Monday, January 04, 2016

The New Statesman reports that Corbyn's Labour is in trouble

When a party adopts a policy of no compromise with the electorate it rarely ends well.

The people who backed Tony Benn when he argued that the voters elected Margaret Thatcher because Michael Foot wasn't left wing enough, the people who voted IDS because they thought the voters elected Tony Blair because William Hague wasn't right wing enough, and the people who voted Jeremy Corbyn because they thought Ed Miliband wasn't left wing enough differ on many things:

but mainly on which alternative planet they were on.

Even now some Corbynistas are still posting on social media the idea that the Tories are frightened of Jeremy Corbyn. These people are not safe out alone on their own.

The only sense in which any Tory in Britain is scared of Jeremy Corbyn is that those of us who agree with the maxim that

"no government can be long secure without a formidable opposition"

are concerned that the Conservative government is more likely to make avoidable mistakes because instead of getting a proper challenge from the opposition benches we face the most utterly incompetent, ridiculous and shambolic opposition which any British government has faced in my lifetime.

Glen O’Hara, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Oxford Brookes University, has an article in the New Statesman's "Staggers blog" about the evidence for how well Labour is doing in polls and local elections and concludes that

"The Labour party as we have known it is in very profound trouble indeed."

Corbyn's echo chamber will probably dismiss this as nonsense because it does not mesh with what they want to believe and will ask Glen O'Hara "Why don't you go and join the Tories?"

They would be wiser to read the article with an open mind.


Jim said...

"no government can be long secure without a formidable opposition"

Is not so much they can't be long secure, Its more the fact they are very secure, even after making some terrible decisions, as there is no real way to stop them without voting in someone whom would make worse ones.

Chris Whiteside said...

Perhaps. I think you and I would both agree that this isn't a good situation for Britain, though.

Jim said...

What do you mean perhaps?

the simple fact of the matter is, much to my dislike, but is:
the people choose the rulers
the rulers rule

the people if they don't like the rulers after a set length of time can kick them out by voting in new rulers.
But if the rulers you can vote in are much worse than the current incompetent rulers, then you have a bit of a problem.

That is why we need Harrogate

Chris Whiteside said...

"If the rulers you can vote in are much worse than the current incompetent rulers, then you have a bit of a problem."

Totally agree. Did you hear Iain Dale tear a strip off a Conservative supporter who paid £3 to vote for Corbyn. Iain would argue, as you and I would, that one of the most irresponsible things you can do in a democracy is deliberately create the situation where the voters have no real choice.

Jim said...

Yes, And I agree with Iain Dale for doing it.

Its absolutely the worst thing anyone could do, a good strong opposition ensures a good strong government, simply by virtue of the fact that if they are not strong and good then they will be out on their lug hole come the next election. A very poor opposition means the government only have to be a little bit less bad than the very poor opposition to regain power. This is a terrible situation for the "mother of all parliaments" to be in.