Jeremy Corbyn 3

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

No Michael, I do hope that Labour gets as many MPs as possible so as to manintain the Corbynites at a level below 15% of the caucus. I have posted before on this topic and provided several links as to how important this is for the future leadership contest.

The Conservatives have been disasterous for Britain. You need only consider the fallouts from Brexit and the Scottish referendum

Any broadly acceptable Labour leader could beat May. The great tragedy of this election is that Corbyn is ruining Labour's chances.

If he were less egotistical and ideologically myopic he woyuld realize this and step aside for the good of his party.

That's not what I meant, nicky. The big disappointment for you would be if Labour did much better than anyone expects, despite your personal animus against Corbyn. Then you would be forced to face the actual policy issues which you have so far avoided like the plague.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

Any broadly acceptable Labour leader could beat May. The great tragedy of this election is that Corbyn is ruining Labour's chances.

Do you have a list of those potential leaders and any polling data to back the claim up?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The big disappointment for you would be if Labour did much better than anyone expects, despite your personal animus against Corbyn. Then you would be forced to face the actual policy issues which you have so far avoided like the plague.

If Labour doesn't do well, will you similarly be forced to face something?  Or will you say "well, of course he lost, because nicky!"

I think I suggested, far upthread, that if nothing else the election is an opportunity for both Corbynites and anti-Corbynites to prove themselves right.

josh

nicky wrote:

No Michael, I do hope that Labour gets as many MPs as possible so as to manintain the Corbynites at a level below 15% of the caucus. I have posted before on this topic and provided several links as to how important this is for the future leadership contest.

The Conservatives have been disasterous for Britain. You need only consider the fallouts from Brexit and the Scottish referendum

Any broadly acceptable Labour leader could beat May. The great tragedy of this election is that Corbyn is ruining Labour's chances.

If he were less egotistical and ideologically myopic he woyuld realize this and step aside for the good of his party.

You're out of your mind if you think another leader would result in Labour winning.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You're out of your mind if you think another leader would result in Labour winning. 

Is that another way of saying that Labour cannot win?  If they probably won't win with Corbyn, and they probably wouldn't with literally any other person, then what's the real problem?  I'm hoping the answer isn't "it's the Main Stream Media!!!" or "it's Neo Liberalism!!!" or whatever.

If you're predicting a Corbyn win then that's obviously a reasonable answer.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If Labour doesn't do well, will you similarly be forced to face something?  Or will you say "well, of course he lost, because nicky!"

No, I don't think nicky, you or I will have any impact whatsoever on the result of the election.

I was complaining about the fact that, since Corbyn was first elected leader, nicky has ceaselessly harped on the poor polls, to the exclusion of anything else. He has refused to say where he stands on Corbyn's major policies, whether he thinks the Labour Party needs to become more anti-corporate, or just get a bigger share of corporate political grease.

My positions are clear, I agree with Corbyn on most issues, so if Corbyn gets his ass kicked, I'll have to admit that the British electorate does not share my political preferences. nicky won't even say what his preferences are, except that they aren't "hard left".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, I don't think nicky, you or I will have any impact whatsoever on the result of the election.

Well, fair enough.  To be honest, I don't know how eager I'd be to express opinions about this or that if I thought I was suddenly going to change those things.

OK, some things, maybe.  :)

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

No Michael, I do hope that Labour gets as many MPs as possible so as to manintain the Corbynites at a level below 15% of the caucus. I have posted before on this topic and provided several links as to how important this is for the future leadership contest.

The Conservatives have been disasterous for Britain. You need only consider the fallouts from Brexit and the Scottish referendum

Any broadly acceptable Labour leader could beat May. The great tragedy of this election is that Corbyn is ruining Labour's chances.

If he were less egotistical and ideologically myopic he woyuld realize this and step aside for the good of his party.

You know its too late now to replace him.  Its impossible to change leaders DURING an election campaign.  No party in any parliamentary election has ever done that.

And it's arrogant to assume that "acceptable" has to mean centrist and pro-war.  Nothing Labour could happen under any leader who bombed Syria and kept UK troops anywhere in the Muslim world.  Or under any leader who supports the benefits cap and the "budget charter" that mandates a balanced budget.  You'd have to concede the point there.

It's also arrogant to assume that the larger the PLP, the more anti-Corbyn.

BTW, Corbyn would have stood down months ago if he'd been given a commitment that the next leadership ballot would not be centrists-only.  Given that the overwhelming majority of the actual Labour selectorate wants the party to be clearly to the left of Blair, wouldn't you have to agree that leadership ballot with no one but "moderates" could not possibly have any democratic legitimacy?  

 

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
No Michael, I do hope that Labour gets as many MPs as possible so as to manintain the Corbynites at a level below 15% of the caucus. I have posted before on this topic and provided several links as to how important this is for the future leadership contest.

That makes no sense. If Labour has a dramatically expanded Caucus as a result of the election, wouldn't the new MPs attribute their success in part to the current leader and thus be more likely to support him?

nicky

I have been asked what my policy differences might be with Corbyn might be. They are largely summed up in this Guardian editorial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/labour-manifesto-g...

Corbyn remains utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of British voters. He is perceived as simplistic, divisive, incompetent, tolerant of terrorism and anti-semitism and not very bright to boot.He aligns himself with hard line ideologues and does nothing to disassociate himself from their bullying and often sexist tactics. This despite pleas from many women Labour MPs who have been harassed by his supporters. His supporters have aligned themselves with any number of dismal autocrats including Putin.

I am also asked which potential leader would do better than Corbyn. It seems to be an article of faith with some that no one would do better.

now it may be true that there are no polls asking how better Labour might do if Starmer or Cooper or Lewis or Umanan or Eagle or Nandy etc were leader.

But the tired claim that no one wd do better than Corbyn borders on the imbecilic. It ignores:

1. No leader in the history of polling has EVER polled lower than Corbyn. He is subject not just to mild disapproval based on not being well known. He is positively mocked and reviled.

2. Labour as a party is now polling at roughly 30%. Corbyn' approval is south of 20%. There is no other way to look at these numbers but to conclude that Labour stands to do much better we're it not sabotaged by the anvil around its deck which is its ridiculous present leader.

 

josh

Now you've moved from "winning" to "do better."  Big difference.  And whether another pallid Labour campaign like the last two could do better is debatable.

nicky

Josh. I said "MUCH better"

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

I have been asked what my policy differences might be with Corbyn might be. They are largely summed up in this Guardian editorial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/labour-manifesto-g...

Corbyn remains utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of British voters. He is perceived as simplistic, divisive, incompetent, tolerant of terrorism and anti-semitism and not very bright to boot.He aligns himself with hard line ideologues and does nothing to disassociate himself from their bullying and often sexist tactics. This despite pleas from many women Labour MPs who have been harassed by his supporters. His supporters have aligned themselves with any number of dismal autocrats including Putin.

This calls for a little unpacking. When pressed on his policy disagreements with Corbyn, nicky produces this list:

  1. "Corbyn remains utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of British voters." Polls, polls, polls, not policy.
  2. "He is perceived as simplistic, divisive, incompetent, tolerant of terrorism and anti-semitism and not very bright to boot." Not a lot of policy in there either, but there are a lot of unsupported smears.
  3. "He aligns himself with hard line ideologues and does nothing to disassociate himself from their bullying and often sexist tactics." Bullshit.
  4. "His supporters have aligned themselves with any number of dismal autocrats including Putin." This one doesn't even make it to the status of personal attack. It's a clear example of guilt by association.

I'd say you've got nothing but a whole lot of unfair, dishonest personal attacks. The reason is that you don't want to admit that you actually support austerity and other neo-liberal policies, and you are infuriated that anyone should question your beliefs. You firmly believe that your opinions are the only ones that count. I guess it's just that big-shot Toronto lawyer mentality.

josh

nicky wrote:

Josh. I said "MUCH better"

You said, "could beat May."

nicky

Wjatever I said Josh it is clear that Corbyn will lose by a much greater margin than any other potential leader who is not in Corbyn's camp and that some of those other leaders might actually win.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

I have been asked what my policy differences might be with Corbyn might be. They are largely summed up in this Guardian editorial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/labour-manifesto-g...

Corbyn remains utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of British voters. He is perceived as simplistic, divisive, incompetent, tolerant of terrorism and anti-semitism and not very bright to boot.He aligns himself with hard line ideologues and does nothing to disassociate himself from their bullying and often sexist tactics. This despite pleas from many women Labour MPs who have been harassed by his supporters. His supporters have aligned themselves with any number of dismal autocrats including Putin.

I am also asked which potential leader would do better than Corbyn. It seems to be an article of faith with some that no one would do better.

now it may be true that there are no polls asking how better Labour might do if Starmer or Cooper or Lewis or Umanan or Eagle or Nandy etc were leader.

But the tired claim that no one wd do better than Corbyn borders on the imbecilic. It ignores:

1. No leader in the history of polling has EVER polled lower than Corbyn. He is subject not just to mild disapproval based on not being well known. He is positively mocked and reviled.

2. Labour as a party is now polling at roughly 30%. Corbyn' approval is south of 20%. There is no other way to look at these numbers but to conclude that Labour stands to do much better we're it not sabotaged by the anvil around its deck which is its ridiculous present leader.

 

Can we assume that the personal unpopularity the polls supposedly show is truly based on Corbyn's performance of his duties as leader, and that the relentless, often irrational and at times deeply dishonest attacks the right-wing majority of the PLP have incessantly aimed at him since he took over in the leadership had nothing whatsoever to do with it?  

It's possible that someone like Clive Lewis might do well as leader.  From what I've heard, I like Clive. 

But answer this:

Since Clive's views on the issues are essentially identical with Corbyn's, do you actually think the PLP would allow him or anyone else who wasn't a total reactionary onto a leadership ballot?  That has been the basic dilemma over the demands that Corbyn simply leave-that the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, due to years of control-freakery in the nominations process under socialism-haters like Kinnock, Blair and Gordon Brown, are on the extreme right wing of the party-that they represent the only section of the party at all who still think that Blairism is "the line" from which no deviation can be tolerated-and that they would not allow anyone who wasn't a vindictive left-hating elitist from contending on the next leadership ballot.  You will concede that there's no way a leadership ballot with only centrists could not possibly have any democratic legitimacy, given that the overwhelming majority of the party selectorate want Labour to make a decisive break with the Third Way, right?  An "interim leader" would not be Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy. It would be a right-wing militarist who promised to keep punishing benefits claimants and unions.

If they wouldn't accept any of the people you listed there other than far right people like Yvette Cooper, or a guy like Da Jarvis-who as a former paratrooper in the Iraq War would be a right-wing militarist(and we can assume they wouldn't ever have accepted anyone like them or like Chuka Umunna)how could it ever have been reasonable to expect Corbyn to agree to leave his supporters totally unprotected from expulsion?

Since Corbyn's actual policies are popular, they should have signed an ironclad agreement that, in exchange for Corbyn standing down, there'd be no expulsions and suspensions and those that occurred before would be revoked, and agreed to let those eligible to vote for the leadership in 2015 and 2016.  They should have just made it about asking Corbyn himself to go...NOT made it about erasing his supporters and their principles from the party.

This matters deeply, because no one who could possibly have been chosen as leader on a "let's forget Corbynism ever happened", as you'd have to concede, could possibly have created an electoral program that won the support of the Corybyn movement-and Labour can't win WITHOUT the Corbyn movement.  There's simply no large group of people to the right of them that could ever take their place in large enough numbers.

The collapse of the LibDem vote(the LibDems may actually do WORSE this time than in 2015)is proof of that.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Can we assume that the personal unpopularity the polls supposedly show is truly based on Corbyn's performance of his duties as leader, and that the relentless, often irrational and at times deeply dishonest attacks the right-wing majority of the PLP have incessantly aimed at him since he took over in the leadership had nothing whatsoever to do with it? 

That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Can we assume that Mulcair lost because some people criticized him and therefore it's their fault, not his?  In a democracy, people are allowed to like what they like, and dislike what they dislike.  Even if it's because someone else told them so, and even if it's in total defiance of someone else telling them so.

But I don't think it makes any logical sense to say that "millions of new voters have signed on to support Corbyn" and at the same time pre-excuse a potential failure on his part by saying that "some elected members don't support him and so the electorate naturally followed suit".

If your point is that Corbyn is well liked and electable (or if your point is that he's not liked and is not electable) then in a little over three weeks, we'll have our answer.  I see no real merit in trying to second guess the results in order to give either side a convenient "out" if they lose.  Labour isn't about to replace Corbyn, so now it's up to the electorate, isn't it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Neither Corbyn nor his followers have tolerted antisemitism.  In the vast majority of cases, what was called antisemitism was simply anti-Zionism or non-Zionism.  

​There were not "many incidents" of female Labour MPs being harassed by Corbyn supporters.  Angela Eagle, an MP from the Labour Right who by happenstance is lesbian, claimed that people at a meeting of her constituency party made homophobic comments about her.  A woman who attended the event, whose own daughter was just about to marry her same-sex partner, was at the meeting and stated that no homophobic comments were made and that Angela Eagle wasn't even AT the meeting-in the interests of full disclosure, Angela Eagle's constituency party never wanted her to be the Labour candidate there-she was imposed as candidate by the party central office instead of the candidate the constituency party preferred, a candidate who committed the unforgiveable crime of continuing to be a socialist in the years when Labour was abandoning not only socialism but everything else it stood for.   She is hated by her constituency party because she has no socialist or even social democratic convictions, shows no respect for the wishes of the constituency party-i.e., the people who are responsible for her having a seat at all with everything they do to work for the election of Labour candidates year in and year out, and she has worked ceaselessly against not only Jeremy himself but against all social movements and against any notion of reviving the socialist idea in any form.

None of Corbyn's supporters had any issue with her sexual orientation(most LGBTQ Labourites are on the party's left wing, and many of Corbyn's own supporters are LGBTQ).

Nicky, I think you have formed your views of Labour politics mainly by reading what is posted at Labour List, Labour Uncut, the Guardian and New Statesman-four webpages made up almost entirely of party insiders who cannot forgive the rank-and-file by not deferring to "their betters" and choosing a small-c conservative like Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall.

And the reason most of the anti-Corbynites call Corbyn supporters "Trots" is that they themselves started out political life as Stalinists.  The Third Way is essentially Chinese-style "market Stalinism" adopted to electoral politics.  

​Just thought you should be aware of the worldview of the people you seem to have spent most of your time listening to on this.

 

You also have to allow for the fact that the Corbyn movement has been the subject of lie-based coverage from most of the UK press ever since Jeremy won the leadership.

He never aligned himself with tyrants.  He simply used some phrases("my friends in Hamas")that diplomats use in a negotiating process.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Angela Eagle, an MP from the Labour Right who by happenstance is lesbian, claimed that people at a meeting of her constituency party made homophobic comments about her.  A woman who attended the event, whose own daughter was just about to marry her same-sex partner, was at the meeting and stated that no homophobic comments were made and that Angela Eagle wasn't even AT the meeting-in the interests of full disclosure, Angela Eagle's constituency party never wanted her to be the Labour candidate there-she was imposed as candidate by the party central office instead of the candidate the constituency party preferred, a candidate who committed the unforgiveable crime of continuing to be a socialist in the years when Labour was abandoning not only socialism but everything else it stood for.

So.. the real issue is:

1.  someone made homophobic comments about Angela Eagle.

2. some woman, whose honesty is beyond reproach because her daughter is about to marry her girlfriend, says no such thing happened.

3.  Angela Eagle wasn't even there.

4.  Angela Eagle's constituency didn't even want her to be the candidate.

5.  Angela Eagle was pressed into being the local candidate by her constituency office.

6.  That constituency office actually preferred another candidate.

7.  That candidate was blacklisted for having the audacity to support Socialist goals.

There's just a lot going on here.  Which is it?

 

nicky
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

No Corbyn supporter made homophobic comments about Angela Eagle.  The statement of the women at the meeting where the remarks were said to have occurred proves that.

The "threats" were that anti-Corbyn(i.e., right-wing)female Labour MPs might be deselected.  Gender had nothing to do with that.  There is no difference between calling for the deselection of a female MP and of a male MP.  It's simply about not re-nominating a politician for another term in the office that politician currently holds.

The MPs said the FELT they had been threatened with rape.  They did not provide proof that any such threats had actually been made.  You are aware of the fact that politicians don't always tell the truth, are you not?

​Rape threats are unacceptable, but there is no proof that any such threat came from an actual Corbyn supporter.  It's perfectly easy for right-wing misogynists to pretend to be Corbyn supporters in phone messages or on social media.

The "brick through Angela Eagle's office window" story has been widely discredited.  A window was broken on the side of the office block in which Angela Eagle's office window was located,, so we don't know if Ms. Eagle's office was the target.  The window that was broken was a short distance away from a pub, and it's just as plausible that a drunk could have broken the window of the building in a random act of violence while staggering home from the pub.  And most of the broken glass was on the ground outside, which would appear to indicate that the brick was thrown from INSIDE the building.

There is far less to the letter from the female MPs than meets the eye.

This is simply about demonizing Jeremy and his supporters by any means necessary.

And in every case, the initial accusations in these matters appeared in Tory newspapers and right-wing websites, none of which have ever shown the slightest interest in fighting rape or rape culture prior to Corbyn's election as leader.

 

 

nicky

When did the Guardian become a "Tory newspaper", Ken?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Angela Eagle, an MP from the Labour Right who by happenstance is lesbian, claimed that people at a meeting of her constituency party made homophobic comments about her.  A woman who attended the event, whose own daughter was just about to marry her same-sex partner, was at the meeting and stated that no homophobic comments were made and that Angela Eagle wasn't even AT the meeting-in the interests of full disclosure, Angela Eagle's constituency party never wanted her to be the Labour candidate there-she was imposed as candidate by the party central office instead of the candidate the constituency party preferred, a candidate who committed the unforgiveable crime of continuing to be a socialist in the years when Labour was abandoning not only socialism but everything else it stood for.[/quote

 

 

There's just a lot going on here.  Which is it?

 

1) Angela Eagle was imposed by the central office of the Labour Party(the party's national headquarters in London)against the wishes of the local constituency party.  The central office and the constituency party are entirely different bodies.

2) There were allegations that homophobic slurs were hurled at Angela Eagle at a constituency party meeting(the implication being that they were not only said but said to Eagle's face).  It was proved that Eagle wasn't even at the meeting and that nothing homophobic was said at the meeting.  A woman with a out lesbian daughter whom she fully accepts and supports can be trusted not to lie about the utterance of homophobic slurs.

3) The previous candidate, who only lost to the Tory candidate by 200 votes, WAS in fact barred by the party leadership in London for not abandoning socialism(at a time when the party's leader, Neil Kinnock, had himself abandoned socialism and moved the party slightly to the right of the Liberal Democrats).

Does that clarify matters for you, Magoo?

josh

Yes, it is demonization.  Smearing Corbyn and his supporters be any means necessary.  Corbyn's opponents in the Labour Party and in the press have done him far more damage than the Tories and their press.  

nicky

Here is a very instructive poll released today by Yougov covering 50 Labour held marginals.

1. When asked the generic question of which party you support, the Tories are ahead by a mile. This presumably includes the Corbyn effect.

2. When asked about your local MP,  Labour is at parity.

3. Corbyn's approval rating (and remember these are Labour held seats) is positive 22, negative 63.

It is indisputabl;e that Corbyn is a serious drag on Labour fortunes.

Fortunately many will vote Labour despite Corbyn, often based on their local MP.

This may prevent, despite Corbyn's best efforts, the expected Conservative landslide.

It may also preserve a large number of anti-Corbyn MPs who tend to predominate in the marginals. This will be of immense benefit to Labour in the coming leadership struggle.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/tory-targets-findings-labour-held-m...

nicky

Here is an interesting post on the politicalbetting website. It illustrates how some Labour MPs are attempting to navigate around the Corbyn handicap.

Tulip Siddiq incidentally is one of the MPs who gave Corbyn a complimentary nomination and who now bitterly regrets it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/who-are-the-morons-who-nom...

CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 7,907

 edited 5:07PM

Some thoughts on Hampstead and Kilburn.

Tulip Siddiq was canvassing in my street last week. She came across as engaging and feisty and rather fun. I was impressed by her willingness to debate with me (and others in my household). Were it not for the Corbyn factor - and based on my impressions of her (and what I know of what she has done as an MP) - I might even be tempted to vote for her. I would not be heartbroken if she remained as my MP.

Her line is this:-

1. Nominating Corbyn was a mistake.
2. He will be gone after the election.
3. Cooper, Starmer or Jarvis will be the likely candidates.
4. May will win.
5. Important that she does not get such an enormous win that there is no effective opposition.
6. If Hampstead remains Labour she, Tulip, will be one of the MPs providing such opposition, particularly in relation to Brexit.
7. I should think of the seat rather than Corbyn.

I can understand her strategy. It makes sense for her - and it may succeed, though it will be tight.

But - and it is a very big but indeed - every vote for Labour will be taken by Corbyn as a vote for him and will make it less likely that he will go. 

So 2. won't happen. And if it does (or even if it doesn't) Labour have proved inept at no. 6.

I simply do not want to risk Corbyn using votes for Labour (even if they are given in spite of him rather than because of him) as a reason for him to stay in power and continue his destruction of the Labour party. So much as I liked Tulip and admired her willingness to fight for her seat (in all the time Glenda Jackson was MP I never sight nor sound of her) I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a Labour party which, collectively, has lost its moral compass - sad as that is for the decent people (and there are some - even though some of them have shown all the toughness of marshmallows) in it. 

Corbyn and his particular brand of illiberal leftist politics need to be crushed. This is no time for sentimentality just because Corbyn speaks softly, makes jam and likes gardening. Corbynism is a virus which is destroying a once great and fundamentally decent party. That is a shame for us all, regardless of whether or not we support it.

 

josh

LOL.  More demonization.  Corbyn is truer to Labour's founding purpose than you'll ever be.

Rev Pesky

Sorry nicky, but that last post of yours is just plain laughable. The Labour Party 'losing it's moral compass'??? Jeez, what moral compass was that. Was that the same moral compass that led it to partner the USA in the invasion of Iraq, the supporting of international terrorism? Led by Tony Blair, the international war criminal? Is that the moral compass this anonymous source is talking about?

This anonymous source also mourns the 'illiberal' politics of Corbyn. But, isn't the Labour party a leftist party? It was when it was started long ago, it has always claimed it was leftist, it has always sold itself to the voters as a leftist party. Now some anonymous source complains because it is 'illiberal'. Not much you can say to that except. wow!

Finally the anonymous source refers to the teensy bit of leftism left in the party as the cause of it's destruction. Listen, the Labour Party was destroyed by Tony Blair. With Blair it abandoned any pretence of being a 'Labour' party, and moved further to the right than the Conservative party in Canada.

All Corbyn, and the majority of Labour Party members, are trying to do is shift the party slightly back towards it's traditional territory. Even that small shift is scaring the pants off the right-wing. It's not just that they don't want to implement progressive policies, it's that they don't even want such policies in the debate.  

josh

Exactly.  And what leader has ever been so handicapped in an election by members of his own caucus, who have refused to accept the results of two leadership elections.  Preferring instead to "destroy the village in order to save it."

nicky

I provided to link primarily to show how Labour MPs, even those who might have intially nominated Corbyn, are doing their best to insulate themselves from him. They are front line campaigners and they recognize him as el;ectoral poison, evn if some of you don't.

 

Even if Corbyn is trounced on June 9 some of you will cling to the most pathetic excuses to justify him staying on.

nicky

Something else for some of you to make excuses about:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/05/15/jeremy-co...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

Here is an interesting post on the politicalbetting website. It illustrates how some Labour MPs are attempting to navigate around the Corbyn handicap.

Tulip Siddiq incidentally is one of the MPs who gave Corbyn a complimentary nomination and who now bitterly regrets it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/who-are-the-morons-who-nom...

CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 7,907

 edited 5:07PM

Some thoughts on Hampstead and Kilburn.

Tulip Siddiq was canvassing in my street last week. She came across as engaging and feisty and rather fun. I was impressed by her willingness to debate with me (and others in my household). Were it not for the Corbyn factor - and based on my impressions of her (and what I know of what she has done as an MP) - I might even be tempted to vote for her. I would not be heartbroken if she remained as my MP.

Her line is this:-

1. Nominating Corbyn was a mistake.
2. He will be gone after the election.
3. Cooper, Starmer or Jarvis will be the likely candidates.
4. May will win.
5. Important that she does not get such an enormous win that there is no effective opposition.
6. If Hampstead remains Labour she, Tulip, will be one of the MPs providing such opposition, particularly in relation to Brexit.
7. I should think of the seat rather than Corbyn.

I can understand her strategy. It makes sense for her - and it may succeed, though it will be tight.

But - and it is a very big but indeed - every vote for Labour will be taken by Corbyn as a vote for him and will make it less likely that he will go. 

So 2. won't happen. And if it does (or even if it doesn't) Labour have proved inept at no. 6.

I simply do not want to risk Corbyn using votes for Labour (even if they are given in spite of him rather than because of him) as a reason for him to stay in power and continue his destruction of the Labour party. So much as I liked Tulip and admired her willingness to fight for her seat (in all the time Glenda Jackson was MP I never sight nor sound of her) I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a Labour party which, collectively, has lost its moral compass - sad as that is for the decent people (and there are some - even though some of them have shown all the toughness of marshmallows) in it. 

Corbyn and his particular brand of illiberal leftist politics need to be crushed. This is no time for sentimentality just because Corbyn speaks softly, makes jam and likes gardening. Corbynism is a virus which is destroying a once great and fundamentally decent party. That is a shame for us all, regardless of whether or not we support it.

 

There is nothing illiberal in what Corbyn and his supporters have done or stood for.  Nor was there ever anything liberal in Anglo/American military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world, threats to intervene militarily in Ukraine(there is no "liberal" side in Ukraine-the country is overwhelmingly and permanently bigoted, nationalist and reactionary, with no humane values in any faction that could ever prevail), or in keeping British troops in Northern Ireland for decades and having those troops fight to defend the status quo(I despise the IRA's tactics, but it's ahistorical hypocrisy to imply that that organization is solely or even primarily responsible for the violence-the violence is caused by the sitaution, and Jeremy was one of the first people in mainstream UK politics to admit that the situation had to be changed and to try to get negotiations started-negotiations that required the participation of Sinn Fein to be of any use).

Corbyn has never defended any tyrants-he simply worked to end long-standing conflicts by bringing in everyone who was part of those conflicts to negotiate.  There was never any alternative to that.  The Iranian government is never going to fall...Hamas and Hezbollah are never going to vanish...Putin is going to be there as long as he wants to be. 

The only choice was and is negotiation.  Self-righteous demands that the above groups simply surrender were never going to achieve anything.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If Cooper or Jarvis became leader, Labour would have no reason to exist.  Neither disagrees with the Tories on any major issues, and Jarvis was a paratrooper, which means he can't be for anything but perpetual war as a foreign policy.  

nicky

If they become leader Jeremy could always join the SWP.

As for your fulmination: "(there is no "liberal" side in Ukraine-the country is overwhelmingly and permanently bigoted, nationalist and reactionary, with no humane values in any faction that could ever prevail)"

I have been to Ukraine . I know several fine Social Democrats who manned the barricades to bring down Yanokovits, a true gangster autocrat. You are simply out of your mind making that statement. It really puts in perspective your idolitry of Corbyn.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

If they become leader Jeremy could always join the SWP.

As for your fulmination: "(there is no "liberal" side in Ukraine-the country is overwhelmingly and permanently bigoted, nationalist and reactionary, with no humane values in any faction that could ever prevail)"

I have been to Ukraine . I know several fine Social Democrats who manned the barricades to bring down Yanokovits, a true gangster autocrat. You are simply out of your mind making that statement. It really puts in perspective your idolitry of Corbyn.

I didn't say there were no individuals with progressive or humane values, and I despise the "pro-Russian" leader you mentioned there as much as you do(the leader of the pro-Western side is identical to him in antidemocratic values and criminal character).  I simply meant that the prohibitive majority of the country is unchangeably right-wing, nationalist, and antisemitic-and even if if could, wee both know no Western military intervention would ever lead to Ukraine having government with actual social democratic values(at best, it might lead to a Kerensky-like figure who could only be a center-left figurehead on a right-wing and militaristic government).

​BTW, you know perfectly well that Corbyn isn't even close to being a Trotskyist, so enough already with the "join the SWP" slur.  You can't honestly believe that no one but Fourth internationalists question the infallibility of the Third Way-OR opposes the Tory cuts, the Tory benefit sanctions and the Tory budget charter(all of which, if a Labour government agreed to them, would make any actual Labour policies impossible).

Labour values can ONLY be implemented through increased social spending, public ownership, cooperative management or worker ownership.  They can't ever exist in a company with hieararchical management structure that prioritizes high short-term rate on investment for investors, and they can't be implemented through any form of tax cuts.  As the Iraq War proved, no Western military intervention anywhere can ever lead to Labour values prevailing in any invaded country.

 

nicky

Ken on Ukraine: "I simply meant that the prohibitive majority of the country is unchangeably right-wing, nationalist, and antisemitic."

You are really aping thr Putin line on Ukraine.

In fact the only partry that cound be fairly described,in the delusional way  you tar the whole country, is Pravy Sektor, that got 1.5% of the vote in the last election.

The point has been widely made that in no Eurpean coutry has the far right got so low a vote as in Ukraine.

If anyone is bigoted on this subject you should look in the mirror Ken

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

Ken on Ukraine: "I simply meant that the prohibitive majority of the country is unchangeably right-wing, nationalist, and antisemitic."

You are really aping thr Putin line on Ukraine.

In fact the only partry that cound be fairly described,in the delusional way  you tar the whole country, is Pravy Sektor, that got 1.5% of the vote in the last election.

The point has been widely made that in no Eurpean coutry has the far right got so low a vote as in Ukraine.

If anyone is bigoted on this subject you should look in the mirror Ken

 

 


​The only party close to progressive is the Radical Party, which has 21 seats out of 450.  The rest are center(which basically means "we're Thatcherite, but we'll be less openly nasty about it if that doesn't inconvenience us" nowadays)to center-right(Timoshenko's party, and nowadays of course "center-right" means "far right but we aren't wearing uniforms"  to far-right, which means "we start wearing the uniforms next week").

Nothing and no one worth risking World War III over, and a confrontational policy with Russia over Ukraine has to mean risking World War III.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

It’s now clear what Corbynism represents – so what does the centre do next?

The leak of Labour’s manifesto last week was accompanied by so much political white noise that its true significance was missed. In the Blair and Brown era, the “clause V” meeting was a filter whereby any radical proposals that slipped through the party conference could be jettisoned from the manifesto. But Jeremy Corbyn turned the filter inside out: he used the meeting to make party policy on a scale, and with a rapidity, no annual conference has achieved since he took office. Labour pledged not just to reverse cuts to public services; it pledged itself to a universalist concept of the welfare state, including a Nordic-style childcare system. It pledged to renationalise railways, energy companies and the postal service. And it adopted the philosophy of taxing wealth, not just the incomes of companies and high earners, to pay for it.

The party’s rules are quite clear: all this is now Labour party policy – not some glitterball of slogans to be spun before the electorate for a few weeks and then forgotten. In a single afternoon, Labour became the first major social democratic party to jettison neoliberal economics in its entirety.

quote:

The centrist Labour MPs trying to defend their seats on a local-only platform are doing more than simply omitting Corbyn’s name from leaflets. A script seen by the BBC tells supporters: “Admit Jeremy Corbyn won’t win. Tell voters the country needs good independent-minded MPs.” What to say about Labour’s radical manifesto pledges is not in that script – but its authors will have to come up with something. Because if, as reported, some are planning to resign the whip and go independent, there is no moral basis for doing so if they campaigned on Labour’s manifesto.

At this point you have to consider what’s happening in the liberal centre. When everybody from Conservative Anna Soubry to Vince Cable, through to those on the Progress wing of Labour is talking about the need for a new centrist party, it is logical to assume someone has a plan to form one.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more from the piece i just posted

quote:

I have noticed that this denial reflex becomes stronger the further people are from having to interact with the majority of the electorate, which has accepted Brexit and wants to “make the best of it”. It is stronger among rock stars and celebrity comedians than it is, say, among Lib Dem candidates in south-west England.

The formation of a centrist party after the election would force the liberal-centrist part of civil society to focus on what it actually wants: to stop Brexit or to mitigate its impact; to keep Trident or ditch it; to fight more wars like Iraq or to forswear them?

If a new centrist party emerges, I am in favour of Labour seeking a formal alliance with it, and with the progressive nationalist parties, to oppose hard Brexit and pick up the pieces once economic chaos begins, and the victimisation of minorities starts in earnest.

There are far better examples than Macron v Mélenchon for the left to follow. In Berlin, for example, the city council is Red-Red-Green – an alliance between the social democrats, the former communists and the Greens. They don’t like each other, but they have to work together and negotiate a platform through give and take. It is much better to do it this way than the “winner takes all” battle that led to Labour’s new manifesto.

josh

Corbyn is running 10 points better than Milliband was on the question of whether he is ready to become PM.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9884

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The final paragraph of that article deserves to be quoted in full.

UKPollingReport wrote:
MORI asked a question about whether Labour were ready to form a government (30% think they are, 60% think they aren’t) and whether Jeremy Corbyn is ready to be PM (31% think he is, 60% think he isn’t). Both questions were also asked about Labour under Ed Miliband in 2015 – figures on the party being ready for government are similar (33% thought Labour were ready in 2015, 30% do now), on the leadership question Jeremy Corbyn actually scores substantially better (31% think he is ready to be PM, only 21% thought the same about Miliband).

So, despite nicky's incessant wailing, more voters think Corbyn is ready to be PM than did for Miliband in the previous election. Imagine how much better things could be if the Blairites hadn't been smearing Corbyn since even before he was elected leader.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So, despite nicky's incessant wailing, more voters think Corbyn is ready to be PM than did for Miliband in the previous election.

Did Miliband win?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Did nicky say that Miliband would be the death of the Labour Party?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

For all we know, Nicky did.  Many of the MPs who have trashed Corbyn relentlessly from the right did the same thing to Ed Miliband(abetted by Ed's brother David, who refused ever to denounce the totally baseless claim that Ed "stabbed [David]in the back" by defeating David for the leadership)throughout his tenure as leader, and who sabotaged him during the 2015 campaign by announcing that a Labour government would continue to make the sort of cuts in social benefits that the Tory-LibDem coalition had been imposing.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

x

Pages