The Labour Thread

[Max]

Yes and I supported and campaigned for those governments and leaderships despite misgivings about them. The Labour Party needs to move forward by getting behind the leadership now. The turf war should be over. Let's try and build bridges and take on the real enemy. Quite frankly this has been horrible and I've lost a great deal of respect for people who I used to admire on both sides.

I am happy to support Labour candidates, despite any differences of opinions on some issues. I am hopeful that it is possible for everyone to move forward together, but I do strongly feel that some on the left of the party are more interested in purifying Labour than they are uniting with those in the party they disagree with. I agree with you that the turf war should be over, but if we see any move towards the deselection of MPs, as I personally think is likely, it will be a very unwelcome development.

 

[Alty]

Well, this evening the results of Labour's National Executive Committee elections were announced, and Corbyn supporters overwhelmingly won.

So, the Corbyn wing have now won the operating section of the party. The part of the Labour Party I identify with won 3 general elections, introduced the minimum wage, implemented devolution to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, and introduced civil partnerships and adoption for LGBT couples. I await with much anticipation the changes to this country that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters will now bring to us all. Whenever you're ready, comrades ...

Those same Governments backed disastrous Private Finance Initiatives, raised the threshold for inheritance tax, built nowhere near enough houses (at the same time as failing to put transitional control on new EU country migration), failed to regulate the banking sector and then of course there's Iraq.

It's not exactly a stellar record.

 

[Max]

Those same Governments backed disastrous Private Finance Initiatives, raised the threshold for inheritance tax, built nowhere near enough houses (at the same time as failing to put transitional control on new EU country migration), failed to regulate the banking sector and then of course there's Iraq.

It's not exactly a stellar record.

It's mixed. There was good and there was bad. I much prefer having a Labour government to having a Conservative one.

The Corbyn wing are split into two types of people: those who don't want to govern, and those who think the public are about to change their mind about him and make him PM. I think they're both wrong, but my point was that you have to be in government to get anything done.

 

[.V.]

Jeremy Corbyn's chance of winning a general election outright is literally zero, report says.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57a985cbe4b07285e131da02?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001

 

[Max]

On non-Corbyn news, Andy Burnham has won the nomination to be Manchester's mayoral candidate ...

 

[Abertawe]

Firstly, there's pages of stuff on this thread you've chosen to ignore because you don't have any answer, so let's not pull at that thread, eh?

Also, I don't think anyone is guaranteed of delivering a Labour victory in 2020. I think anyone would, at present, fail. I think Jeremy Corbyn will lead to a split that will destroy the party. You won't care, because you'll have 'won'. Jeremy won't care, because he'll have 'won'. But the long term consequences will be disastrous.

Labour are polling disastrously, are entirely undivided and are a shambles at the moment. Things could literally not be any worse for the party, so Jeremy has to go before any improvement can be made whatsoever.

The only things I've ignored is stuff that has zero substance. This isn't about any one individual, something you seemingly can't grasp. The reason for the 'shambles' is solely down to the PLP, nothing else. The membership supports the current leadership, as do the vast majority of CLP's & the unions. If a 'split in the party' results in the rich elitest democracy deniers leaving the party they've poisoned for decades then I'm all for it. Labour can be Labour again and set about implementing social justice.

It's mixed. There was good and there was bad. I much prefer having a Labour government to having a Conservative one.

The Corbyn wing are split into two types of people: those who don't want to govern, and those who think the public are about to change their mind about him and make him PM. I think they're both wrong, but my point was that you have to be in government to get anything done.

The "Corbyn wing" are ordinary people who have democratically elected the Labour leadership and have expressed a wish to return politics so that it serves the people. You keep making the 'point' that you need to be in government to get anything done, which is obviously true, unfortunately time & time again you fail to provide any evidence that Corbyn not being leader would lead to electoral success. You even admit there probably isn't anyone who could guarantee success. How's about given that admission you pipe down, stop thinking your some sort of political commentator and show some respect to democracy? Nearly every element of Labour is supportive of the current leadership but the PLP, there's only one force trying to split the party.

You have my genuine pity. So much so I've taken time to post some images for you.

 

[.V.]

More polling.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/763757265396633600

 

[Abertawe]

More polling with no context to current circumstances thus irrelevant, thanks for posting.

 

[.V.]

More polling with no context to current circumstances thus irrelevant, thanks for posting.

Damn those polls showing a consistent trend, and showing Labour behind pre and post coup.

A month old, but the latest I can find. Personal polling figures:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-all-time-low-general-election-a7134761.html

 

[Abertawe]

You're so dumb.

 

[.V.]

You're so dumb.

 

[Max]

The only things I've ignored is stuff that has zero substance. This isn't about any one individual, something you seemingly can't grasp. The reason for the 'shambles' is solely down to the PLP, nothing else. The membership supports the current leadership, as do the vast majority of CLP's & the unions. If a 'split in the party' results in the rich elitest democracy deniers leaving the party they've poisoned for decades then I'm all for it. Labour can be Labour again and set about implementing social justice.


The "Corbyn wing" are ordinary people who have democratically elected the Labour leadership and have expressed a wish to return politics so that it serves the people. You keep making the 'point' that you need to be in government to get anything done, which is obviously true, unfortunately time & time again you fail to provide any evidence that Corbyn not being leader would lead to electoral success. You even admit there probably isn't anyone who could guarantee success. How's about given that admission you pipe down, stop thinking your some sort of political commentator and show some respect to democracy? Nearly every element of Labour is supportive of the current leadership but the PLP, there's only one force trying to split the party.

You have my genuine pity. So much so I've taken time to post some images for you.

Well my evidence, frequently re-iterated, is that all polling and public opinion is rabidly anti-Corbyn, and if that an election were held today, the Tories would probably win a 100 seat majority. Thus, a move away from Corbyn and his 'lets nationalise pharmaceuticals' style ideas can only be an improvement.

You are also very defensive on the issue of democracy in the Labour Party, showing your total disdain for the 63.5m people in this country who are not members of the party, who on balance don't currently rate Labour or Corbyn.

Nearly every element of Labour is supportive? Where do you even get that from, other than your own echo chamber? If Corbyn wins 60-40, 55-45, or 65-35 etc next month, it will become obvious a lot of people are not satisfied with his leadership.

I don't think I'm a political commentator. But you consistently think that dissent should be quelled and that people should 'pipe down'. Asking the general public's opinion is apparently a bourgeois indulgence, according to you. I reserve my right to say that Corbyn is a reductive, ineffective hypocrite, and lobby for something better.

I deleted your facile memes when responding to this - hope that's OK.

 

[Max]

More polling with no context to current circumstances thus irrelevant, thanks for posting.

Highly relevant, really. Last night Jeremy Corbyn said he was ahead in the polls before the 'coup'. This was not true. JC and his acolytes care very much about polling if they think they can use it to their advantage, though. Not so much when it's telling them what they don't want to hear.

 

[Abertawe]

Well my evidence, frequently re-iterated, is that all polling and public opinion is rabidly anti-Corbyn, and if that an election were held today, the Tories would probably win a 100 seat majority. Thus, a move away from Corbyn and his 'lets nationalise pharmaceuticals' style ideas can only be an improvement.

You are also very defensive on the issue of democracy in the Labour Party, showing your total disdain for the 63.5m people in this country who are not members of the party, who on balance don't currently rate Labour or Corbyn.

Nearly every element of Labour is supportive? Where do you even get that from, other than your own echo chamber? If Corbyn wins 60-40, 55-45, or 65-35 etc next month, it will become obvious a lot of people are not satisfied with his leadership.

I don't think I'm a political commentator. But you consistently think that dissent should be quelled and that people should 'pipe down'. Asking the general public's opinion is apparently a bourgeois indulgence, according to you. I reserve my right to say that Corbyn is a reductive, ineffective hypocrite, and lobby for something better.

I deleted your facile memes when responding to this - hope that's OK.

You're supporting scummers who are spending members money to stop members from voting. Democratic socialist my arse

Close the door on your way out

Edit, V is such a fucking cheerleader.

 

[Max]

You're supporting scummers who are spending members money to stop members from voting. Democratic socialist my arse

Close the door on your way out

Edit, V is such a fucking cheerleader.

As ever, when you have nothing to say you resort to being abusive and telling people they should leave.

You never engage with arguments or ideas. If you're typical of other Corbyn supporters, that's a pity, because it's childish and unhelpful.

 

[Max]

Then again we could always brighten the mood:

 

[Abertawe]

As ever, when you have nothing to say you resort to being abusive and telling people they should leave.

You never engage with arguments or ideas. If you're typical of other Corbyn supporters, that's a pity, because it's childish and unhelpful.

No please tell me, how can you purport to be a democratic socialist when you support a side that has used members money to ban members from making a democratic vote?

You're a hypocrite my son.

 

[Max]

No please tell me, how can you purport to be a democratic socialist when you support a side that has used members money to ban members from making a democratic vote?

You're a hypocrite my son.

I don't think any of the court cases were a good idea. The whole thing is a massive farce. It should always have been more difficult to join Labour than just '£3 and you get a vote immediately etc.' but there was no point in trying to stop people voting after the fact.

As ever, you build up some odd straw man to try to attack me, because it's the only way you can pick a fight. I don't agree with absolutely everything the Labour Party does. In the same way you don't agree with everything Jeremy Corbyn does. (At least I hope not). Why can't you accept that we disagree without trying to make it about sincerity? It's like me asking you:

How can you claim to care about equality and support Jeremy when he's friends with rape apologist and terrible human being George Galloway?
How can you claim to be left-wing and support Jeremy, who has appeared on Iranian state TV - for money?
How can you claim to want a new kind of politics and support Jeremy, who lobbied to give political honours to Sami Chakrabarti?

Etc etc etc.

Perhaps rather than expending your energy and anger at me, you would be better re-directing it at Conservatives. Rather than telling me to get out the party, you could apply that attitude to the anti-semites, racists, and abusive arseholes that exist within the membership.

 

[Abertawe]

I don't think any of the court cases were a good idea. The whole thing is a massive farce. It should always have been more difficult to join Labour than just '£3 and you get a vote immediately etc.' but there was no point in trying to stop people voting after the fact.

As ever, you build up some odd straw man to try to attack me, because it's the only way you can pick a fight. I don't agree with absolutely everything the Labour Party does. In the same way you don't agree with everything Jeremy Corbyn does. (At least I hope not). Why can't you accept that we disagree without trying to make it about sincerity? It's like me asking you:

How can you claim to care about equality and support Jeremy when he's friends with rape apologist and terrible human being George Galloway?
How can you claim to be left-wing and support Jeremy, who has appeared on Iranian state TV - for money?
How can you claim to want a new kind of politics and support Jeremy, who lobbied to give political honours to Sami Chakrabarti?

Etc etc etc.

Perhaps rather than expending your energy and anger at me, you would be better re-directing it at Conservatives. Rather than telling me to get out the party, you could apply that attitude to the anti-semites, racists, and abusive arseholes that exist within the membership.

You've basically just deflected the entirety of your tiresome tactics throughout this thread back onto me, bravo sir. Your 'fight' has no sincerity or actual cause, like an over zealous sixth form student desperate to participate in debate, even if they don't actually believe in the argument they put forward, to win the 'debate' matters more than the subject itself. That must ultimately be the reason you've offered nothing to this thread of any substance that benefits the future of the party and consequentially the country. Despite several requests there still hasn't been put forward a viable winning alternative that actually resembles the reality of the situation and the task Labour faces in the coming years. Like a rebel without a cause or as others might term a mere vandal. Should the current leadership be displaced then Labour has zero chance of winning in 2020, more significantly it would cement the neo-liberal agenda which has ensured the 1% get richer whilst the rest work longer & harder for less reward. If you can't see that then I despair, worse though would be if you know it to be the case but carry on supporting it anyway. If that is your agenda then your place isn't in the Labour party. I don't mean to be purposely blunt but it really is as simple as that. You can make as many like inducing snide retorts as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're ideologically opposed to the very essence of the Labour movement. As this leadership schooling election goes on just be sure to take the time out to understand what your actual beliefs are and how that correlates with the actions that your views output. No one is going to ridicule you for having the courage to stand up for your convictions, however as it stands your ideals & agenda has no useful purpose that can be of help to the Labour movement, it may well be the case it's better for you to seek a party that better matches your ideals.

Labour win against Nicola Sturgeons dad. Fucking useless Labour which has no chance of reclaiming Scotland... On it's own nothing to shout about but it certainly flies in the face of the drivel put out there by those with an agenda. NEC victories, majority CLP nominations, near whole union support and overwhelming support of the membership despite the paid for denial of democracy. The PLP are cutting a very lonely figure, of course they still have the establishment behind em but their influence is seeping. As somebody so cruelly put it, what we're seeing now is merely the death twitches of Blairism. PLP are defeated, it's just to be officially declared.

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/764529567319064576

Reality Check: Has Labour been ahead in the polls?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37061605

 

[Max]

You've basically just deflected the entirety of your tiresome tactics throughout this thread back onto me, bravo sir. Your 'fight' has no sincerity or actual cause, like an over zealous sixth form student desperate to participate in debate, even if they don't actually believe in the argument they put forward, to win the 'debate' matters more than the subject itself. That must ultimately be the reason you've offered nothing to this thread of any substance that benefits the future of the party and consequentially the country. Despite several requests there still hasn't been put forward a viable winning alternative that actually resembles the reality of the situation and the task Labour faces in the coming years. Like a rebel without a cause or as others might term a mere vandal. Should the current leadership be displaced then Labour has zero chance of winning in 2020, more significantly it would cement the neo-liberal agenda which has ensured the 1% get richer whilst the rest work longer & harder for less reward. If you can't see that then I despair, worse though would be if you know it to be the case but carry on supporting it anyway. If that is your agenda then your place isn't in the Labour party. I don't mean to be purposely blunt but it really is as simple as that. You can make as many like inducing snide retorts as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're ideologically opposed to the very essence of the Labour movement. As this leadership schooling election goes on just be sure to take the time out to understand what your actual beliefs are and how that correlates with the actions that your views output. No one is going to ridicule you for having the courage to stand up for your convictions, however as it stands your ideals & agenda has no useful purpose that can be of help to the Labour movement, it may well be the case it's better for you to seek a party that better matches your ideals.

Labour win against Nicola Sturgeons dad. Fucking useless Labour which has no chance of reclaiming Scotland... On it's own nothing to shout about but it certainly flies in the face of the drivel put out there by those with an agenda. NEC victories, majority CLP nominations, near whole union support and overwhelming support of the membership despite the paid for denial of democracy. The PLP are cutting a very lonely figure, of course they still have the establishment behind em but their influence is seeping. As somebody so cruelly put it, what we're seeing now is merely the death twitches of Blairism. PLP are defeated, it's just to be officially declared.

My argument has always been pretty clear, that Jeremy Corbyn is a bad leader of Labour. It has been my experience that whenever I put things to you, all I get is strawman arguments and whataboutery. It wouldn't be terrible if you actually put forward some ideas, rather than blind support of Jeremy.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/sunday-mirror-independent-political-poll-august-2016/

New polling, out today, in which among Labour members, Jeremy enjoys a lead of 5% over Owen Smith. Hardly the monumental dominance you claim for Jeremy. Smith wins with the public by 14%, with only 23% of people thinking Jeremy makes the best leader of the party.

Why are you so certain I'm insincere? Why do you think you're the best judge of other people's motives? It is phenomenally arrogant to adopt the position that anyone who disagrees with you must really be brainwashed, because you're essentially saying yours is the only interpretation of the situation. It makes you no better than a conspiracy theorist.

I've been really clear about what I actually think on many occasions. I've defined myself with ideas and policies. You've just continually repeated slogans. The winning alternative is to lead the party credibly. To command the support of colleagues. To talk about issues the public are interested in. The party has to be credible with the public as well as the members. Having rallies for the leader's supporters get us nowhere. Jeremy has been unwilling to aggressively attack the government, and it is making the party irrelevant.

As you noted before, I don't think any Labour leader is likely to win in 2020, but under Jeremy I think it's totally impossible. And worse still, his approach has taken the party backwards and will continue to do so. The Sturgeon's dad council seat was a nice result, but we're talking about a council by-election in which 2,500 or so people vote. Compare it to the national picture in Scotland, which is dire.

Bored of saying this, but apparently you're not bored of hearing it: you don't get to define Labour for everyone else.

Please explain how the following policies suggested by Owen Smith are 'neoliberal' and against the ethos of the Labour party: abolishing zero hours contracts, ending the public sector pay freeze, improving the minimum wage, re-establishing the 50p tax rate, and additionally raising taxes on high earners beyond that. How does any of this ensure, as you put it, the 1% get richer? You don't understand what you are arguing against. You just make up your opposition's point of view and argue against that instead.

I can't speak for your beliefs about policies and ideas (you don't really put anything concrete forward, just vague sloganising about neoliberalism and Blairism), but the long-term future of the Labour party that actually wins general elections is not a Labour Party that thinks all of its own MPs are fascists and scum. If you want to get rid of all the elected representatives, perhaps consider that you're engaged in the takeover of a party? Why not enjoy the unity of people that share your ideas? http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/partydoc/What_We_Stand_For

Jeremy wouldn't have to compromise on any of his principles if he led the Socialist Party. If he's genuinely electable and the public are gonna love him, then this will pose no problem. If he doesn't really want to win a general election anyway, then this also suits him/you down to the ground.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

He appears to be trying to build up Momentum and his followers into a movement, but to what end it is genuinely not apparent.

I don't have an opinion on this; however, I do recommend Richard Seymour's recent book on Corbyn. He's sympathetic to Corbyn but mostly pessimistic about his prospects, so it's far from drippy hagiography. It's not even biography, really – more an attempt to understand Corbynmania in a historical context, particularly regarding the Labour Party. It has some interesting observations on this whole social movement thing.

It might as well be his general election strategy, because those in Labour who are unconvinced by him are unconvinced because we don't think he can talk to the general public. He's politically tone deaf and determined to celebrate his own popularity with his current supporters. He's whipping up his supporters to undertake a future war against the PLP, and to further division within the party.

Corbyn has made it clear that his loyalty is to the party membership rather than the parliamentary caucus; therefore, his obstinacy shouldn't surprise anyone. It's obviously shite to lead a party when you don't have majority support among your parliamentary colleagues, but what was the alternative? Glumly stand aside and hand the party back to people who have no democratic mandate to lead it?

He's been put in a lose-lose situation and he's decided, unsurprisingly, on the course that doesn't involve selling out his principles and the hundreds of thousands of people who have voted and campaigned for him. And my basic point – which you haven't really addressed – is that all criticisms about him spending excessive time with supporters should be considered in that context. He's rallying his supporters in the hope of re-winning the leadership context. He didn't instigate that contest; his opponents did.

I don't think he's politically tone deaf, but his political judgement is often found wanting. His mishandling of the Chakrabarti stuff, for example, showed a naivety bordering on outright incompetence. I'm not saying he should be immune from criticism; I just think the ongoing efforts to discredit him are very often shot through with disingenuousness and unfairness. There's an unmistakable pattern of people creating problems and then vilifying Corbyn for dealing with them. I think that's a bit shit. And I don't say that as an implacable JC fan boy. The Labour Party can spend the next 20 years embroiled in civil war for all I care.

To indulge a thought experiment: let's say David Cameron, while PM, lost the support of 4/5 of his MPs and had nearly his entire shadow cabinet resign. He then wouldn't budge, because he had a mandate, he'd been elected (in a general election, in this case). This argument would not wash. He would resign, and his complaining about the circumstances that led to this situation would rightly garner no sympathy. Whether or not things are your fault as a leader, they are your responsibility, and Jeremy Corbyn fails to understand this.

If David Cameron was PM and most of his cabinet resigned (it wouldn't be a shadow cabinet if he was PM), then the country wouldn't have a functioning government. And if he didn't have enough support among his MPs to form an alternative government, the country would lack (1) a functioning government, and (2) any prospect of having a functioning government under his leadership. That would obviously be intolerable from a national interest point of view. He would be obligated to resign for that reason.

The pressures aren't the same when a party is in opposition. Though far from ideal, the Labour Party can get bogged down in silly internecine fighting without threatening the stability of the country. Those ugly but sometimes necessary fights over a party's identity, character, purpose, etc. ought to be had while in opposition. Also, going back to your hypothetical example: if the psephological data indicted that Cameron had majority support among the electorate (as I think Corbyn still does among Labour Party members), I think there would be sympathy for him. People would probably think unkindly towards those who were trying to depose him.

 

[Max]

I don't have an opinion on this; however, I do recommend Richard Seymour's recent book on Corbyn. He's sympathetic to Corbyn but mostly pessimistic about his prospects, so it's far from drippy hagiography. It's not even biography, really – more an attempt to understand Corbynmania in a historical context, particularly regarding the Labour Party. It has some interesting observations on this whole social movement thing.

Thanks for this - I shall put it on my wishlist. Certainly other stuff I've seen written about him has been so free of objectivism as to make it not worth bothering with, so this looks really good.

Corbyn has made it clear that his loyalty is to the party membership rather than the parliamentary caucus; therefore, his obstinacy shouldn't surprise anyone. It's obviously shite to lead a party when you don't have majority support among your parliamentary colleagues, but what was the alternative? Glumly stand aside and hand the party back to people who have no democratic mandate to lead it?

He's been put in a lose-lose situation and he's decided, unsurprisingly, on the course that doesn't involve selling out his principles and the hundreds of thousands of people who have voted and campaigned for him. And my basic point – which you haven't really addressed – is that all criticisms about him spending excessive time with supporters should be considered in that context. He's rallying his supporters in the hope of re-winning the leadership context. He didn't instigate that contest; his opponents did.

This presupposes that the PLP are 100% to blame. A number of MPs have explained - many of them former supporters - that Jeremy's leadership wasn't working. Jo Cox and Lisa Nandy would be good examples, another is Lillian Greenwood. The Thangam Debbonaire thing is obviously more party management than policy, but didn't look great, and Heidi Alexander has also explained that Jeremy himself did not make it easy to actually get anything done. Owen Smith has reason to talk Jeremy down at the moment, but mentioned that the two of them had only had one meeting about the DWP brief in 9 months, which is inexcusable. The fact he won a big victory with Labour members (myself included, as I voted for him) should not excuse him from doing his job properly. It's not his principles that are a problem, it's his ability to do the job well, which is why the leadership election has been forced. Of course he's rallying his supporters, but that's not enough - by definition he also has to speak to people who disagree with him, or his victory will be a pyrrhic one.

I don't think he's politically tone deaf, but his political judgement is often found wanting. His mishandling of the Chakrabarti stuff, for example, showed a naivety bordering on outright incompetence. I'm not saying he should be immune from criticism; I just think the ongoing efforts to discredit him are very often shot through with disingenuousness and unfairness. There's an unmistakable pattern of people creating problems and then vilifying Corbyn for dealing with them. I think that's a bit shit. And I don't say that as an implacable JC fan boy. The Labour Party can spend the next 20 years embroiled in civil war for all I care.

You're right that a lot of people have not treated him fairly. But it's hard to read what's disingenuous and what's not. The Charkrabarti stuff was really annoying, as that entire episode was avoidable!

If David Cameron was PM and most of his cabinet resigned (it wouldn't be a shadow cabinet if he was PM), then the country wouldn't have a functioning government. And if he didn't have enough support among his MPs to form an alternative government, the country would lack (1) a functioning government, and (2) any prospect of having a functioning government under his leadership. That would obviously be intolerable from a national interest point of view. He would be obligated to resign for that reason.

The pressures aren't the same when a party is in opposition. Though far from ideal, the Labour Party can get bogged down in silly internecine fighting without threatening the stability of the country. Those ugly but sometimes necessary fights over a party's identity, character, purpose, etc. ought to be had while in opposition. Also, going back to your hypothetical example: if the psephological data indicted that Cameron had majority support among the electorate (as I think Corbyn still does among Labour Party members), I think there would be sympathy for him. People would probably think unkindly towards those who were trying to depose him.

Indeed so, it would be the cabinet, not shadow - apologies. I understand the point you are making in principle, but surely you can understand why I think that Labour has the obligation of being a coherent, effective leadership? Jeremy Corbyn seems to think this is now optional, and it doesn't faze him that he can't put together a full shadow cabinet.

Polling from yesterday shows that Corbyn does have 37% of support of Labour voters (rather than members) compared to 32% for Smith. There hasn't been a poll of the Labour membership since the contest has been a two horse race. However, Corbyn's ratings among the general public at large are diabolical - he is now more unpopular than Nigel Farage - and as leader of the opposition he has the duty to appeal to current non-Labour voters.

By the letter of the Labour party law, everything you've said about Corbyn and his position is true. He doesn't have to listen to any dissent and can comfort himself in the fact that he's probably going to win the leadership again. But he cannot (and is making no effort to) repair the current situation, and it's a dereliction of his duty as leader of the opposition.

Bonjour Monsieur Scumbag. Some thoughts embedded in bold.

 

[.V.]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...etter-leader-and-pm-than-jeremy-a3321461.html

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/765520867019423744

 

[Kopper]

The sad fact of the matter is no one is asking why Labour are unelectable. Max wants a leader who will bring some credibility back to Labour. This after finally admitting Labour can't win in 2020. Abertawe is happy with the new Michael Foot.
Max is too invested in Labour winning power to see Corbyn needs to lose catastrophically at the next GE for Labour to be rid of him and to some extent his idealogies.
Labour in the aftermath of that defeat can't lurch back to Blairism. Just as Cameron couldn't go back to Thatcherism.
Labour needs to forge a new identity for itself. With issues and solutions that speak to the heart of what's really wrong with the global economy and ways of tackling it.

For anyone who doesn't know what I mean. Please youtube Jimmy Carter's address to the nation on energy. As relevant today as it was 39 years ago.

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/765877308129509376

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Thanks for this - I shall put it on my wishlist. Certainly other stuff I've seen written about him has been so free of objectivism as to make it not worth bothering with, so this looks really good.

It's not very objective, TBH. Seymour is a Marxist who used to be in the SWP, so the book is inevitably skewed by the sort of biases that go with that. It didn't bother me because the obvious sympathy he has for Corbyn is offset by his pessimism and willingness to question certain points of lefty orthodoxy. A sizeable chunk of it is heavily derived from better books by Peter Mair and Colin Crouch, but it's the best thing on Corbyn I've read. Bugger the wishlist. It's now on a shelf collecting dust, so PM me a postal address if you want me to bung it your way.

This presupposes that the PLP are 100% to blame. A number of MPs have explained - many of them former supporters - that Jeremy's leadership wasn't working.

I don't presuppose that. As I wrote here earlier, I have little difficulty believing some of the criticisms made of him, especially those relating to intra-party organisation and communication. My main objection is to something quite specific, i.e. the various grumbles about him spending too much time with supporters. Perhaps the point has some general validity, but it seems remarkably mean-spirited in the present circumstances for reasons already discussed. IMO it's part of a pattern and quite deliberate. If you disagree, fine.

By the letter of the Labour party law, everything you've said about Corbyn and his position is true. He doesn't have to listen to any dissent and can comfort himself in the fact that he's probably going to win the leadership again. But he cannot (and is making no effort to) repair the current situation, and it's a dereliction of his duty as leader of the opposition.

I suspect his basic position is roughly this: I was elected Leader by the party members; it's therefore for Labour MPs to rally around me to form an opposition and credible prospective government. They have to move towards me, not the other way round. It's not an unreasonable view, though it's obviously complicated by the fact that those MPs stood for election on fairly centrist platform (i.e. the 2015 manifesto). I dunno… You keep saying he's doing nothing to repair the situation. What could he do? At this point would his opponents accept anything less than his resignation?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Jeremy Corbyn is refusing to attend leadership hustings organised by the Mirror, New Statesman, Guardian or Channel Four as his team believe they are all biased against him.

In a email seen by the Huff Post UK, Corbyn’s campaign director Jon Lansman accuses those four media outlets of taking “partisan positions against Jeremy’s leadership or campaign”, adding they “therefore can’t be regarded as impartial hosts or moderators.”

“We are deeply concerned that some of those media organisations or their leading presenters have taken partisan positions against Jeremy’s leadership or campaign, and therefore can’t be regarded as impartial hosts or moderators.

“In the case of broadcasters, they do of course have a statutory duty of impartiality, which the party under successive leaders has always been committed to ensuring is upheld.

“On that basis, we are fine to carry on taking part in Labour party-hosted hustings, including next week’s hustings in Scotland. We would also be glad to take part in, for example, a TULO [Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation]-hosted hustings, as took place last year, if that can be arranged.

“We have agreed to a BBC Question Time-hosted hustings and we are close to agreement on a Sky-hosted hustings. And we would would be happy to do events with Mumsnet and Facebook, depending on the nature of the proposed format.

“However on the basis of the point made above, we would not be prepared to take part in hustings debates hosted by the Mirror, New Statesman, Guardian or Channel Four.

Sky good but Guardian and C4 bad?

 

[.V.]

Sky good but Guardian and C4 bad?

Wonder if he'll carry on with this policy post September should he win.