Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Notalib wrote:

So I noticed a spate of Canadian media today which put Corbyn in the hashmarks in light of the failing Blairite coup to uproot him.

Therefor I thought it might be a good time for a quick study of contrasts.

The Blairites in the Canadian NDP have their Leader Mulcair, whose punishing loss in the last election did not result in his immediate resignation. Instead, they went on to shore him up under the auspices of due process. He then carried forth under those conditions to convention where he was unceremoniously tossed in an unprecedented fashion, the Blairites once again rallied around him and restored his failed leadership for another two years.

Corbyn, a mere 9 months ago won the Leadership with an unprecedented show of support on the first ballot. Since, Labour has won four by elections and we took London with a left wing muslim defeating Boris. The party itself has more members than anytime in history with record breaking sign ups continuing to this day. The Blairites response? To attack the leader, with no due process, and at the very time the governing conservatives slit their own throat opening up a huge opportunity for labour to take power.

But no, the Blairites insist on risking electability at a crucial time as clearly an election is in the offing and the governing party is fatally wounded by working to spin endless bullshit justifying a baseless coup, rooted in the simple fact that they alone don't own and operate the party.

However here in Canada they clearly do own and operate the party as they have managed to prop up their failed and useless leader who has a proven track record of disaster and has set back the party a generation, yet he still leads while they tut-tut Corbyn's leadership in the UK all the while ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of their actions and the bold brutality of their tactics.

And the left wonders why its wandering the wilderness in Canada.

The Blairites of the NDP can be overthrown. If it doesn't happen in the next 4 years it will happen after they lose the next election.

iyraste1313

 Scottish MP Alex Salmond says the coup against Jeremy Corbyn was launched by a core of right-wing Labour MPs because they fear the anti-war leader will seek the impeachment of Tony Blair after the Chilcot report is published on Wednesday.

In an op-ed for the Herald Scotland newspaper, former Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Salmond said he hopes Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq war probe will result in Blair stranding trial.

In a few revealing paragraphs, however, Salmond mulls the obsession of Labour MPs with forcing current leader Corbyn’s resignation.

A leadership contest after the Brexit vote would be understandable, Salmond says, but “what exactly was the urgency in getting the removal vans to visit Corbyn’s office last week?

“I had a conversation on exactly this point with veteran Labour firebrand Dennis Skinner. He answered in one word: ‘Iraq.’ The Skinner line is that the coup was timed to avoid Corbyn calling for Blair’s head next Wednesday from the Despatch Box.”

Several MPs, including Salmond and Corbyn, are expected to call for legal action to be taken against ex-Prime Minister Blair over his role in the Iraq war, namely his distortion of the facts about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Impeachment laws have not been used in Parliament since 1806, but the process could see Blair put on trial and banned from holding a position of power for the rest of his life.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Absolutely, I see it, epaulo (#39). I just happen to find it a hugely dangerous initiative (as I have indicated elsewhere) for the simple reason that at a strategic level, it unnecessarily and unhelpfully blurs the line between a parliamentary road to power (and all that involves in terms of the nitty gritty of electoral politics) and the extra-parliamentary model of mobilisation and movement building. 

Don't get me wrong, - I am a great advocate in and participant in both. But FWIW, given the nature of contemporary western society, the globalised economy, corporate media, prevailing political culture, etc. - and a lifetime of assorted personal / political experiences, - I happen to have concluded that the best we can likely hope for as a model of political change in my lifetime is to elect a moderately progressive government to which we then hold its feet to the fire by issue-driven, popular social movements.

As such, I am hugely suspect and critical of efforts to try and transform social movements into political parties (a la environmentalists + Green Party in Canada) or alternatively transform political parties into social movements (as seems Corbyn's vision and perhaps the LEAP-ists in the NDP). A somene once said, you don't fry an egg with a sewing machine. The tool just isn't built for that purpose. 

 ..to be clear it's not anyone on this board that will be making the actual decision in the labour party. but up to the party members. in this case the ones that support the move to a more militant position. why a more militant position because that is what these folks see as the way to defend themselves against neoliberal forces. and they are not alone because there are many in europe that believe this is the way forward. this is not your position but it is a valid position. the tampering with this being expressed needs to end.

delete in part

lagatta

Good. Please also refer to the thread on that topic and the damning phone conversation between Blair and Bush. (Bush is obviously a total ijut, but a total ijut used to getting his own way).

swallow swallow's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Absolutely, I see it, epaulo (#39). I just happen to find it a hugely dangerous initiative (as I have indicated elsewhere) for the simple reason that at a strategic level, it unnecessarily and unhelpfully blurs the line between a parliamentary road to power (and all that involves in terms of the nitty gritty of electoral politics) and the extra-parliamentary model of mobilisation and movement building. 

Don't get me wrong, - I am a great advocate in and participant in both. But FWIW, given the nature of contemporary western society, the globalised economy, corporate media, prevailing political culture, etc. - and a lifetime of assorted personal / political experiences, - I happen to have concluded that the best we can likely hope for as a model of political change in my lifetime is to elect a moderately progressive government to which we then hold its feet to the fire by issue-driven, popular social movements.

As such, I am hugely suspect and critical of efforts to try and transform social movements into political parties (a la environmentalists + Green Party in Canada) or alternatively transform political parties into social movements (as seems Corbyn's vision and perhaps the LEAP-ists in the NDP). A somene once said, you don't fry an egg with a sewing machine. The tool just isn't built for that purpose. 

That's an interesting perspective and worth talking about, I think, though perhaps the Corbyn issue is too much heat and not enough light to get into it just at the moment. The social movement/party attempt around the NPI is what birthed this web site, if memory serves. The Greens handled the tension one way (the May Way!) and seem pretty divorced from social movements. I'm biased, but I think Quebec Solidaire is managing the balance quite well so far. I thought Corbyn's efforts were interesting and hopeful and might be worth at least one election cycle, but the whole Brexit crisis - or perhaps as some have said the return of the Iraq war lie to the forefront - seems to have brought the contradictions to the fore more rapidly than had been expected..... 

If a moderately progressive government plus a mobilized social movement sector is the way to go, then does it matter whether the NDP or Liberals are in power? Either way, the government needs to be viewed as ally and adversary according to issue and moment.

mark_alfred

If a moderately progressive government plus a mobilized social movement sector is the way to go, then does it matter whether the NDP or Liberals are in power? Either way, the government needs to be viewed as ally and adversary according to issue and moment.

Libs are too in bed with corporate power in my opinion.  However, if they enact PR for next election, then I will be impressed.

mark_alfred

I was curious about the dynamics of this possible leadership challenge, in that it was coming from caucus rather than from the members.  I wondered if that was even possible.  I searched and found this:  Jeremy Corbyn's future: Labour leadership election rules.

Quote:

Can a sitting leader of the party be challenged?

In short, yes, but there are hurdles to overcome.

Anyone wishing to challenge Mr Corbyn needs the backing of 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs. Currently there are 231 Labour MPs and 20 Labour MEPs so any potential candidate needs the formal support of 51 of them.

If a nominee secures this level of support they must then write to Labour's general secretary Iain McNicol announcing their intention to run.

No-one has come forward yet - although potential names said to be in the frame include former shadow business secretary Angela Eagle, former shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and backbencher Dan Jarvis.

It's interesting that it can be initiated from within caucus (though the final decision still rests with the membership).  Useful I suppose if someone who's nuts is chosen by members (note, I'm just speaking generally here).  Then caucus (or simply a member of caucus), after suffering with the chosen one for a time can just decide they need to express their displeasure and put forward an alternative to the membership.  Consider that Trump is likely the chosen one for the GOP -- no doubt there's some in the GOP who in the future would likely appreciate having a way to initiate a redo.

Anyway, if Eagle and/or others did go ahead, would Corbyn be a de facto candidate himself?  Or would he too have to get "20% of Labour MPs and MEPs" endorsements (that being 51 endorsements)?

Quote:

Supporters of Mr Corbyn say if he is challenged he will simply stand again and expect to win. However, there are different opinions on whether Mr Corbyn would have the automatic right to do this

Pro-Corbyn factions within the parliamentary Labour Party say as leader he will automatically be on the ballot paper, but others dispute this.

They point to a Times article in November 2015 which reported that legal advice had been sought by the party which suggested a sitting leader would need to receive nominations from MPs and MEPs in order to stand again.

The only time since 1945 that a sitting Labour leader has been challenged was in 1988 when Tony Benn sought to topple Neil Kinnock. Neil Kinnock says he had to be endorsed by members of the PLP in order to get on the ballot - which some argue has set a precedent.

The issue is crucial because Mr Corbyn could struggle to get 50 nominations, if they were needed.

sherpa-finn

So much rubbish .... so little time: 

Notalib wrote:

Well, first off Sherpa, Mulcair "won" with a broken one member one vote system, that was so dysfunctional most people could not vote on the day of the election due to "technicalities."

Patently untrue, verging on conspiracy theory. The technical problem occured only on the third ballot, when the site was the target of a denial-of-service attack. This delayed the vote but had no significant impact on voting numbers. (The total votes cast actually went up on that Ballot, compared to Ballot #2.) 

Notalib wrote:

Upon "winning" he set about the EXACT path as Tony Blair, our version of "clause 4" was removing the language in the constitutional preamble.

As everyone else in the world seems to know, this was an initiative of Jack's that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership: 

The NDP voted Sunday to take references to socialism out of the party's constitution, a controversial move to modernize that the party had to set aside two years ago. Delegates voted 960 to 188 in favour of the change. The result was met with cheers of "NDP! NDP!" The move was supported by popular former leader Jack Layton, who died shortly after leading the party to its best-ever federal election result in 2011. Layton felt the party needed to modernize the preamble in order to appeal to more Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-party...

Notalib wrote:

The caucus votes you mention are not due process, represent a microcosm of the party and its supporters and therefor have no legitimacy ....

Its a vote of confidence, Notalib,- not a court of law. Its legitimacy is not constitutional or legal. This is a political action ... duuuh.

 

Notalib wrote:
 

...it is hardly democratic, not rooted in the constitution of the party and simply exemplifies the iron fist which failed Blairite leaders like Mulcair choose to exercise.

But which of course Mulcair did not actually choose to exercise. Either when he was an MP under Jack, or as Leader of the Opposition. Awkward.  

Notalib wrote:
  

Finally the bottom line is Corbyn is nowhere near dead in the water, as the daily and unending attacks clearly illustrate.

I do not think I have said that Corbyn is done as leader of the Labour Party. I think he is dead as a credible Leader of the Opposition and prospective Prime Minister. As such, I think he should resign. 

Notalib wrote:
  

And you are dead wrong about party transformation, the Blairites don't transform anything.

I suspect you are a minority of one on this question, Notalib. Everyone from the most fervent Blairites to their vociferous critics and opponents within and alongside the Labour Party openly acknowledge that the shift from 'Old Labour' to New Labour' was hugely transformative. For better or for worse.   

Notalib wrote:
  

The real transformation is in having the party be led by principles and values in sync with the majority of the voters and whereupon gaining power actually deliver on them. This is where Corbyn holds the most promise in transforming the politics of the UK. And probably why the Blairites are lighting their hair on fire, as clearly, principled and value based populist politics that delivers for average people has no place in the Blairite's neo liberal view of the world and would be a horrifying precedent that strikes at the heart of their house of cards narrative and their self perpetuating paradigms.

Blah-blah-blah. Neo-liberalism... paradigms ...  All good political theory for a PoliSci100, but as MP Alan Johnson said last week in a letter to his Hull constituents explaining why he had voted non-confidence in Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, "We in the parliamentary party have observed at first hand his woeful performances in the Commons, his inability to take responsibility, demonstrate leadership or give the slightest indication that he is capable of moving beyond meaningless platitudes.Anti-austerity is a slogan – not a policy."

I think we're done here. 

sherpa-finn

Labour coup enters its ‘last throw of the dice’ as Tom Watson turns on Corbyn

Tom Watson this evening told the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that he is taking a ‘last throw of the dice’ before there is a move against Jeremy Corbyn. The party’s deputy leader held a 20-minute meeting with Corbyn this morning in which he warned him that he had to have the authority of the parliamentary Labour party, and that it wasn’t good enough just to have the support of the members. In response, Corbyn told Watson that he wanted to continue as Labour leader, but Watson’s spokesman said it was clear that there wasn’t a solution that involved Corbyn staying on as leader.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/labour-coup-enters-last-throw-dice-...

It is perhaps worth noting that in the Labour Party, the Deputy-Leader is now elected by a one-member-one-vote process, much as the Leader is elected. (ie the Deputy is not an appointee of the Leader, as is the practice in Canada) 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

I think we're done here. 

Let's hope so.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sherpa-Finn, I don't normally talk like this, but would you please STOP with the "I'm the only grown-up here, anyone who defends Corbyn is just being silly" tone?

It's not as though anything benefiting the people the Labour Party was built to fight for can possibly come of Corbyn being replaced by a leader chosen in an election in which only right-wingers like Angela Eagle or Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper will be allowed to stand.

It's not as though Labour has anything to gain from Labour ceasing to be a party with any ideals(which is what all the anti-Corbyn MPs want). 

Doesn't it concern you that, if that happens, the nearly 300,000 people Corbyn has brought in to the party will leave and most likely never support Labour again?  And that no new votes will come to Labour from those to the party's right?

NorthReport

Momentum: A new kind of politics

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com

sherpa-finn

sherpa-finn wrote: I think we're done here. 

Michael Moriarity wrote: Let's hope so. 

Sorry, Michael. That was a semi-private aside to Notalib. There is lots more to say on this topic, but let me commend you for your due deference in #30, above. 

Your exalted saviness,

S-F

PS And let me assure you, MM before you get toooo discouraged. I do believe things may some day change. Its just not likely that that change will be any good for ordinary folk if it involves chasing rainbows and unicorns and surrendering the levers of gov't to conservatives for another generation. But that of course is just MHO.

quizzical

sherpa-finn wrote:

I see Corbynista Canucks have been busy over Canada Day. Let me now share a few contributions from the "On the other hand"  perspective... 

More than half of Labour members think Jeremy Corbyn should step down before the next election.

And four out of ten think he should quit now, according to a YouGov poll.

The figures will come as a blow to the Labour leader, who has based much of his argument for staying in place on the 60% mandate he gained from Labour members and supporters in September's leadership election.

">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/majority-labour-members-want-jeremy...

if 4 out of 10 think he should go then 6 out of ten think he should stay. uh......isn't it translated back into 60%?

sherpa-finn

My reading of those numbers quizzical is that the bar is deemed to be different for a leadership election and an effective confidence vote. 

While a leader can get elected with a 50%+1  vote, - anything remotely resembling a one-third vote of non-confidence is usually seen as catastrophic. (ref the case of Mr Mulcair.)

Thus the Corbyn team's tactical interest in ensuring that this internal conflict remains framed as a leadership vote, in which he may well be able to prevail at 50%+1. If its the higher measure of 'confidence', - well, the odds are more daunting, given these numbers.  

NorthReport

Jeremy Is The Leader Britain Needs – He’s The Only One Keeping His Cool

Let’s face it, he is about the only person keeping their cool. He hasn’t blinked in the face of Brexit. 

He and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell are the only leaders now capable of negotiating an exit settlement which works in the interest of ordinary people. 

The real problem with the PLP is that far too many don’t like what Jeremy represents.  

They hate the fact that Labour Party members overwhelmingly voted him leader against most of their wishes. 

Some also appear to dislike our newly swollen membership who share his socialist vision. They also don’t get why Jeremy is of the membership and for the membership rather than PLP convenience. 

Jeremy stands for a fairer Britain — a properly funded NHS, publicly owned railways, free education and tax justice. 

He will put in place a national investment bank which will fund major public infrastructure programmes to create skilled jobs and brighten the prospects for all, but particularly our young. 

Jeremy is also the only political leader with the courage to say that we need to undo Thatcher’s political settlement by building a new economy.   

Theresa May’s entry into the Tory leadership battle cloaked in Thatcher’s political mantle makes Jeremy’s plan for a new economy all the more vital.

The reason people in our former industrial heartlands feel angry and politically disoriented is because our service-based economy has left them and their families way behind. 

For most, low-paid, insecure jobs beckon and the prospects for their children are abysmal. 

Jeremy has rightly called out austerity for what it is — a political choice not an economic necessity. However, he can’t undo 30 years-plus of market fundamentalism and neoliberal policies in nine short months as shadow leader.  

Frankly, the Establishment isn’t attacking Jeremy because it thinks he is hopeless and incapable of winning. 

From the Daily Mail to the Mirror, they attack because they can see him as PM. They see the end in sight for the gravy train of the richest 1 per cent.  

Jeremy is seen as extremely dangerous because he represents a radical shift from the prevailing economic orthodoxy.

It’s why market-fixated zealots have been against him since the day he made it onto the leadership ballot. 

This clearly tells me he is on the right track. Let’s face it, not one of the mutineers has anything remotely new to offer, never mind the courage to challenge the economic settlement which has seen the 1 per cent gather untold wealth at our expense. 

Contrary to media reports, there hasn’t been a coup in the Labour Party. For that you need a decapitation — which has failed to materialise.   

The squeaky exit from Labour’s front bench was an act of petulance and grave political misjudgement — nothing else. At a time when we could have done with all hands on deck, some good people have succumbed to panic, lost their nerve and abandoned ship. 

In the meantime, Jeremy has shown great courage and determination under extreme duress and remains a steadfast hand is on the wheel of our Labour Party, continuing to chart a winning course through incredibly choppy waters. 

The membership and the labour movement is strong, united and ready to serve and defend our ship, our captain and our progressive course. Let’s hope our MPs see sense and reunite behind Jeremy.

 

sherpa-finn

Ken Burch wrote:

Sherpa-Finn, I don't normally talk like this, but would you please STOP with the "I'm the only grown-up here, anyone who defends Corbyn is just being silly" tone?

It's not as though anything benefiting the people the Labour Party was built to fight for can possibly come of Corbyn being replaced by a leader chosen in an election in which only right-wingers like Angela Eagle or Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper will be allowed to stand.

It's not as though Labour has anything to gain from Labour ceasing to be a party with any ideals(which is what all the anti-Corbyn MPs want). 

Doesn't it concern you that, if that happens, the nearly 300,000 people Corbyn has brought in to the party will leave and most likely never support Labour again?  And that no new votes will come to Labour from those to the party's right?

If the tone offends, Ken - I am happy to apologize. (Desperately fighting back the inclination to shriek - "They started it first!") And noting the double standard in that the often sophomoric contributions of Corbynistas here generally go unchallenged, even when they are suppositions overlaid with misrepresentations and iced heavily in wishful thinking.

(Still waiting for someone to tell me how Corbyn is to answer the simple, inevitable question come election time: What makes you think you can successfully run a country when you can't even manage a caucus of colleagues?)  

So, my general point is that it I do not think progressives are well served by a big group hug for Jeremy just because he has spent 30+ years in Parliament, speaking truth to power, - and articulating political positions that I generally agree with. The job at hand is about leading a big, complicated and multi-faceted party forward towards power in an exceedingly hostile political environment. Unfortunately, IMHO, Jeremy has resoundingly shown that he is not up to that difficult task. And having spent a lifetime in politics as a Labour MP who has always felt wholly unconstrained by the Party Whip, his calls these days for unity and loyalty behind the leader ring hollow and hugely hypocritical to many. 

I can only suggest that you take a moment to read through the various letters that different Labour MPs have written to Jeremy, their constituents and the media over the past week, - laying out their deep, deep concerns with his leadership.  Write them off as a bunch of Blairites if you wish - but these MPs represent 7 million or so Labour voters. IMHO, these letters provide the best insights as to why Corbyn should step down as leader.

sherpa-finn

Just so there is no misunderstanding, The Morning Star subscribes to the programme of the Communist Party of Britain, which at last count had less than 1,000 members and received slightly more than 1,000 total votes in the last General Election. So a great springboard for expanding Labour Party support.

But its a good little paper all the same. 

mark_alfred

Quote:

I can only suggest that you take a moment to read through the various letters that different Labour MPs have written to Jeremy, their constituents and the media over the past week, - laying out their deep, deep concerns with his leadership.  IMHO, these letters provide the best insights as to why Corbyn should step down as leader.

I'd be curious to find these letters.  Gotta link?  Or do I have to use an internet search engine on my own?

 

I note that Jon Ashworth, the MP who came to the NDP's convention to speak in favour of Mulcair has not resigned from the shadow cabinet and has stayed with Corbyn.  link  That said, it doesn't seem to really reflect political leaning, since some who resigned are affiliated with the left side of Labour (IE, Lisa Nandy).

That Corbyn has increased the membership and seems popular does make this strange, though.  However, Labour suffered a lacklustre performance in the Council elections, so not all is rosy, it seems.  Still, they weren't wiped out.  I still find it all strange.  I'll try to look up those letters.

Aristotleded24

sherpa-finn wrote:
Its just not likely that that change will be any good for ordinary folk if it involves chasing rainbows and unicorns and surrendering the levers of gov't to conservatives for another generation. But that of course is just MHO.

That's the same kind of dismissive talk about any social change which benefits people, and was likely said about such things like blacks not having to sit at the back of the bus or Canadians being able to receive medical care without having to pay for it.

There's a report in Britain that could form the basis of trying people like Tony Blair for war crimes, and some have suggested that the timing of calls for Corbyn to resign are a desparate attempt to take attention away from this. What are your thoughts on that?

mark_alfred

https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/747165335804121088

Letter from Chris Bryant.  Apparently this is the most aggressive of the resignation letters.  It mostly centres on the Brexit vote, with Bryant feeling that Corbyn ran a confused mixed-message campaign (similar criticisms that were levelled at Mulcair over the election campaign).  There's a description of other letters here:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/dear-jeremy-corbyn-art-o...

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:
If the tone offends, Ken - I am happy to apologize. (Desperately fighting back the inclination to shriek - "They started it first!") And noting the double standard in that the often sophomoric contributions of Corbynistas here generally go unchallenged, even when they are suppositions overlaid with misrepresentations and iced heavily in wishful thinking.

That is because the situation is very black and white. Either you recognize that the working class is getting screwed or you don't. Corbyn recognizes it, the rest don't.

sherpa-finn wrote:
(Still waiting for someone to tell me how Corbyn is to answer the simple, inevitable question come election time: What makes you think you can successfully run a country when you can't even manage a caucus of colleagues?)

He shouldn't have to manage them. They are there to serve constituents not themselves. They are the ones who need to be replaced and voters should get a chance to do that.

sherpa-finn wrote:
So, my general point is that it I do not think progressives are well served by a big group hug for Jeremy just because he has spent 30+ years in Parliament, speaking truth to power, - and articulating political positions that I generally agree with. The job at hand is about leading a big, complicated and multi-faceted party forward towards power in an exceedingly hostile political environment.

Therein lies the great divide. Money infiltrated parties that were created to represent the 99%. If they aren't going to do that there is no point in electing them. Better to lose while championing the 99% than win by supporting the 1%. At least then over time the 99% has a chance.

sherpa-finn wrote:
Write them off as a bunch of Blairites if you wish - but these MPs represent 7 million or so Labour voters.

No they don't. The system is arranged so that we (in Canada), and they, elect an MP to represent them and the MP chooses the leader. In reality the grand majority of voters are voting for the leader not their local MP. I have never voted for my local MP and my guess is that many Labour supporters feel the same way.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

self-delete.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

self-delete.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:
Its just not likely that that change will be any good for ordinary folk if it involves chasing rainbows and unicorns and surrendering the levers of gov't to conservatives for another generation. But that of course is just MHO.

That's the same kind of dismissive talk about any social change which benefits people, and was likely said about such things like blacks not having to sit at the back of the bus or Canadians being able to receive medical care without having to pay for it.

There's a report in Britain that could form the basis of trying people like Tony Blair for war crimes, and some have suggested that the timing of calls for Corbyn to resign are a desparate attempt to take attention away from this. What are your thoughts on that?

That is the Chilcot Report, due out Wednesday.  It is strongly suspected by Corbyn loyalists that the push to force his resignation has been driven by a desire on the part of the Blairites to make sure he was no longer leader when the report was issued, in order to keep Corbyn to move for Blair's impeachment(it's not the same as impeachment in the American sense, but it would mean Blair received the public humiliation of being officially barred from seeking office and it would probably mean that most of the Blairite MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates, thus ending their political careers).

sherpa-finn

Ken Burch wrote: One thing you may not be aware of, sherpa-finn, is that the vast majority of Labour MPs have never accepted Corbyn as leader(most of them preferred Liz Kendall, the most conservative candidate in the 2015 leadership race.  

I am well aware that a large number of Labour MPs did not support Corbyn's leadership campaign. Whether they subsequently "accepted" his leadership requires a power of discernment I just do not have. I do know that two/thirds of the Labour caucus stood with him last fall when he allowed a free vote in the House on the resolution to bomb ISIS. At the time, I took that as a significant measure of acceptance and support.  

On the question as to who MPs actually voted for in the leadership campaign, I think you are mistaken. The vote itself is by secret ballot of course, but MPs traditionally announce their allegiances publicly by signing their preferred candidates nomination paper. Public nominations for candidates by MPs were as follows:

  • Andy Burnham 68
  • Yvette Cooper 59 
  • Liz Kendall 41
  • Jeremy Corbyn 36
  • Did not nominate 26

Notalib

sherpa-finn wrote:

So much rubbish .... so little time: 

Notalib wrote:

Well, first off Sherpa, Mulcair "won" with a broken one member one vote system, that was so dysfunctional most people could not vote on the day of the election due to "technicalities."

Patently untrue, verging on conspiracy theory. The technical problem occured only on the third ballot, when the site was the target of a denial-of-service attack. This delayed the vote but had no significant impact on voting numbers. (The total votes cast actually went up on that Ballot, compared to Ballot #2.) 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: LOL - I will look past your dismissive insults, something I notice folks here on this board rely on when the thin gruel of their arguments are without merit and typically factually wrong as your points are. The Denial of Service happened on every ballot, I voted in each one and remember it well. And, contrary to what you state Mulcair was not elected by the majority of the total membership, full stop.

Notalib wrote:

Upon "winning" he set about the EXACT path as Tony Blair, our version of "clause 4" was removing the language in the constitutional preamble.

As everyone else in the world seems to know, this was an initiative of Jack's that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership: 

The NDP voted Sunday to take references to socialism out of the party's constitution, a controversial move to modernize that the party had to set aside two years ago. Delegates voted 960 to 188 in favour of the change. The result was met with cheers of "NDP! NDP!" The move was supported by popular former leader Jack Layton, who died shortly after leading the party to its best-ever federal election result in 2011. Layton felt the party needed to modernize the preamble in order to appeal to more Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-party...

 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Oh Please, this is just gibberish, Jack was in the grave and socialism was still in the preamble and you want to blame it on him? Jack may have been open to the debate, but you will note the fact (and it is an important one) he did not make the changes, Mulcair did full stop.

Notalib wrote:

The caucus votes you mention are not due process, represent a microcosm of the party and its supporters and therefor have no legitimacy ....

Its a vote of confidence, Notalib,- not a court of law. Its legitimacy is not constitutional or legal. This is a political action ... duuuh.

 

NOTALIB RESPONDS:Excuse me? Someone else aboe here posted how a challenge to leadership could occur in the UK in great detail as outlined in the constitution of their party. That was my factual point, but somehow facts are not important to you, instead you rely on inane bullshit and weak spin. Also it would be great if our constitution had a means of challenging the leader, oh right it did, until Mulcair yanked it at the same convention he rewrote the preamble.

 

Notalib wrote:
 

...it is hardly democratic, not rooted in the constitution of the party and simply exemplifies the iron fist which failed Blairite leaders like Mulcair choose to exercise.

But which of course Mulcair did not actually choose to exercise. Either when he was an MP under Jack, or as Leader of the Opposition. Awkward.  

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Really? You might want to actually speak to people who have worked with him......... he is notorious.

Notalib wrote:
  

Finally the bottom line is Corbyn is nowhere near dead in the water, as the daily and unending attacks clearly illustrate.

I do not think I have said that Corbyn is done as leader of the Labour Party. I think he is dead as a credible Leader of the Opposition and prospective Prime Minister. As such, I think he should resign. 

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Yeah, I mean who would not resign after winning the leadership in unprecedented fashion, signing up more members than ever, and winning 4 by-elections while taking London from Boris. I mean Mulcar obviously had to stay on after losing what was 8 seats in by elections and defections... because he was so electable...... so it only makes sense....... in your twisted fact free world.

Notalib wrote:
  

And you are dead wrong about party transformation, the Blairites don't transform anything.

I suspect you are a minority of one on this question, Notalib. Everyone from the most fervent Blairites to their vociferous critics and opponents within and alongside the Labour Party openly acknowledge that the shift from 'Old Labour' to New Labour' was hugely transformative. For better or for worse.   

NOTALIB RESPONDS: Um ..... I was talking about actual power and governing. Not what a mess you guys make of the respective parties here and in the UK. That much is abunduntly clear as you point out and the party in Canada may not survive the most recent mess, and in the UK it looks like you guys just screwed any chance of taking government in the next election, especially if you keep up the assault on the leader instead of the actual enemy, the governing Tories.

Notalib wrote:
  

The real transformation is in having the party be led by principles and values in sync with the majority of the voters and whereupon gaining power actually deliver on them. This is where Corbyn holds the most promise in transforming the politics of the UK. And probably why the Blairites are lighting their hair on fire, as clearly, principled and value based populist politics that delivers for average people has no place in the Blairite's neo liberal view of the world and would be a horrifying precedent that strikes at the heart of their house of cards narrative and their self perpetuating paradigms.

Blah-blah-blah. Neo-liberalism... paradigms ...  All good political theory for a PoliSci100, but as MP Alan Johnson said last week in a letter to his Hull constituents explaining why he had voted non-confidence in Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, "We in the parliamentary party have observed at first hand his woeful performances in the Commons, his inability to take responsibility, demonstrate leadership or give the slightest indication that he is capable of moving beyond meaningless platitudes.Anti-austerity is a slogan – not a policy."

I think we're done here. 

Well you certainly are and I can't say as I blame ya, as you got nothing and your simply taking up air and space much like the current leadership in Canada.

My responses are above with bolded NOTALIB RESPONDS:, I have not quite got the handle of this board and how you use the quote feature.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..how have things been going these past 15 or 20 years? people have been talking a shit kicking is what i see but not without learning lessons. social democratic parties such as labour such as the ndp are not providing protection from those doing the shit kicking because they can't. i repeat because they can't. they neither have the will nor the tools to make the bleeding stop. electoral democracy is failing the majority of people.

..so for a moment a light shines on the subject. labour party membership in huge numbers pursue a course of radicalization of the party. they answer the question how can we both defend ourselves and transition to a different economic and political system. why transition because the corporations and banks are controlling the current processes. they can't be beaten or controlled via governments. not in the governments present form. this has been the case for decades. and now there is a constant state of war on top of all the austerity. and the ecology is burning up fast.

..now some folks want to put the labour membership and their ideas back in the box. without ever responding to the attacks people face on a daily basis. those who want the corbyn phenomena gone have nothing to offer but more of the same. promises of a better tomorrow without the ability nor the will to make it happen. i want those folks to fail in their attempts to control the party.

mark_alfred

Quote:

My understanding is that the rebel Labour MPs have deferred any formal leadership challenge to Corbyn until after the Inquiry Report is officially received. So its pretty much 'wait and see'. We live in interesting times.

Thanks.  Good to know.  Yes, interesting times for sure.

Quote:
IMHO, the Labour leader will have to take ownership of the findings of the Inquiry on behalf of the Party: it was a Labour PM who drove the war agenda, a Labour cabinet that endorsed it (kudos to the lone dissenter Robin Cook), and a Labour Gov't that initiated the Inquiry itself.  How Corbyn does this, on behalf of the Party he now heads may well be the defining moment of the current coup scenario. Will Corbyn have the ability to rise to the occasion as a political statesman, - or will he be tempted to fall back on political sloganeering to secure his own uncertain position?

Agreed.  I imagine this will help show whether Corbyn sees himself as leader of the Labour Party or whether he sees himself as the special maverick dude.

josh

Will Corbyn have the ability to rise to the occasion as a political statesman, - or will he be tempted to fall back on political sloganeering to secure his own uncertain position? 

 

What does that matter?  It won't make a whit of difference to the coup makers who want him out, and who have wanted him out from day one.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and listen to what can be accomplished by rising up. by fighting back. they influenced the converstaion. this is evidence that what is going on in the labour party is what needs to be happening when it comes to making changes. it's time for bold.

eta: since the square occupations they idea that we are the 99% has flourished. this has meant, imho, uprisings everywhere. nowhere is sacred. not unions, not politcal parties and not within the left in general. i've come to accept this in fact i welcome it. enough with the backrooms.

 

Sanders Policy Advisor: The Political Revolution Continues to Philadelphia

Bernie Sanders policy advisor Warren Gunnels says though there were losses in the DNC platform draft over TPP and fracking, there were victories for progressives over federal reserve policy, financial regulation, and the death penalty

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i'd like to add one more piece of evidence on what is needed/possible. these collaborations could be expanded to include most of the struggles in canada today.

Continental social movements unite to challenge Three Amigos, fight TPP

As meetings with the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico got underway in Ottawa, social movements and progressive elected officials were mobilizing to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

More than forty people, including seven New Democratic members of parliament and CUPE representatives, came together in a meeting hosted by NDP trade critic Tracey Ramsey.

The MPs heard from Victor Suarez, a former member of the Mexican house of representatives and a member of the group Mexico Better Off Without the TPP, as well as Arthur Stamoulis from the U.S.-based Citizens Trade Campaign.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

This is not a coup within the Labour Party. It is a coup against the labour movement

quote:

The Establishment intervention — united across the Leave/Remain divide of the referendum campaign — against Corbyn tells us what is really driving this anti-democratic coup.

It is not a coup within the Labour Party. It is a coup against the labour movement.

The target is not just the left-wing Labour leadership. The aim is to extirpate the idea of an independent politics based upon and faithfully representing working-class interests in Britain.

And it is happening now because British big business and the Establishment as a whole face their gravest political crisis probably since the second world war.

That was the grim portrait painted by Tory patrician Lord Heseltine this week as he flayed Boris Johnson for creating “the greatest constitutional crisis in modern times.”

josh
sherpa-finn

Chilcot report is chance to end Labour divisions – but probably won't, MPs say

Labour MPs have said the Chilcot report should be an opportunity for the party to begin healing its wounds over the Iraq war, but suggest the prospect of an end to divisions is relatively unlikely. Splits over Tony Blair’s decision to commit British troops to the 2003 invasion remain a major fault line in the party. Some Labour figures are considering a call for Blair to be impeached if the long-delayed report by Sir John Chilcot, to be published on Wednesday, criticises him over the buildup to the war.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, speaking on Sunday, did not dispute the contention that he and the party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, would “crucify” Blair as a presumed war criminal. The former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has speculated that moves by Labour MPs to remove Corbyn were partly motivated by seeking to limit such criticism of Blair.

Corbyn will see the report for the first time at 8am on Wednesday, a few hours before he responds to David Cameron’s statement on Chilcot in the Commons. It is possible Corbyn could apologise for the war on behalf of Labour, something he said he would do before becoming the party leader....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/05/chilcot-report-is-chance...

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brexit-britain-political-chaos-1.3664041

Quote:

He [The Economist columnist Jeremy Cliffe] expects the ruling Tories to become "more Euroskeptic and more illiberal."

The rifts in Labour perhaps run even deeper. Corbyn may have only a few fans left within his caucus, but he feels he still has the support of the party's base. Cliffe predicts Labour will soon split into two, with "one moderate, more pro-European party and [one] more far-left party."

ETA:  I'm not very familiar with either the scene in the UK or with this Cliffe fellow, but I'm guessing anyway that Cliffe is incorrect in his guess of an upcoming split in Labour.

josh

A split looks very possible to me.

mmphosis

Is Coup Against Corbyn a Plot to Spare Blair from War Crimes Probe? (commondreams.org)

One politician posits that Labour Party leadership's turn against Corbyn is a move to protect Blair from damning Chilcot findings

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

One thing you may not be aware of, sherpa-finn, is that the vast majority of Labour MPs have never accepted Corbyn as leader(most of them preferred Liz Kendall, the most conservative candidate in the 2015 leadership race.  They also never truly accepted Corbyn's predecessor, Ed Miliband as leader either, and soent Miliband's entire tenure as leader perpetuating the smear that Ed(who is much more centrist than Corbyn)had "stabbed his brother"-David Miliband, whose positions were in lockstep with Blair's-"in the back"by standing against him in the previous leadership contest.  Needless to say, since Ed had never promised his brother that he wouldn't seek the leadership himself, this claim was a despicable lie).  The MPs, being on the far right of the party, have no interest whatsoever in fighting for working people and the poor.  They simply think they are entitled to run the party solely because they happen to be MPs...never mind that almost all of them represent constituencies that would elect anyone who stood as a Labour candidate, and that the only reason they hold those seats ids that Tony Blair personally imposed them as Labour candidate by forcing the constituency parties to chose from shortlists of Blair-selected reactionaries, as opposed to letting the constituency parties choose the candidates they actually preferred.

It is arrogant of those MPs to act as they speak for every Labour voter in their constituencies.

And if they get there way, there will be no good reason for anyone to vote Labour at the next election, because Labour won't be standing on policies that disagree with the Tories in any significant way.  They won't let Labour be anti-austerity(they'll insist that the party stay within Tory budget constraints its first two years in power, that Labour continue the Tory crackdown on people on benefits-including the disabled, a group who should never face benefit cuts and tougher eligibility rules-they'll insist on keepiung Trident(even though nuclear weapons no longer serve any legitimate purpose in the UK or anywhere else)they'll keep Thatcher's anti-worker laws again, and they'll continue bombing Syria.

As even you would have to concede, that list doesn't leave out anything that matters.

sherpa-finn

Aristotle 24 wrote: There's a report in Britain that could form the basis of trying people like Tony Blair for war crimes, and some have suggested that the timing of calls for Corbyn to resign are a desparate attempt to take attention away from this. What are your thoughts on that?

Three quick points and a guess:

1. There has been significant turn-over of Labour MPs since the 2003 vote on Iraq which is seen as the defining parliamentary moment on that issue.  I suspect the vast majority of current MPs see the Iraq War as a huge stain on the history and brand of the Labour Party, knowing how unpopular this decision was with large segments of the British public, - even well before the weapons of mass destruction myth was totally discredited. So my guess is that the new generation would be happy to receive the report, have Blair and Jack Straw burned at the stake and move on. There may well be a minority of dissenting voices around the table, - after all, in a free vote last year on bombing ISIS in Syria, a quarter of current Labour MPs voted in favour.  So there is still some fight in the more militaristic wing of the party.  There may also be some harsh criticism and political fall-out directed at those who opposed or attempted to block different elements of the Inquiry itself for whatever reason, - they will surely be painted as accomplices to an attempted cover-up. 

2. Everyone fully expects Corbyn and Co to trash Blair and associates over the decision to go to war.  However, the formal mandate of the inquiry was to examine the operation of the war, not its actual legality. So there is a perception that there is a bit of an escape clause there for the political decision-makers, - while leaving more operational types (ie soldiers) on the hook for assorted crimes.  There may have been the illusion when the Inquiry was struck (in 2007 - by Gordon Brown [actually 2009 -ETA]) that this was a way to avoid legal repercussions a la ICC - but it certainly won't avoid political repercussions IMHO.  Thus the talk now of "impeaching" Blair, which seems a little like closing the stable door well after the mule has fled.  Anyhow, if there is any hint of a double standard in accountability (pols vs grunts) it will be hugely problematic for the gov't of the day (Tories, last time I checked), and rightfully so.

3.   Finally, there are huge questions yet about how much the Inquiry actually saw or had access to in terms of internal correspondence, cabinet docs, memos, etc. This is largely linked to the predictable issues of "national security" and shared intelligence with the US. So its unclear how definitive the actual conclusions or recommendations will be, as its not clear how deep the Inquiry has actually been able to drill down. 

My take-away:  it has long been expected that the Inquiry report will be a blockbuster. In fact, Cameron arranged to have the release date postponed, if only to ensure that it did not come out before the BREXIT referendum and distract anyone. However, the report's popular impact may well have been diminished by the shock of the BREXIT result - as in "that is about the UK's future, the Iraq Inquiry is about its past". 

IMHO, the Labour leader will have to take ownership of the findings of the Inquiry on behalf of the Party: it was a Labour PM who drove the war agenda, a Labour cabinet that endorsed it (kudos to the lone dissenter Robin Cook), and a Labour Gov't that initiated the Inquiry itself.  How Corbyn does this, on behalf of the Party he now heads may well be the defining moment of the current coup scenario. Will Corbyn have the ability to rise to the occasion as a political statesman, - or will he be tempted to fall back on political sloganeering to secure his own uncertain position?

My understanding is that the rebel Labour MPs have deferred any formal leadership challenge to Corbyn until after the Inquiry Report is officially received. So its pretty much 'wait and see'. We live in interesting times.

sherpa-finn

Every day the scenarios shift ... the latest rumour is that the protagonists are now going to try to edge back from The Political Precipice, - defined as an open leadership challenge to Corbyn with ensuing membership vote.

This new development has been made possible by the declaration of the front runners in the Tory leadership race (underway already across the other side of the street) that they pledge not to call a snap election if they are chosen to replace Cameron as PM.

With that additional breathing space, it is now being suggested that a possible "compromise" arrangement for Labour would be for Corbyn to stay on as leader for a couple more years, but step down before the next election - anticipated in 2020.  Doesn't seem particularly workable to me, but ....

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/len-mccluskey-plays-peac...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I think that, if they truly want to come up with a Corbyn departure scenario that doesn't do more harm than good to Labour, the anti-Corbynites would have to guarantee:

1)That Corbyn's departure would NOT mean the restoration of Blairism and a top-down leadership/policy creation structure. 

2)That full internal party democracy would be restored.

3)That the rules for the next leadership contest would not bar left-wing candidates for the job.

They would also have to accept that it would be a legitimate outcome that a certain number of anti-Corbyn MPs will be deselected, and acccept their deselections with good grace.

This has never been about Jeremy Corbyn's ego...it's about wanting to make sure Labour doesn't go back to where it was when Corbyn stood for the leadership...a party that inspired no enthusiastic support from anyone and whose leading figures were pushing for am even greater swing to the right on the issues(such as support for the Tory budget charter and benefits cap and continued military intervention in the Middle East).

mark_alfred

I found the resignation letters in full.  They're a sobering read to be sure.  They're all very caring -- they have the tone of telling your aging father or mother that he or she should stop driving the car.  Here's a couple of paragraphs from one:

Anna Turley wrote:

Dear Jeremy, This is a very hard letter to write. We have been friends for some years and as my former MP I hold you in very high regard as one of the kindest and most committed public servants in politics.

However, I am sorry to say it has become clear beyond doubt to me that you and your team are not providing the strong, forward looking and competent leadership we need to provide an alternative government to these increasingly right wing Conservatives that are doing such damage to this country and to my constituency.

Turley is elected as a Labour Co-operative, which I assume means she's on the left.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-resignation-letters-full-wha...

mark_alfred

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-must-go-backlash-8285391

Above is an editorial by a Labour supporter who feels he should quit.  But there's also a readers' poll here that shows support for Corbyn staying is 85% (granted, it's just an online readers' poll at the Daily Mirror, but still, shows high support).  Speaking of the Daily Mirror, this is something we need in Canada -- a racy tabloid that supports the NDP.  Unlike Labour which has the Daily Mirror supporting it, the NDP have nothing.  Libs have the Star, the Cons have the Globe, the Post, and the Sun, but the NDP have nothing.  But I digress.

Here's a list of newly appointed shadow cabinet:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-ditches-dedicated-men...

Personally I hope he stays on and triumphs.  Sure, the letters and resignations are worrying, but my gut still is with Corbyn for the time being.

josh

sherpa-finn wrote:

Every day the scenarios shift ... the latest rumour is that the protagonists are now going to try to edge back from The Political Precipice, - defined as an open leadership challenge to Corbyn with ensuing membership vote.

This new development has been made possible by the declaration of the front runners in the Tory leadership race (underway already across the other side of the street) that they pledge not to call a snap election if they are chosen to replace Cameron as PM.

With that additional breathing space, it is now being suggested that a possible "compromise" arrangement for Labour would be for Corbyn to stay on as leader for a couple more years, but step down before the next election - anticipated in 2020.  Doesn't seem particularly workable to me, but ....

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/len-mccluskey-plays-peac...

Burnham's suggestion of Lewis as a replacement is something I could live with. The issue is the direction of the party, not Corbyn per se.

mark_alfred

Still trying to understand the perspective of those who want him gone.  The following editorial in the Guardian makes clearer what the rationale is.  Firstly, the performance of Labour in the local elections (council elections) a while back was poor.  Most Labour voters are in favour of the EU and of Remain, yet his performance during the Brexit campaign was lacklustre, and his response to the current situation in which it's seen that many on the Leave side lied (IE, they had no real plan in the case of a victory), has also been lacklustre.  Further, the existence of some videos of him in the past exspressing opposition to the idea of the EU is also a concern.  Lastly, while people don't feel animousity toward him, they also don't really feel anything -- he's just not very existent in the minds of voters, which is a sure fire sign that Labour would lose under him.  And polling is currently worse now than it was back when Miliband led Labour to the last defeat.  So, the Cons have led the UK into a crisis that, in the opinion of some, should have been a shining moment for Labour but instead was more of an ineffectual fumble for Labour due to a bumbling leader who's not capturing people's imagination.  Yet, he's obviously caught on with some people -- clearly he has some support of a large number of members.  Anyway, I guess it doesn't urgently matter, since it seems there won't be an election immediately now (as some may have previously believed).  And the Chilcot inquiry may throw a different perspective on things too.

Quote:

Labour stands for bettering the public realm, for those without power and money. That’s only done one way – by winning power in parliament with most MPs. That’s never been more urgent, yet Labour has rarely looked more unelectable. ICM today finds the Tories at 37%, Labour at 30%, exactly where things stood in the miserable 2015 election.

John McDonnell tours TV studios in a state of denial, claiming Jeremy Corbyn does well in elections. In May’s locals Labour‘s performance was the worst by an opposition in 30 years, according to the YouGov founder Peter Kellner. Sadiq Khan did brilliantly in London, but that was him. Greater London Assembly results scored the same as at the 2015 general election, the Tooting by-election no better than those pre-2015 – and look where that led. No opposition has ever won without reaching at least a 20% lead in the polls: Ed Miliband once got half that – and look where Corbyn is now, when the opposition should be riding high.

Deborah Mattinson, of Britain Thinks, has focus groups of swing voters, leavers in Knowsley and remainers in Brighton: “He has the worst ratings of any opposition leader ever. They don’t hate him, it’s worse than that, invisible, not on their radar, no idea what referendum side he was on.”

As John Curtice writes, most Labour voters were always remainers: Cameron is to blame for letting Tory voters slide away to leave during the campaign. But this should be Labour’s mighty chance. Tory Europhobes have finally crashed the country, by lying. On Saturday at the March for Europe, 50,000 people of all parties, who’d never marched before, called out their friendship with Europe, with no Socialist Workers party placards, but witty home-made symbols of love for Europe.

So where were Corbyn and McDonnell? Why not sharing that platform to speak up for the 16 million remainers? The 48% needed to hear them say: “They lied, they had no Brexit plan, they promised the NHS a phantom £350m a week, they won’t take back control and now we all risk recession for nothing.” That’s not rejecting the referendum result, but arguing that the winners lied. Why not call a halt before pulling the pin of the article 50 grenade. Call for talks first on free movement and for a general election, at which Labour should advocate talks to stay in or as close as possible. Any half-reasonable Labour leader would seize this hour of emergency but Labour isn’t there. No wonder there’s a fast and frantic attempt to put a competent leader in place.

Most who voted for Corbyn aren’t hard-left cultish sectarians, any more than his opponents are “Blairite bitterites”. Many liked Corbyn’s appeal for “gentler, kinder politics” and an end to austerity. But they should take a hard look at his failing leadership. Listen to the policies of the Tory contenders, look at the plight of the country. Labour needs a new strong uniting voice.

sherpa-finn

Josh wrote: Burnham's suggestion of Lewis as a replacement is something I could live with. The issue is the direction of the party, not Corbyn per se.

I shouldn't be so cynical about such things, but my own sense is that Burnham (who came second to Corbyn in the leadership race last year) and has stayed reasonably loyal to Corbyn throughout, has been positioning himself throughout as someone who can bridge the gaping divide in the party. And in so doing, positions himself if not for "the next time" leadership race (which may be a bit of a bloodbath), then perhaps "the next, next time" as The Great Healer. 

Burnham announced a couple of months back his candidacy for the Mayor of Manchester, which would be a good place to hang out for the next 6 or so years as BREXIT and the Labour Party get sorted out. And he's young enough to stand aside for a while. (FWIW, I have no idea if he is likely to win at the municipal level.)

mark_alfred

I agree more with this editorial:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/labour-party-infig...

It just seems that members chose Corbyn.  So, rather than trying to pressure him into resigning, those MPs who oppose him should put up or shut up.  If they want to challenge him for leadership, they have the right to do so.  That, rather than these pressure tactics, is what they should do if they're so determined to be rid of him.  Give the members the final say.

bekayne

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/labour-mp-called-thug...

Midland Labour MP Ian Austin has come in for criticism on social media after heckling his party leader’s criticism of decisions which led the country to war.

Dudley North MP Ian Austin, along with other Labour backbenchers, was criticised by a number of SNP MPs for voicing displeasure while Jeremy Corbyn responded to the Chilcot Report in Parliament.

Mr Corbyn was a fierce critic of the Iraq War, having previously described the action as “illegal” and today he reiterated his stance.

 

josh

Pages

Topic locked