective opposition.

    But, but, but, you haven't heard Cooper's game changing speech yet...
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
  • One factor that needs to be taken into account is that if the boundary changes happen as planned, then 20-25 Labour seats will disappear. The left might see this as a convenient way of getting rid of MPs they don't like. For example, Stoke and Newcastle-u-Lyme will go from 4 to 3 seats, which could well be bad news for Tristram Hunt.

    Of course, if the left do get rid of the Blairites this way then these MPs may feel they have nothing to lose by defecting.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894

    JackW said:

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    Because some of them resemble a divvy ?!?

    Jack, is back! Hope you are well!
    One struggles manfully between the ministrations of young nurses .... :smile:

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,241
    Just for once I have to say CCHQ has played a blinder by saying nothing on the L:abour Leadership election. Don't interrupt your opoonent etc.

    Having said that Osborne will now probably say something stupid.
  • So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    I doubt those people need too much telling. We'll have to wait and see
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :lol: :kissing_heart:
    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    That is a very funny advert.

    I loved this one - to promote using TV adverts - the paw on the steamy glass...

    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

    Yes but who is picking up the benefit bill for the offspring and is the French poodle mother just a NHS health tourist .... surely the Daily Express is on the case ?!?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873

    Just for once I have to say CCHQ has played a blinder by saying nothing on the L:abour Leadership election. Don't interrupt your opoonent etc.

    Having said that Osborne will now probably say something stupid.

    @DPJHodges: When Ed Miliband won the Labour leadership election Osborne opened a bottle of champagne. If Corbyn wins he'll be off on a week long bender.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You still have 13 minutes to register :D
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,305

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    I asked for one of them once, but you have to pay extra.
  • Just for once I have to say CCHQ has played a blinder by saying nothing on the L:abour Leadership election. Don't interrupt your opoonent etc.

    Having said that Osborne will now probably say something stupid.

    You keep on misunderestimating George Osborne's abilities.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894

    L:abour Leadership election. Don't interrupt your opoonent etc.

    You are @Sunil and I claim a Franglais gendarmerie

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,579
    edited August 2015
    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 487
    edited August 2015
    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

    You should have upgraded to the Fiat 600 - the seats reclined. And then we got a couple of 850 coupes!!!

    Welcome back Jack - Whilst you have been away the Liberals have been keeping their heads down but I am worried that the Labour Party might just be thinking of growing a pair and actually take over from us as the Radical Party.
  • Pulpstar said:

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You still have 13 minutes to register :D
    I've just written the weekend thread about how Corbyn becomes Prime Minister in 2020.

    I'm not going to tempt fate by voting for him
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,335

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,894



    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Having said that Osborne will now probably say something stupid.''

    Oh come on Mr Brooke, I think you are being a bit harsh.

    David Cameron and George Osborne are destroying the left in Britain like no other tories before them.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,127

    Just for once I have to say CCHQ has played a blinder by saying nothing on the L:abour Leadership election. Don't interrupt your opoonent etc.

    Having said that Osborne will now probably say something stupid.


    I'm not sure that CCHQ is intentionally not saying anything - it's just that they haven't stopped laughing yet.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,127

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    No.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

    Perhaps nun is one of the 'services' offered...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,059
    edited August 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Sign In or Register to comment.