Here is a letter from our leader of Labour party:
United we stand, divided we fall is one of the oldest and truest slogans of the Labour movement.
After last week’s referendum, our country faces major challenges. Risks to the economy and living standards are growing. The public is split.
The Government is in disarray. Ministers have made it clear they have no exit plan, but are determined to make working people pay with a new round of cuts and tax rises.
Labour has the responsibility to give a lead where the Government will not. We need to bring people together, hold the Government to account, oppose austerity and set out a path to exit that will protect jobs and incomes.
To do that we need to stand together. Since I was elected leader of our party nine months ago, we have repeatedly defeated the Government over its attacks on living standards. Last month, Labour become the largest party in the local elections. In Thursday’s referendum, a narrow majority voted to leave, but two thirds of Labour supporters backed our call for a Remain vote.
I was elected leader of our party, for a new kind of politics, by 60% of Labour members and supporters. The need for that different approach now is greater than ever.
Our people need Labour Party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite. As leader it is my continued commitment to dedicate our party’s activity to that goal.
Leader of the Labour Party
Well folks. I’ve been away and just catching on the news. It’s been purported that daggers are out again for Jeremy Corbyn this time the edges are very sharp this is on the grounds that team Corbyn did not do enough for the LabourIn campaign. If I have any decency of respect and honesty I will add my two pennies worth having been involved with the campaign from the moment it was officially launched nationwide. I did NOT see Jeremy Corbyn at the launch from day one. The Members of Parliament that were heavily involved were Alan Johnson, Emma Reynolds, John Healey and Neena Gill MEP the campaign began in the socialist republic of Birmingham and then it went very quiet for a while this was on the grounds of a Local Government, and Police Crime Commissioner Elections and the party did not want the voters to get confused which is very understandable.
If I’m honest enough the Stronger In for Britain had a very good start from day one they started their campaign in some parts of Birmingham which was a cross party led they received a better coverage across Birmingham and nationally compared to LabourIn campaign. I know that the chair of LabourIn (Alan Johnson) team was in daily contact with Team Jeremy Corbyn and they were giving very mix messages to Team LabourIn. Valuable time was lost on all the council estates where Labour core support came from, whilst the Leave campaign capitalize on this and made gains during the in / out referendum on the days leading to the vote on 23 June.
It’s a bit rich to make claims that Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to the remain campaign coming from the hard left and they have no representation in Parliament considering that he only got involved with the campaign two weeks before the vote took place. The truth is in some parts of the country the Labour Party membership does not view Jeremy Corbyn as a statesman let alone holding the keys to number 10 Downing Street it’s for this reason there are many insider of Labour foresee a snap General Elections and a by-election being called at short notice. This has nothing to do with New and Old Labour the labelling must cease as if does no justices. Let’s not forget that Blair, Brown, and Miliband are no longer the leaders of Labour they are former leaders.
Jeremy Corbyn was only elected nine months ago and he still have lots to learn just like other leaders after all he is only human and like human being will make mistakes along his journey as a leader. I was invited to a community event yesterday whilst at the event I was speaking to a Conservative member who lives up the road from me and he was informing me with glee that he loves it when our Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) continue with their antics as it helps his party to get elected so he thanks Labour for infighting keep it up. I recognize that Corbyn has offered an olive branch by offering cabinet positions to previous cabinet members and some decided to return to the backbenches which is understandable and some decided to remain in the front bench to help to bring about the new politics whilst this may work for the short term I’m more concerned about the long term of the direction of our party. Sure there are some things I will concur with and some I will disagree with like any other party members. I will continue to advocate when our party gets it policy right I will praise it and when the party gets it wrong I will criticize the policies like the rest of the membership this is called democracy and this will help the party. What I’m getting from my close circle of friends is what they are thinking about currently happening in the Labour Party.
Many MPs were led to believe by some colleagues that Jeremy would go quickly if they went for a no-confidence motion. They were still in shock after losing the referendum and seeing Cameron immediately go. But in spite of 172 MPs signing the motion, Jeremy wouldn’t budge. He has the mandate and if he stood again, would win big. So that’s why they kept trying to push him to go and not put up a candidate. However, it could be Jeremy was also staying on to buy time for another similar candidate so they could build support amongst the PLP to get enough signatures to get on the ballot. At this stage, that support isn’t there. So what we have is a standoff, with neither side publicly wanting to back down but privately wishing they could. But they can only do that if a compromise comes forward.
However I do not accept from the hard left argument that the REMAIN supporters deployed an argument in the EU referendum that a Leave vote would inevitably usher in a Boris Johnson-led government intent on igniting a bonfire of human rights. The Left Leave (Lexit) counter-argument was that defeat for David Cameron government’s Remain stance would set Tories at each other’s throats. There may be some evidence to suggest that hard-right maverick Johnson to be a front-runner in the Tory leadership stakes, but he has failed to make it to the stalls. My opinion is whoever becomes the leader of the Tory Party he or she wants to send Boris Johnson to meet the EU leaders and if anything on his return from his meeting with them they will consider invoking a further referendum to remain.
There many in Labour predicted correctly that Cameron’s defeat would spark Tory intercine conflict against which even rats in a sack might turn up their noses. Tory inner-party chaos should offer prime opportunities to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, which has acquitted itself very well since his election last September.
Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell promised different politics and stood by it most decisively by declaring that austerity-lite Labour was henceforth an anti-austerity party. They dropped decades-long hostility to public ownership, insisting that Labour would renationalise our railways and enthused hundreds of thousands of mainly younger people to join Labour.
Corbyn’s Labour took a new approach in Parliament, exploiting Tory divisions to oblige Cameron and George Osborne to retreat on welfare cuts, compulsory schools academisation in England, Saudi prison contracts, an entire Budget and support for steel industry survival. Labour has thrived electorally, retaining office in Wales, winning four mayoral contests, increasing its share of the vote in parliamentary by-elections and all but emulating a previous high in English local elections.
Not a bad scorecard, after just nine months, to use as a launch pad for attacking a Tory Party holed below the waterline. But he faces sustained attack from his own side through a campaign of rolling resignations, carping criticism and relentless demands that he chuck in the towel because he cannot win a general election.
What upsets Labour most about Corbyn is not his supposed “un-electability.” Precisely the opposite. Well we will never know until this happens. There is no suggestion that Tony Blair, who is doubtless hoping that a Labour leadership election will divert attention from the Chilcot inquiry report. I will wait and see what the report has to say before commenting when it will finally be published Wednesday 6th July 2016.
So people are coming forward saying they are offended by my posts on Corbyn. The leader has lost the confidence of 82% of MPs, he appeared half way through the EU campaign (I did more work on the referendum than Corbyn), every other person I speak to in my ward cite him as the reason they don’t trust labour at the moment and the gap between us and the Tories on trust on the economy is widening.
Here is what some more people have said:
During the campaign I went into my local shop who happens to be a Labour voter including his whole family to pickup a few items and we got talking his actual words “ This Corbyn fellow all I read and hear him say no, no to everything, when is he going to get off his backside and start leading Labour. He is useless get rid of him he can’t even organise a piss in a brewery let alone form a Labour Government and if he insist on not listening to soundings then we will not vote Labour”.
Then a couple that lives around the corner said “This Corbyn guy is not up to the job get rid of him he has no experience of front bench and we are disappointed in him give us an application form to join Labour and we will vote to get rid of him. We read the papers you know”.
I’m getting tired of the constant refrain from the disciples of the Blessed Corbyn that goes something like this:
“Jeremy was voted leader of the party with a huge mandate from members of nearly 60%. It is wrong for MPs in the parliamentary party to try to negate that election result by saying that they have no confidence in his leadership, and so putting pressure on him to stand aside.”
The primary purpose of the Labour Party is defined in the party’s rules as “to organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party”. The party’s leader is elected “from among Commons members of the PLP”.
The parliamentary party, then, is an absolutely critical and central element in Labour’s very raison d’etre. Without it, the party would be meaningless and irrelevant. But the system that the party has adopted for electing the leader now places significantly less importance on the role of this crucial element of the party’s structure than it previously did. It used to be the case that the PLP formed one third of an electoral college for choosing the party’s leader, the other two thirds being represented by affiliated trades unions and the membership at large respectively. This meant that the crucially important parliamentary party, with whom the chosen party leader would have to work, as well as inspire and command the loyalty of, correctly had a commensurate voice in electing the leader. Now, members of the parliamentary party have only the same individual vote as all members (and registered supporters) of the party. The PLP retains a secondary role in the election process in terms of providing the nominations that a candidate for the leadership requires to stand. In Corbyn’s case, this meant that he found it almost impossible to achieve the nominations that he needed within the PLP, and only scraped onto the ballot paper at the eleventh hour by appealing to the kindnesses of parliamentary colleagues who were unfavourable to his leadership aspirations and who would not vote for him, as well as finding the idea that he could succeed as leader not credible, but who nevertheless lent him their nomination because of a (misguided) sense of fair play.
As we know, Corbyn was then elected leader with an impressive majority of the voting members, and it is this nugget that the Corbyn worshippers cling onto with the iron grip of a limpet to a rock.
But the leadership of the Labour Party *cannot* solely be about the numbers achieved in a ballot to elect the leader. There is the matter of that leader’s performance in executing the role of leader – specifically, the absolutely critically, centrally important element of the role that involves leading the party’s elected representatives in parliament. That simply must be a consideration in any continuing assessment of whether the leader that we have elected is proving to be effective in the job – together with, perhaps regrettably, how the leader is viewed by the country’s electorate as being a credible Prime Minister in waiting. On the latter, there is considerable polling evidence, as well as other, practical evidence – I’ve lost count of the doorstep conversations I’ve had with voters who were viscerally keen to tell me that they cannot vote Labour with Corbyn as leader. On the former, there is no argument any more. Corbyn has lost the confidence of 82% of the parliamentary party. He has had to re-appoint virtually his entire front-bench team from the few members left that remain loyal to him. There is *no* leadership in parliament.
Those 172 members of the PLP that expressed no confidence in Corbyn’s leadership are not “selfish”, or “treacherous” or even “traitors” as some of the more abusive Corbynites would have it (as an aside, it is interesting that the “kinder, gentler politics” espoused early on by Corbyn has now been lobbed out of the window by many of his supporters). These are people who are deeply committed to the Labour Party and to the imperative of providing Labour representation to people that desperately need it – so deeply committed that they have been prepared to submit themselves to the interminable hoop-la that is the business of being selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate, and the grindingly endless slog of getting elected in their constituencies. They are people who have experienced at close quarters Corbyn’s leadership style, his effectiveness (or the lack thereof), his way of working, whether he inspires or whether he can take people with him. And they’ve sadly concluded – having tried, in nearly every case, first of all to make things work – that Corbyn’s performance in every one of those areas has fallen significantly, unacceptably short of the standard required. And further, that with Corbyn as leader, the chances of the Labour government that so many people so urgently need are so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. It is this, not “self-centredness”, that motivates them.
I think that rather than being reviled as they have been by Corbyn’s disciples, those members’ views need to be respected and listened to. If Corbyn stubbornly insists on remaining as leader in these circumstances, and on fighting another leadership election, which he may win, what then? We are exactly where we are now in a totally unsustainable position.
I’m very much afraid that if Corbyn knew anything at all about leadership, he would know that a key quality of a true leader is knowing when to relinquish the role. By insisting on remaining, he reveals why his leadership has been so poor.
Whatever happens, the party, if it still exists as recognisably the Labour Party when we are through all of this, will need to look again at revising the system of electing its leader. It is clearly unsustainable to retain a system that affords the party’s membership at large repeated opportunities to saddle the party in parliament with a leader who simply cannot lead.
What’s happening in the Labour Party? Can I suggest who’s ever side of the argument your on we auto raising it on such as Facebook Twitter etc. Members should attend ward/ branch meetings and debate if they wish then submit proposals to the CLP GMC who can then look at agreeing a position to send to the NEC.
We should be doing the opposition job of fighting for the weak and poor in society who will be battered whoever wins the Tory leadership, non are friends of the working people – despite their claims in the EU campaign – so let’s remember who the enemy is and fight them tooth and nail