CorbynIn a week that has seen numerous prominent Republicans across the pond express their antipathy towards the man their party has chosen to lead them into November’s Presidential Election, a poll here has revealed that 29% of Labour voters would rather vote for Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn – so that means the Tories could count on 2.7 million extra votes were the PM to call an autumn Election. As things currently stand, the Government are fourteen points ahead of Labour. Basically, what the hell is she waiting for? It’s hard to think of any Prime Minister in recent times being in such a strong position to secure a mandate; and it could well be a far more concise mandate than the one she inherited. In many respects, it’s a measure of just how weak the opposition is that the Tories were able to overcome their bitter divisions on Europe and emerge relatively unscathed in record time.

Despite widespread dissatisfaction with Jezza’s leadership both within his own party and outside of the enclosed echo chamber of party activism, it’s hard to imagine the unstoppable cult of Corbyn being brought to an end by Owen Smith. The election of six Momentum candidates onto the National Executive Committee – the last outstanding barrier to taking control of the party by the far left – means Corbyn’s neo-Trotskyist cronies now have a majority on Labour’s ruling body. This comprehensive coup even overshadows the machinations of Tony Benn and Militant Tendency to seize power in the early 80s; and if that gave birth to the SDP, what on earth will current events begat?

Despite the fact that the post-Brexit Labour frontbench seems occupied by anonymous members of the public whose place there is due to them winning a competition, the news that Andy Burnham, one of the few remaining leftovers from the last Labour Government, is to run for Mayor of Greater Manchester will leave it looking even more threadbare. Burnham has remained relatively loyal to Corbyn, hence holding onto his post as Shadow Home Secretary after the exodus following Hilary Benn’s sacking; but the chance to become the first elected mayor of a ‘Northern Powerhouse’ was clearly too tempting to reject in favour of sentimentally staying aboard a sinking ship until it disappears beneath the waves of mediocrity.

By the way, for those of you south of Watford, Manchester begins just after you exit the Midlands and takes you all the way up to Scotland; there’s nothing else in The North other than Manchester, of course. Oh, there is Liverpool; but that’s more or less in Ireland, anyway.

With just over a month left before the Labour leadership election, Owen Smith not only has to contend with his own absence of charisma, but the online army that Corbyn can call upon, one that recruits party members by the thousand on a daily basis, if we’re to believe the hype. Unless you happen to be a Biblical magician ala Moses, trying to stem the flow is a futile exercise; even the High Court this week ruled that the new recruits should be entitled to a vote come September. Like a lot of hip ‘n’ groovy techno-savvy movers and shakers, I am on Facebook, but I generally use it for personal messages, and my FB wall is solely an advertising board for posting links to articles on this blog and the ‘Looking for Alison’ one; when confronted by my news-feed, however – the section of the system that shows what one’s friends have been posting – I’m regularly bombarded by pro-Corbyn propaganda that provokes a roll of the eyes and a scroll of the page. There is no room for debate where the Messiah is concerned; you’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us you’re a Blairite Tory, simple as that. This is the monochrome level the whole scenario has descended to.

I’m tempted to say ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ Corbyn is re-crowned Labour leader at the end of September, it’s impossible to envisage those within the party who don’t subscribe to the cult simply sitting quietly on the backbenches. Many of them have served in government and are quite keen to get back into it, unlike Corbyn’s disciples, whose natural (and preferred) place is in permanent opposition. The aim of the Corbyn Project is not to govern the country, which would mean having to actually engage with Racist Homophobic Islamophobic Transphobic Blairite Tories, but to look after its own clique and devote all its energies to ridding that clique of anyone who dares to venture an opinion that contradicts the Project. The future has never been brighter for the Workers’ Revolutionary Party and never bleaker for the Labour Party.

So, what happens the day after the expected Corbyn triumph on Sep 24? Liberal Democrats may be coy whenever talk of a potential merger between their depleted party and the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs is raised; and nobody has yet publicly proposed such a marriage bar vague comments by a few opportunistic old hands like Paddy Ashdown. But a Corbyn-led Labour Party and Momentum-dominated NEC is one that will be utterly incompatible with the majority of Labour MPs, not to mention the majority of the electorate. A split is surely inevitable, and what that will lead to, God only knows. Another decade of Conservative Government, probably.

© The Editor




  1. I concur with your analysis. I can see no other outcome but a Corbyn victory in the leadership election, after which I can see no other outcome than a massive split in the Labour Party. The Lib-Dems will hope to forge some sort of self-saving merger with the Labour refugees, but that may be a false hope – the Lib-Dems need the leavers far more than the leavers need the Lib-Dems and they both know that.

    While the Corbyn bandwagon has been rolling along to its seemingly inevitable reinforced victory, I have no doubt that the moderate majority of the Labour Party, both in Parliament and in the constituencies, have been quietly beavering away in the background, putting in place all the basic systems for the aftermath, such as donors, policies, branding, structures etc. Not to have done that would have been at best imprudent, at worst incompetent – but it’s one thing doing it on paper, it’s an entirely different matter to get folk to vote for it, see SDP 1981 for details.

    It seems likely that St Theresa is merely awaiting the formal outcome of the Labour Party’s self-destruct ballot before announcing a snap election in late October to cement her position. With their current lead in the polls, the irreparable schism in Labour, a potential new party appearing with no history but possibly with the feeble Lib-Dems hanging desperately onto its newly-stitched coat-tails, the SNP still rampant beyond Hadrian, UKIP now redundant and also taking into account the refreshed voting patterns of the referendum, then the Tories should sweep back into solid power with a large majority, probably for the next decade at least.

    Some may welcome that, others may prefer a governing party with only a slender majority to keep it in a moderated sanity-zone, but we may not have a choice: we only get one vote each, so we’ll all have to use our precious ‘X’ as wisely as we did in the referendum.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. At the last General Election, I voted for my sitting MP, who happens to be a Lib Dem (and was one of the few to keep his seat); that he later aided me in resolving an ongoing problem relating to the subject of ‘my other blog’ seemed to vindicate my decision in the polling booth. As the Blair and Brown era careered towards its messy end, I began to realise I didn’t really have a party to support, and I feel that more than ever now. I never thought I’d end up a ‘floating voter’, but come next time round, I reckon my vote will go the same way – for the man rather than the party. And I suspect voting for the man (or woman) rather than the party is a pattern I’m not alone in following in these uncertain times for the major parties.


      1. I’ve met your MP socially and he’s a decent bloke, which is as good a voting principle as any other, certainly better than blindly following a party, regardless of the candidate’s character.
        I have voted for my own current MP based on his character – we have had robust debates on many topics over dinner-tables, but always part with mutual respect, even when we agree to disagree – he doesn’t bullshit and is quite happy to tell you when he thinks you’re wrong, unlike many other slippery vote-catchers. But he’s also prepared to listen and modify his position if you convince him.
        That said, I sometimes vote deliberately in order to reduce the majority (which involves guessing who will come second), because a ‘safe’ MP often becomes a complacent MP, so a narrower majority concentrates the mind wonderfully.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. ^ As your MP retained his seat, I will assume that he is not Julian Huppert – who as far as I can see is the only Liberal Democrat MP who has made any attempt to live up to the ‘Liberal’ name in recent years – simply by virtue of his Commons motion against the utterly ludicrous ‘ATVOD’ rules that were brought in the UK in 2014 by the then Tory/Lib Dem government, with as far as I can see, no consultation whatever.




  2. All will be well.

    Jeremy will win the Labour leadership. He was not my 1st choice last time around, but he was the overwhelming democratic winner. He will be again this time. The MPs need to learn that although they represent their constituency (i.e., all voters), they are actually chosen by the Labour Party in their constituency. Thus, those who have chosen to “support Jeremy until it has become abundantly clear he is no leader and therefore I can no longer serve with him” will all be told to eff off to whatever new/old party they wish to when boundaries are re-drawn and new representatives are selected. The brand/apparatus will remain with Jeremy.

    Many of those new members will be Jeremy supporters. They will work with him to fashion a Labour Party with new and fresh ideas that represent the electorate. Labour will win again (maybe not in 2020).

    I was incensed when my own MP resigned at 4 p.m. on a Monday afternoon following the Brexit coup with the above mealymouthed excuse. I told him by e-mail I would never vote Labour as long as he was the Labour choice for the constituency.

    I don’t believe Jeremy will win a General Election. To be truthful, at this moment, I don’t care. The choice between Ms May – who has spoken more centrally than anyone since Major/Heath – and a Blairite would be a non-choice.

    What Jeremy has done is dragged the debate back to the left. It may not stay there, but that would seem to be where the majority of Labour members want to keep it at the moment. That is democracy.

    And I’m not sure why Ms May would want an election. Her government was elected one year ago. We have Brexit to negotiate and we have had two national polls (three if you count Scotland), plus Mayoral elections etc in the past three years. Aren’t you sick of it all?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sound analysis.
      The only reason Mrs May will want an early election is that her majority is currently only 12, barely adequate in normal times and these are not normal times. With substantial groups of her MPs unhappy with Brexit and with some of her own ideas too (grammar schools etc.), she will struggle to maintain a working majority for the things she wants to do, particularly any vital Brexit-enabling legislation.
      If an early election can deliver her a majority of 50+ with Brexit now in the manifesto, then she has a free hand, her own personal ‘mandate’ from the electorate and will not need to modify any policies to accommodate the reluctants amongst the back-benches. That process would also prevent the Lib-Lab Lords interfering with Brexit because, as a manifesto issue, it would come under the Parliament Act as an item which they could not decline.
      With the current poll-numbers and the way the ‘opposition’ is going (or, more accurately, not going anywhere fast), then she would need a powerful reason not to have an early election, rather than the other way round.


  3. There’s too much talk about Jeremy and not enough about forming an opposition fit for the people of this country. Presently the right wing faction is causing all the trouble and remaining true to its position of betrayal of working people and the poor. The right wingers should find the courage to leave and form a separate party rather than continue the debasement of a party that they have had a great hand in creating. Their arrogance and denial of democracy shines as a beacon for ‘how not to do it’, their failures at recent general elections not being enough to suggest they are not wanted!


  4. If Liverpool’s in Ireland, then that means the Beatles are Irish, right? Particularly seeing as three of the four were of partially Irish descent. I think Ringo, poor old Ringo, was the only one that had no Irish roots at all, if I’m not mistaken. 😉

    Then again, if we get the Beatles, then you guys have to take the blame for U2 (two of whom were born in the UK of English or Welsh parents). 😉


  5. “There is no room for debate where the Messiah is concerned; you’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us you’re a Blairite Tory, simple as that. This is the monochrome level the whole scenario has descended to.”

    I know what you mean. The reality is that the UK Labour party has always been a broad church (as have been, and still are, the Tories). As I understand it, the roots of the UK Labour party, largely, weren’t Marxist, but more from the social democratic/Chartist/wing, which pre-dated Marxism. (and if we’re getting into technical definitions, Corbynites for the most part aren’t strict doctrinaire Marxists either, as I understand it). As far as I can see, during most if not all of the UK Labour party’s history, and frankly, particularly during its more electorally successful periods, its mainstream wasn’t on the ‘far left’.

    Still, though, Corbyn is democratically elected by the membership, as far as I can see, so I don’t know what to make of the whole thing. I can agree that Corbynites claiming anyone to the right of them that is in the Labour Party is automatically a ‘Blairite’, is in general, a poor argument. It’s as though, from their perspective, history began in 1997, or perhaps in 2001-2003. But, of course, it didn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s