Sleaford & North Hykeham

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 10:03:04 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Sleaford and North Hykeham is the sort of seat where the Labour Party should have a very solid substantial vote. Labour should not be polling at 10%.

Thats what happens when parties throw themselves into permanent argument and division mode for over a year - though I do think the Brexit issue has complicated matters as well. Likelihood is that many Labour voters simply didn;t bother to vote at all, though in itself that is a concern, particularly given it was that factor which meant the polls were so wrong in 2015

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The present leader of the party lost the confidence of his colleagues, was given out but refused to walk.

[Merseymike]

Not the confidence of the party members, though, as the second leadership election displayed - and it isn't the MP's who have the role of electing the leader of the party.

Your statement is an example of exactly the problem I am referring to. I don't see any obvious way of moving forward, though - the division is too deep and profound and there isn't really a point of consensus

[The Bishop]

Dec 10, 2016 7:19:15 GMT Pimpernal said:

Dec 10, 2016 0:40:16 GMT Andrew_S said:

I think this is a serious Tweet from a Labour supporter:

I hate to say it - but she is being sarcastic...
I think she's on EAL wing of Labour...

However. these responses to the latest opinion poll ratings are genuine and should really worry the comrades...


YorksLass ‏@chrissieoap 5h5 hours ago
.@lbc FYI HilaryBenn could lose his seat at next GE. Poll on local TV news 89% disagreed with him re #Syria speech.They agreed with Corbyn

Famous Blue Raincoat ‏@managerboardout 6h6 hours ago
@lbc What are opinion polls worth? Polls said #brexit and #Trump were done for!


YorksLass ‏@chrissieoap 6h6 hours ago
.@lbc #RichardSpurr YouGov founded by ToryMP Zahawi and you expect public to believe their polls? Ha! ha!

Presuming that Linda Grant is the fairly well known writer, she has been anti-Jez pretty much since the outset.

Is that "voodoo" poll referred to in the first of those tweets genuine?

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 10:13:40 GMT The Bishop said:

Presuming that Linda Grant is the fairly well known writer, she has been anti-Jez pretty much since the outset.

Very pro-Israel, so that would follow

[carlton43]

Well, private fight Mike, between your faction and those like David. And it is just a by-election. And Brexit has injected difficulties for all of us including UKIP where our fox is shot! But, and I see this as a large But, surely 10% in Sleaford is obviously far too low for a party in opposition for over 6-years and where the Remain position is substantial, vocal and left leaning for the main part? If Corbyn cannot capitalize on this virtually anywhere, what is he doing wrong? The fact that RP and Sleaford are not in any way potential Labour seats should not preclude a vigorous response and an increased vote in both? These are focus events and should attract excellent candidates and sound organized support to utilize the opportunity of socking it to the Government and making a stand.

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 10:24:25 GMT carlton43 said:

Well, private fight Mike, between your faction and those like David. And it is just a by-election. And Brexit has injected difficulties for all of us including UKIP where our fox is shot! But, and I see this as a large But, surely 10% in Sleaford is obviously far too low for a party in opposition for over 6-years and where the Remain position is substantial, vocal and left leaning for the main part? If Corbyn cannot capitalize on this virtually anywhere, what is he doing wrong? The fact that RP and Sleaford are not in any way potential Labour seats should not preclude a vigorous response and an increased vote in both? These are focus events and should attract excellent candidates and sound organized support to utilize the opportunity of socking it to the Government and making a stand.

What I said before - the party has a fairly nuanced stance on Brexit, which I do agree with but right now isn't pleasing those who want a hardline stance (on both sides). And public internal division never appeals. I think it would be the same under any leader, because those two issues wouldn't change. However, I think by elections in safe seats in December are really never going to create a great deal of enthusiasm

[carlton43]

Dec 10, 2016 10:29:38 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 10, 2016 10:24:25 GMT carlton43 said:

Well, private fight Mike, between your faction and those like David. And it is just a by-election. And Brexit has injected difficulties for all of us including UKIP where our fox is shot! But, and I see this as a large But, surely 10% in Sleaford is obviously far too low for a party in opposition for over 6-years and where the Remain position is substantial, vocal and left leaning for the main part? If Corbyn cannot capitalize on this virtually anywhere, what is he doing wrong? The fact that RP and Sleaford are not in any way potential Labour seats should not preclude a vigorous response and an increased vote in both? These are focus events and should attract excellent candidates and sound organized support to utilize the opportunity of socking it to the Government and making a stand.

What I said before - the party has a fairly nuanced stance on Brexit, which I do agree with but right now isn't pleasing those who want a hardline stance (on both sides). And public internal division never appeals. I think it would be the same under any leader, because those two issues wouldn't change. However, I think by elections in safe seats in December are really never going to create a great deal of enthusiasm

Yes. I did concede that  was just a by-election. And it is December. Good points. I think your contention that it would be the same under any leader has some validity because of the apparently irreconcilable differences on tone, method, stance and policy. In fact your usual charge of broad church no longer working? But that also holds for the Conservatives where there are strains over Brexit quite as acute as your own and on economics and social policy. They seem to be able to make it work better with not too much plotting, spoiler briefing and semi-detacheds. So, I contend that it is at least a bit to do with quality of leadership, quality of front bench, effectiveness of whips and homogeneity of membership with typical voter. It is that latter point where Labour have a major problem not affecting any other party. In short you have a membership where a dominant faction is out of sympathy with the 'old' membership, and a significant sector of your electorate AND the majority of your MPs! That cannot work Mike. Frankly the voters and the MPs ought to trump the new members easily, but I know you don't accept that. The result must be lack of office until you split or revert to the old ways? That might result in you and a lot of new members resisting, rebelling and then leaving. As an outsider that looks to be well worth it from their point of view.

[right]

Dec 10, 2016 11:11:06 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 10, 2016 10:29:38 GMT Merseymike said:

What I said before - the party has a fairly nuanced stance on Brexit, which I do agree with but right now isn't pleasing those who want a hardline stance (on both sides). And public internal division never appeals. I think it would be the same under any leader, because those two issues wouldn't change. However, I think by elections in safe seats in December are really never going to create a great deal of enthusiasm

Yes. I did concede that  was just a by-election. And it is December. Good points. I think your contention that it would be the same under any leader has some validity because of the apparently irreconcilable differences on tone, method, stance and policy. In fact your usual charge of broad church no longer working? But that also holds for the Conservatives where there are strains over Brexit quite as acute as your own and on economics and social policy. They seem to be able to make it work better with not too much plotting, spoiler briefing and semi-detacheds. So, I contend that it is at least a bit to do with quality of leadership, quality of front bench, effectiveness of whips and homogeneity of membership with typical voter. It is that latter point where Labour have a major problem not affecting any other party. In short you have a membership where a dominant faction is out of sympathy with the 'old' membership, and a significant sector of your electorate AND the majority of your MPs! That cannot work Mike. Frankly the voters and the MPs ought to trump the new members easily, but I know you don't accept that. The result must be lack of office until you split or revert to the old ways? That might result in you and a lot of new members resisting, rebelling and then leaving. As an outsider that looks to be well worth it from their point of view.

I'm not sure the Tories are as divided as Labour. The essential Tory difference on Europe is between whether we should leave the EEA or not. On a question like this there are a large number of interim positions and compromises that people could LIVE WITH. The acceptance of the Leave vote by Tory Remainers has astounded me.

The splits in Labour are more fundamental. Should they accept Article 50? Should they push for a second referendum? And there's also the same disagreement as there is in the Tories on the EEA and the extent of the four freedoms. It's also a good deal more fluid among Labour ranks, so both unstable and unclear.

A nuanced view of Brexit may keep the party together, but it's less useful for winning elections.

[The Bishop]

But once Article 50 is done, it should be easier for most of Labour to unite around a "soft Brexit" position.

Whilst noisy, the Reeves/Kinnock Jnr tendency are a minority.

Whereas one gets the impression some Tories are ideologically committed to "hard" WTO-only Brexit.

[right]

Dec 10, 2016 12:30:35 GMT The Bishop said:

But once Article 50 is done, it should be easier for most of Labour to unite around a "soft Brexit" position.

Whilst noisy, the Reeves/Kinnock Jnr tendency are a minority.

Whereas one gets the impression some Tories are ideologically committed to "hard" WTO-only Brexit.

What about the second referendum? That's a question that's not troubling Tories.

[The Bishop]

Again, only a minority are really shouting about that.

Depending on how events turn out, it could become a very popular position (in which case Tories as well as Labour will come under pressure to accommodate it) But that is not the case at the moment, it is fair to say.

[right]

Dec 10, 2016 12:34:39 GMT The Bishop said:

Again, only a minority are really shouting about that.

Depending on how events turn out, it could become a very popular position (in which case Tories as well as Labour will come under pressure to accommodate it) But that is not the case at the moment, it is fair to say.

[br Although it's not immediate, it is live on that a second referendum is becoming perceived as a bad loser position although the proponents aren't seeing that.

It may become popular later, but for now it's seen as a way of reheating those arguments that meant you're now dreading Christmas or got your best man to unfriend you on Facebook.

[carlton43]

But I see the Labour problems to be far wider than just Brexit. The wounds will not be healed when we are 'Out of the EU' just because that area is closed. For me the pivotal problem is the position of Momentum and the main body of the new members. Members are important but when they are permitted to be preferenced against most of the PLP and most of the Labour electorate there is a mismatch that cannot be squared or solved. If you sincerely believe in the primacy of the most strident part of the membership over all else......You are lost.

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 11:11:06 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 10, 2016 10:29:38 GMT Merseymike said:

What I said before - the party has a fairly nuanced stance on Brexit, which I do agree with but right now isn't pleasing those who want a hardline stance (on both sides). And public internal division never appeals. I think it would be the same under any leader, because those two issues wouldn't change. However, I think by elections in safe seats in December are really never going to create a great deal of enthusiasm

Yes. I did concede that  was just a by-election. And it is December. Good points. I think your contention that it would be the same under any leader has some validity because of the apparently irreconcilable differences on tone, method, stance and policy. In fact your usual charge of broad church no longer working? But that also holds for the Conservatives where there are strains over Brexit quite as acute as your own and on economics and social policy. They seem to be able to make it work better with not too much plotting, spoiler briefing and semi-detacheds. So, I contend that it is at least a bit to do with quality of leadership, quality of front bench, effectiveness of whips and homogeneity of membership with typical voter. It is that latter point where Labour have a major problem not affecting any other party. In short you have a membership where a dominant faction is out of sympathy with the 'old' membership, and a significant sector of your electorate AND the majority of your MPs! That cannot work Mike. Frankly the voters and the MPs ought to trump the new members easily, but I know you don't accept that. The result must be lack of office until you split or revert to the old ways? That might result in you and a lot of new members resisting, rebelling and then leaving. As an outsider that looks to be well worth it from their point of view.

The difference is that the Tories are in government. What is happening to us now is much the same as to what happened to the Tories on leaving office - Ed Miliband actually did remarkably well in holding things together but clearly there were a lot of problems bubbling under the surface. I think that the current PLP is too out of step with the party and many of them will step down and won't contest the next election. A more unified party would undoubtedly work better though would end up leaving some on the side, no matter what approach ends up being dominant. I do think a aplit will happen - but not yet. And yes, if the 'old ways' return in the sense of a bland, pointless centre party to tamely provide much the same policies as the Tory party, then it wouldn't be a party I would wish to stay in or even vote for.

I think that we have yet to see just whether the Tories manage to hang together during the actual negotiation process as I can't see any outcome pleasing everybody.

[carlton43]

Dec 10, 2016 13:10:21 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 10, 2016 11:11:06 GMT carlton43 said:

Yes. I did concede that  was just a by-election. And it is December. Good points. I think your contention that it would be the same under any leader has some validity because of the apparently irreconcilable differences on tone, method, stance and policy. In fact your usual charge of broad church no longer working? But that also holds for the Conservatives where there are strains over Brexit quite as acute as your own and on economics and social policy. They seem to be able to make it work better with not too much plotting, spoiler briefing and semi-detacheds. So, I contend that it is at least a bit to do with quality of leadership, quality of front bench, effectiveness of whips and homogeneity of membership with typical voter. It is that latter point where Labour have a major problem not affecting any other party. In short you have a membership where a dominant faction is out of sympathy with the 'old' membership, and a significant sector of your electorate AND the majority of your MPs! That cannot work Mike. Frankly the voters and the MPs ought to trump the new members easily, but I know you don't accept that. The result must be lack of office until you split or revert to the old ways? That might result in you and a lot of new members resisting, rebelling and then leaving. As an outsider that looks to be well worth it from their point of view.

The difference is that the Tories are in government. What is happening to us now is much the same as to what happened to the Tories on leaving office - Ed Miliband actually did remarkably well in holding things together but clearly there were a lot of problems bubbling under the surface. I think that the current PLP is too out of step with the party and many of them will step down and won't contest the next election. A more unified party would undoubtedly work better though would end up leaving some on the side, no matter what approach ends up being dominant. I do think a aplit will happen - but not yet. And yes, if the 'old ways' return in the sense of a bland, pointless centre party to tamely provide much the same policies as the Tory party, then it wouldn't be a party I would wish to stay in or even vote for.

I think that we have yet to see just whether the Tories manage to hang together during the actual negotiation process as I can't see any outcome pleasing everybody.

I would still contend that the members have way too much power in Labour and that will always tend to diminish the desire of good quality candidates to wish to be MPs or of many voters to wish to support you. Time will possibly tell. Short term a major foul up by the Conservatives is your best hope, but even then UKIP and LDs may benefit more?

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 13:18:15 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 10, 2016 13:10:21 GMT Merseymike said:

The difference is that the Tories are in government. What is happening to us now is much the same as to what happened to the Tories on leaving office - Ed Miliband actually did remarkably well in holding things together but clearly there were a lot of problems bubbling under the surface. I think that the current PLP is too out of step with the party and many of them will step down and won't contest the next election. A more unified party would undoubtedly work better though would end up leaving some on the side, no matter what approach ends up being dominant. I do think a aplit will happen - but not yet. And yes, if the 'old ways' return in the sense of a bland, pointless centre party to tamely provide much the same policies as the Tory party, then it wouldn't be a party I would wish to stay in or even vote for.

I think that we have yet to see just whether the Tories manage to hang together during the actual negotiation process as I can't see any outcome pleasing everybody.

I would still contend that the members have way too much power in Labour and that will always tend to diminish the desire of good quality candidates to wish to be MPs or of many voters to wish to support you. Time will possibly tell. Short term a major foul up by the Conservatives is your best hope, but even then UKIP and LDs may benefit more?

Obviously I don't agree - I think that a party should be directed by its members, not just be a glee club to deliver the leaflets. I think there are plenty of good quality candidates available but their politics wouldn;t coincide with yours! However, as I have said before, I think many on the Right want Labour to be a safe centre party to occasionally give the Tories a break to stop them getting complacent and corrupt, as long as they don;t actually change anything very much or do anything which the Tories wouldn't do!

[carlton43]

Dec 10, 2016 14:19:11 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 10, 2016 13:18:15 GMT carlton43 said:

I would still contend that the members have way too much power in Labour and that will always tend to diminish the desire of good quality candidates to wish to be MPs or of many voters to wish to support you. Time will possibly tell. Short term a major foul up by the Conservatives is your best hope, but even then UKIP and LDs may benefit more?

Obviously I don't agree - I think that a party should be directed by its members, not just be a glee club to deliver the leaflets. I think there are plenty of good quality candidates available but their politics wouldn;t coincide with yours! However, as I have said before, I think many on the Right want Labour to be a safe centre party to occasionally give the Tories a break to stop them getting complacent and corrupt, as long as they don;t actually change anything very much or do anything which the Tories wouldn't do!

No I'm not being tribal Mike. We have been over the ground regarding members before. If that relatively small number when related to your voters and the electorate at large, has power to choose leader, candidates and policies (perhaps even the front bench?) then some potential candidates really are not going to want to be in it are the?. The nature of your candidates as to positions and policy is none of my business, but the quality of the human being is. You are definitely attracting too many hothead firebrand people who appeal to some members but not to the electorate. They are not people who can run a country Mike.

[Merseymike]

Dec 10, 2016 14:30:51 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 10, 2016 14:19:11 GMT Merseymike said:

Obviously I don't agree - I think that a party should be directed by its members, not just be a glee club to deliver the leaflets. I think there are plenty of good quality candidates available but their politics wouldn;t coincide with yours! However, as I have said before, I think many on the Right want Labour to be a safe centre party to occasionally give the Tories a break to stop them getting complacent and corrupt, as long as they don;t actually change anything very much or do anything which the Tories wouldn't do!

No I'm not being tribal Mike. We have been over the ground regarding members before. If that relatively small number when related to your voters and the electorate at large, has power to choose leader, candidates and policies (perhaps even the front bench?) then some potential candidates really are not going to want to be in it are the?. The nature of your candidates as to positions and policy is none of my business, but the quality of the human being is. You are definitely attracting too many hothead firebrand people who appeal to some members but not to the electorate. They are not people who can run a country Mike.

If any prospective candidate really did think like that - then they aren't the sort of person who should even be considered as a Labour MP. They rely on the local party to do their work on the ground, and should be at one with and part of that party. A lot of people who were in line with New Labour but less so with the way the party has moved since remain in the PLP.
And we just have entirely different views on who can 'run a country'. Because your idea and my idea of 'running it' are entirely different. If I was happy with the way the country had been run for the past 37 years I wouldn't hold the political views I do! I have no interest at all in seeing the current government replaced with a New Labour-type non-alternative.

[Sibboleth]

Dec 10, 2016 10:03:04 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Sleaford and North Hykeham is the sort of seat where the Labour Party should have a very solid substantial vote. Labour should not be polling at 10%.

Eh, no more so than where I live to be honest. Though Labour really ought to be stronger in most rural constituencies and that we aren't reflects (above all else) dire organisation and messed up priorities. But that's unrelated to this by-election, mostly.