Corbyn rallying the troops for the upcoming election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-snap-general...
Jeremy Corbyn 2
Thu, 2017-04-20 09:40
#402
Thu, 2017-04-20 11:07
#403
In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.
Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces. Besides the almost total lack of support in the latter, especially in the rightwing media, the high level of negativity in the news reporting struck us as noteworthy here. According to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), newspapers are obliged to ‘make a clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact’ and this also did not apply to Corbyn. Furthermore, Corbyn’s voice is often absent in the reporting on him, and when it is present it is often presented in a highly distorted way. In terms of the news sources used in the articles, the civil war within Labour is very enthusiastically amplified. In most newspapers, including The Daily Mirror and The Independent, Labour voices that are anti-Corbyn outweigh those that are pro-Corbyn.....
Thu, 2017-04-20 11:18
#404
Yeah, but if they're biased against the left, it just means they're "fair and balanced."
Thu, 2017-04-20 11:50
#405
In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_yrAD69fLQ]What's your opinion of Jeremy Corbyn 20 years ago sticking his willy in a woman?[/url]
Thu, 2017-04-20 14:56
#406
This on a pro-Labour blog:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/19/corbyns-a-disaster-but-we-must-figh...
In the end, it’s a question of whether it will be 50, 100 or 150 seats we lose. And that’s worth fighting for.
We can choose to do nothing, and let everything fall apart. Or choose to resist, for what will come after the election. This party has been a great force for good in this country and it can be again. But it is on life-support. It needs help. This election is about staunching the flow of blood out of the wound, so as not to kill the patient. Saving those seats we can. Fighting not just the Tories without but the far left within.
The only sensible choice is to hold your nose and vote for Jeremy Corbyn. He will never become prime minister, so your conscience is perfectly clear. Hold your nose and door-knock. Hold your nose and come out for your decent local councillor or MP, who deserve better than this.
In Hugh Gaitskell’s brilliant, defiant words: to fight, fight and fight again, to save the party we love.
Labour Uncut hasn't been a "pro-Labour blog" for years now. It is to the right of Tony Blair on policy, and has spent the last two years treating Jeremy Corbyn as though he has no right to be leader.
Labour Uncut supports the benefits cap and the savage "sanctions" regime imposed on benefits claimants, in which thos claimants are forced to prove they need the benefits over and over and over again...even if they are bedridden and housebound.
There would be no difference between a Labour leader Labour Uncut would approve of(they still want a quasi-Tory like David Miliband or Liz Kendall-and just keeping Theresa May in power.
Thu, 2017-04-20 19:19
#407
If t you thought I have been unconvinced by Corbyn, here is a Labour commentator's view:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/20/corbyn-has-doomed-labour-time-to-vo...
Thu, 2017-04-20 19:23
#408
If t you thought I have been unconvinced by Corbyn, here is a Labour commentator's view:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/20/corbyn-has-doomed-labour-time-to-vo...
I guess Ken Burch's post just whizzed by you.
Thu, 2017-04-20 19:47
#409
Josh, I guess that a 100o objective assessments of Corbyn by sincere Labour supporters just whizzed right by you.
Thu, 2017-04-20 20:29
#410
Labour Uncut is not objective by any measure. It never ever gave Corbyn a chance, even when the 2016 revote put the leadership issue to rest.
You seem to have missed the passage in the link you posted in which the author called on sitting Labour MPs to resign the whip and stand AGAINST the party at the general election.
Thu, 2017-04-20 20:44
#411
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.
Thu, 2017-04-20 21:13
#412
The Guardian has supported the LibDems in recent years.
Look...the election is actually underway. You do realize that it's too late for Labour to choose a new leader before polling day, right?
Thu, 2017-04-20 21:16
#413
The PLP should just agreed to guaratee that there'd be a left candidate on the next leadership ballot. It was never reasonable to expect Corbyn to go without any guarantee that the left-wing majority of the party would be given a chance to elect anyone other than a centrist as leader. No centrist MP would be capable of caring about working people and human need-people who put balanced budgets first are promising not to help the poor.
Thu, 2017-04-20 21:34
#414
Maybe after this is all over the left should let someone like Liz Kendall take over the leadership. And then spend all their time undercutting, bad mouthing and back stabbing her.
Fri, 2017-04-21 00:56
#415
If the PLP gets its way and Labour is reduced to 50 seats that will be a moot point. No Labour comeback could ever happen at that level, and if a Liz Kendall-Rachel Reeves type does become leade(it goes without saying the the remnant of the PLP would not allow anyone to Kendall's left to stand)that leader will simple lead the rest of the MPs over to the Tory bench and be done with it. No election in the UK would ever matter again.
Fri, 2017-04-21 05:44
#416
No, the PLP wants a labour Party that can actually get elected.
The Corbynites would prefer a much reduced party controlled by their little myopic sect rather than one that can appeal to the broader electorate, get into power and actually achieve something for its voters.
Fri, 2017-04-21 08:53
#417
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.
Where did these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?
All my friends think I should walk off a cliff. Ergo, it is a good idea for me to walk off a cliff.
Fri, 2017-04-21 08:48
#418
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.Where died these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?
Not positive on all of them. But I know where the overwhelming majority of the PLP stood.
Fri, 2017-04-21 17:13
#419
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.Where died these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?
Not positive on all of them. But I know where the overwhelming majority of the PLP stood.
And that's the biggest reason the PLP(at least a majority of whom only hold their current seats because Blair or Gordon Brown imposed them as candidate against the wishes of their own constituency party) hate Jeremy Corbyn. They cannot forgive him for being right about the futility of that war and for standing with the antiwar majority in the UK(a majority that had no way to express itself in the 2005 election because NO party stood for peace) against them.
They STILL think it was right to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Aghanis, then huge numbers of Libyans a few years later, and they now want to do what they already know never works to Syria.
Fri, 2017-04-21 17:11
#420
Good press here. Corbyn entertains kids with his funny faces while reading a story to them.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/faces-jeremy-corbyn-pulled-reading...
Fri, 2017-04-21 20:21
#421
Was it a story about a magical land, part of a larger Kingdom, where people were happy and prosperous until some Ogres voted to leave that Kingdom, and suddenly the Long Cold Winter came?
"Oooooh!", said the book! "This doesn't seem a wise choice at all!"
"Aaaaah!" said the villain. "We're tired of all these travellers visiting our lands, and taking our good apprenticeships!"
"But wait!!!", said the Frumpy Prince. "I can save us all, but you'll need to close your eyes really tight, and wish good wishes, and believe! Every last one of you!"
Fri, 2017-04-21 21:15
#422
It's not cool to still be attacking the guy when the election is underway. It's too late to replace him even if there was someone who'd do better. And no one would.
Sat, 2017-04-22 09:30
#423
Ken, you keep maintaining, without any evidence, that no other leader would do better than the monumentally unpopular and reviled Jeremy Corbyn.
Even DONALD Trump would do better since his approval rating is higher than Corbyns in the UK
http://www.pollingdigest.com/home/2017/3/27/corbyns-trumpian-approval-ra...
Sat, 2017-04-22 11:10
#424
Of course Trump doesn't have the PLP ranting on constantly about how seriously bad a leader he is.
Sat, 2017-04-22 11:48
#425
You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.
Sat, 2017-04-22 16:44
#426
The leadership re-vote put the PLP no-confidence motion to rest. There was no justification in the PLP STILL fighting to force Corbyn out.
If they'd just agreed that there WOULD be a left candidate in the next leadership ballot, the man would have gone.
You can't seriously argue that it was a legitimate thing for the PLP to try to force Corbyn out and then limit the candidates on the leadership ballot to replace him to only anti-Corbynites(i.e., right-wingers).
And you can't seriously defend the continued anti-Corbyn plotting of the PLP DURING the election campaign, when it's too late to change leaders before polling day and when no leader the PLP could impose in Corbyn's place even if it wasn't too late could possibly deserve the support of the majority of the party that still agrees with Corbyn on the issues.
It's time to end this, Nicky.
Sat, 2017-04-22 22:44
#427
Ken, you keep maintaining, without any evidence, that no other leader would do better than the monumentally unpopular and reviled Jeremy Corbyn.
Even DONALD Trump would do better since his approval rating is higher than Corbyns in the UK
http://www.pollingdigest.com/home/2017/3/27/corbyns-trumpian-approval-ra...
There has never been any polling done, in the whole time Corbyn has been leader, showing that the party's vote share would rise at all if anyone else was in the leadership...and certainly not if the PLP imposed anyone sharply to Corbyn's right(which they would be doing if they limited people on the leadership ballot to anti-Corbynite right-wingers like Yvette Cooper or Chuka Umunna). What right would such a figure have to ask any Corbyn supporter(even allowing for the fact that Corbyn, in that scenario, would support such a figure out of his loyalty to the party)for their support, when the people who imposed that new leader have spent two unrelenting years undermining the leader that was twice elected by a landslide margin? What right would that leader have to demand loyalty when her or his rise to the leadership was the product of conspiracy and disloyalty?
This matters desperately, since if 250,000 people instantly stop working for the Labour campaign, NO ONE AT ALL would come in from anywhere else on the spectrum to replace them.
Do you not see the problem there?
There is no possible anti-Corbyn Labour leader who has any personal popularity, speaks with any passion or could possibly shape a message in the two and a half weeks left in the campaign that anyone anywhere in the UK could support. And you know it.
Even Dan "I was a paratrooper" Jarvis.
Sat, 2017-04-22 18:46
#428
From nicky:
You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.
And you know what? When the PLP decides to start fighting against the right-wing Conservative party, instead of the left-wing Labour party, prospects for Labour will increase dramatically.
Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen because the PLP is right-wing to the core, and can't stand the thought of a left-winger at the head of the Labour Party. I guess, like you, and others, they've forgotten the Labour Party was a left-wing party back in the day. Oh well.
Sun, 2017-04-23 01:54
#429
You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.
What is so special about the opinions of elected members of a legislative assembly that they should count more than the rank-and-file members?
Oh, I forgot, elected members always know what they were talking about. I remember the federal NDP went against the wishes of Caucus and voted for Jack Layton. What a disaster that was for the party. The bulk of the federal Caucus then supported Mulcair during his leadership run, and we were are all happy that Mulcair is the first NDP Prime Minister this country has ever elected. Even here in Manitoba, when there was an uprising against Greg Selinger, the Caucus supported him, with the result that Greg Selinger is still our Premier and we don't have to worry about Pallister doing things like undoing the tuition freeze or not raising the minimum wage.
Oh...
Sun, 2017-04-23 06:22
#430
To respond to a few of your recent comments,:
Yes Aristotle, I think Manitoba is a case in point. As I recall Selinger lost a majority of his caucus although he maintained a plurality. He should have recognized with even half of his caucus in rebellion he could not continue to lead and that the responsible thing would have been to step down. His refusal resulted in electoral disaster for the party.
Corbyn has been deserted by 80% or more of his caucus, a figure much greater than the Selinger revolt. Any responsible leader in those circumstances would have put his party first and set down.
That Corbyn did not do this demonatrates how little regard he has for the electoral wellbeing of his party. He and his supporters would rather control a small unelectable sect, content to wallow in their self-righteous puritanism rather than let Labour win with a responsible platform that would actually help its voters.
As I have said before, I do not see anything wrong with leadership candidates having to secure a certain threshold of MPs. Corbyn was able to do so when he first ran for the leadership.
There was of course almost immediate buyer's remorse when he won. He had only 14 MPs in his camp and had to get 35 to be nominated. He got over the line because a number of MPs who had no wish to see him elected gave him a complimentary nomination to see that the left had a candidate.
It is worth noting that most of this 35 vote no confidence in him given his abysmal performance as leader in his first year. This included several of his orignial 14 supporters.
Given the dsiaster that Corbyn is visiting upon the Labour party I would hope that the PLP in the future has learned its lesson and refuses ever again to nominate anyone of his ilk. The "veto" is essential in my view to preserve the very existence of the Labour party as a legitimate contender for power.
If for example a fringe lunatic like Barry Wiesleder was about to take over the NDP (and Weisleder may be the closest thing the NDP has to a Corbyn) then I would hope that the elders and the dreaded "establishmnet" of my party would do what they could to save the party from the applaing prospect of his leadership. The Corbyn example would be all the justification they need.
At the moment Labour is running at about 24%. As dismal as that is Corbyn approval rating is much lower, perhaps in the mid-teens, significant eveidenc that he is a major drag on the party's prospects.
One mechanism that Labour is using in this campaign to staunch the bleeding is to assure its voters that Corbyn is just too ridiculous ever to be PM. Therefore voters can safely vote for their local Labour MPs without fear of giving him the keys to #10.
And if you disagree with any of the above, just have a look with the polls published this weekend.
Sun, 2017-04-23 11:02
#431
So MPs should have their nomination automatically confirmed (to protect them from the party's pesky "membership"), and should also have a veto over who can run for leader (for the same reason). And to think, there have been days when I felt like the NDP's higher-ups thought the party's members were an uppity albatross around their necks who don't understand that their role is to donate, vote, and shut up. The PLP's utter contempt for its own members makes the NDP look grassroots-focused. Why don't those PLP MPs who oppose Corbyn simply agree that this time they'll run for Theresa May, giving the membership the chance to select Labour candidates instead of Red Tories, and the PLP the chance to see whether their conservatism-with-a-human-face strategy is really what the electorate's looking for?
Sun, 2017-04-23 15:35
#432
If for example a fringe lunatic like Barry Wiesleder was about to take over the NDP (and Weisleder may be the closest thing the NDP has to a Corbyn) then I would hope that the elders and the dreaded "establishmnet" of my party would do what they could to save the party from the applaing prospect of his leadership. The Corbyn example would be all the justification they need.
Svend Robinson, Bill Siskay and Dave Barrett all shared most of the same views as Corbyn. Maybe the problem is your Ontario NDP focus and maybe that focus is why the NDP is always doomed in Ontario because no one outside of political junkies can tell them apart from the Liberals, you know like Mulcair's great campaign.
Lets see on one side we have Barry a person who has never been elected to any legislature and can't even get elected to the Executive of the NDP. On the other hand we have Jeremy who was first elected as an MP in 1983, 34 years ago and then elected by the membership to lead the Labour party. You have really jumped the shark with that comparison.
Sun, 2017-04-23 17:07
#433
Nicky, why can't you at least accept that it wasn't reasonable to expect Corbyn to stand down without getting a guarantee that somebody at least close to his views would be on the leadership ballot to replace him? MOST of the rank-and-file of the party agrees with Corbyn on the issues. MOST of the views he holds(with the possible exception of his stance on the Bomb-some Brits have a pointless attachment to that instrument of omnicide, a weapon whose use can never be moral in any possible diplomatic or military situation). Why SHOULD Corbyn have stood down and forced the majority of the party who agree with him to vote for his successor in a ballot on which no one outside of the far right of the party would have been allowed?
You'd have to concede, I think, that it's impossible for a Dan Jarvis or a Chuka Umunna or an Yvette Cooper to say anything geuinely Labour.
If the party goes down to a bad defeat, it's on the right-wing, the people who refused to accept that the second leadership ballot put the leadership question to rest, who refused to stop working for the destruction of the most decent human being that has ever led the party. They weren't going to settle for anything but the return of sectarian Blairism(a set of policies NO ONE wants back, since those policies can do nothing to help anyone) and they don't believe in democracy. They think THEY are the party and no one else is. And they think there's no reason to have a Labour government other than to slaughter Arabs and Muslims from the skies.
Sun, 2017-04-23 18:19
#434
It is so facile to blame everything on the Blairites, as if that gives Corbyn a pass on the drubbing that Labour looks to get under his leadership. Blair, whatever his faults, never got less than 35% and always held the Labour base. Corbyn looks to get nmaybe 12% less than that because huge portions of the Labour base can't stomach him.
None of you have explained why Corbyn's approval rating is way below that of the party. Seems quite anamalous if he is as wonderful as some of you think.
And yes I think the party rules are justified if they can save the party o from future agony such as what Corbyn is inflicting on it now.
Sun, 2017-04-23 18:30
#435
His approval rating is below the party's because the MPs of the party have spent two years continuously attacking him and spreading lies about him(such as the despicable claim that Corbyn "supports hatred of Jews".
Nicky, will you at least accept that it's too late to replace Corbyn before the election and that no greater good can still be served by anyone within the party continuing to attack him?
The fact is that, after Major's disaster with the Exchange Rate Mechanism in '93, a Labour victory in '96 or '97 was a certainty. The party never needed a leader that spent more time attacking socialism than Toryism, that made his pitch the electorate an apology for Labour EVER having opposed Thatcherism. No one who thought Thatcher was right to smash the unions and slash services had any non-Tory views.
Sun, 2017-04-23 19:00
#436
It is so facile to blame everything on the Blairites, as if that gives Corbyn a pass on the drubbing that Labour looks to get under his leadership. Blair, whatever his faults, never got less than 35% and always held the Labour base. Corbyn looks to get nmaybe 12% less than that because huge portions of the Labour base can't stomach him.
None of you have explained why Corbyn's approval rating is way below that of the party. Seems quite anamalous if he is as wonderful as some of you think.
And yes I think the party rules are justified if they can save the party o from future agony such as what Corbyn is inflicting on it now.
You think Labour is only going to get 23%? We'll see.
Corbyn is not "inflicting" anything. The ones doing the inflicting are the ones actively undermining him and the process that resulted in him winnng two contests.
Sun, 2017-04-23 19:35
#437
Yes Ken, I do accept that it is stoo late to replace Corbyn before the June election. As I posted before, there was some prospect of himstepping down at the party conference in September and that is why May has called the snap election. Corbyn is her dream opponent and she wanted to strike before Labour had a chance to replace him with someone whom the public at least respected.
Sun, 2017-04-23 20:55
#438
Why couldn't the PLP compromise with Corbyn? Why would they settle for nothing other than the guy just leaving and getting no guarantees his supporters and internal party democracy would be protected in exchange for his willingness to leave? How was it ever reasonable to expect the guy to do what YOU wanted and just abandoned the majority of Labour supporters who want the party to stand for something?
Can you not acknowledge that a big part of the problem was the arrogance and sense of entitlement exhibited by the PLP? The attitude they had that THEY are the party and nobody else is?
Thank God the guy who challenged Corbyn for the leadership didnt win. If he couldn't get any crowds at his rallies THEN, how was he EVER going to build support and enthusiasm for Labour if he DID end up as leader? If you get no crowds, that proves no one supports you.
Mon, 2017-04-24 07:45
#439
The Conservatives thought that some compromise might have been in store to allow Corbyn to step down in September.
That is why they called the snap election. They know that Corbyn is the weakest, least compentent and least appealing leader ever. They did not want to risk him being replaced by ANYONE else.
Oh, and Ken , have you seen the polls this weekend?
That being said, I fully support the PLP reluctance to relax the rules to allow for a repeat of the nightmare called Corbyn.
Mon, 2017-04-24 07:59
#440
have you seen the polls this weekend
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4436044/Tory-lead-slashed-half-tax-U-turn.html
Mon, 2017-04-24 15:35
#441
There's a lot of time between now and June 9th. Any excuse for continued PLP attacks on Corbyn has vanished, and it's now clear that the LibDems, who are STILL stuck at 12% in the polls, will make no significant recovery and therefore aren't worth voting for.
Corbyn should consider an anti-Tory alliance with the Greens, Plaid and SNP. While the LibDems are no longer a progressive party in any sense(and have announced they will never join any post-election coalition with Labour)those three parties are. If they could at least agree to immediately defeat a Tory minority, it could be worth it.
Mon, 2017-04-24 19:05
#442
Corbyn is destroying Labour in its traditional stronghold of Wales:
Mon, 2017-04-24 19:53
#443
There's a lot of time between now and June 9th. Any excuse for continued PLP attacks on Corbyn has vanished
So now there should be a moratorium on pointless snipes when it's election time?
What if that leader once eulogized a dead Margaret Thatcher?? Surely we can still obsess over a sin like that right up until election day?
Mon, 2017-04-24 20:10
#444
There is a point where the PLP, having been told (twice) by the membership that Corbyn is the leader, to either accept that leadership or quit the party. The problem is the PLP does not want to accept the decision of the party membership, but does want to continue to occupy those safe seats they have been given.
As far as Muclair and his admiration to Thatcher, I can mention that as many times as I want. I'm not a member of the NDP, and am not restricted in what I say about the leadership. A member of the caucus, if they completely disagreed with the choice of Mulcair as leader, has the option of resigning their seat. That would be the honorable thing to do.
Mon, 2017-04-24 20:17
#445
As far as Muclair and his admiration to Thatcher, I can mention that as many times as I want. I'm not a member of the NDP, and am not restricted in what I say about the leadership.
Certainly.
But in that context, what do you suppose this means, or is intended to mean?
Any excuse for continued PLP attacks on Corbyn has vanished
Is there a time limit? Should there be one?
Tue, 2017-04-25 00:15
#446
<self delete>
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:16
#447
Yes Aristotle, I think Manitoba is a case in point. As I recall Selinger lost a majority of his caucus although he maintained a plurality.
Actually, I checked the numbers and by any measure, the majority of Caucus backed Selinger. It proves my point about the reliability of Cacus endorsements.
I do not see anything wrong with leadership candidates having to secure a certain threshold of MPs.
Yes, you've made that clear many times. What you haven't answered is why the vote of an elected politician should weigh more than a rank-and-file party member. Why should my MLA's opinion of the upcoming leadership convention for the Manitoba NDP wiegh more than mine and those of my nieghbours put together?
If for example a fringe lunatic like Barry Wiesleder was about to take over the NDP (and Weisleder may be the closest thing the NDP has to a Corbyn) then I would hope that the elders and the dreaded "establishmnet" of my party would do what they could to save the party from the applaing prospect of his leadership. The Corbyn example would be all the justification they need.
Doesn't show much confidence in the party membership, doesn't it? During a leadership convention, the party would in advance set down parameters designed to ensure a fair and competitive race. If Weisleder meets that criteria, why shouldn't he be allowed to run? Is the NDP that fragile that it can be that easily taken over?
If for example a fringe lunatic
You do know that after a certain point throwing around insults says more about the person saying them than the person being targeted?
One mechanism that Labour is using in this campaign to staunch the bleeding is to assure its voters that Corbyn is just too ridiculous ever to be PM. Therefore voters can safely vote for their local Labour MPs without fear of giving him the keys to #10.
Talk about a double standard. Maybe Corbyn should step down for the good of the party. But how is the conduct of those MPs openly undercutting their leader like that actually helping the party? Why is the onus not on them to support the party given that as has been pointed out there is no chance of changing leaders before the election?
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:23
#448
Here are Labour's 10 pledges for the campaign:
1. Full Employment...
2. A Secure Homes Guarantee
...
3. Security At Work
...
4. A Secure NHS And Social Care
...
5. A National Education Service
...
6. Action To Secure Our Environment
...
7. Put The Public Back Into Our Economy
...
8. Cut Inequality In Income And Wealth
...
9. Action To Secure An Equal Society
...
10. Peace And Justice At The Heart Of Foreign Policy
I wonder what the anti-Corbyn crowd has to say about the policy items listed here, independent of who the leader of the Labour Party is.
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:26
#449
Hilarious... the issues with Corbyn and his disaterous leadership are the fault of New Labour... you know, the New Labour that actually won elections.
What the claim that New Labour was a recipie for electoral success neglects to mention is that average voter turnout dropped substantially under Blair's watch.
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:37
#450
Here are Labour's 10 pledges for the campaign:
1. Full Employment...
2. A Secure Homes Guarantee
...
3. Security At Work
...
4. A Secure NHS And Social Care
...
5. A National Education Service
...
6. Action To Secure Our Environment
...
7. Put The Public Back Into Our Economy
...
8. Cut Inequality In Income And Wealth
...
9. Action To Secure An Equal Society
...
10. Peace And Justice At The Heart Of Foreign Policy
I wonder what the anti-Corbyn crowd has to say about the policy items listed here, independent of who the leader of the Labour Party is.
Yeah...what policies would the anti-Corbynites prefer?
BTW, Nicky, Wales voted narrowly Leave. So what difference would it possibly make there if Labour made staying in the EU the centerpiece of its campaign? Anybody who's planning to vote Tory in Wales would be a hard-line Leave vote.
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:45
#451
As far as Muclair and his admiration to Thatcher, I can mention that as many times as I want. I'm not a member of the NDP, and am not restricted in what I say about the leadership.Certainly.
But in that context, what do you suppose this means, or is intended to mean?
Any excuse for continued PLP attacks on Corbyn has vanishedIs there a time limit? Should there be one?
Yes. The time limit is the moment the election is called. No party can ever change leaders DURING an election campaign, so no justification for trying to discredit the leader and destroying the chances of that party winning the election, once the campaign is underway, can possibly exist. The PLP is not only attacking Corbyn now-MOST of them spent the 2015 campaign attacking Ed Miliband and insisting Ed's brother David should have been leader instead-never mind that the two of them and virtually no differeces on policy and that David had no greater personal appeal than Ed whatsoever.
These people still haven't given up putting Blair back into the leadership-never mind that there is no reason to think Blair would win any votes, with everyone in the UK despising the man for the Iraq War, than would Corbyn has the potential for winning.
Nicky, if you are reading this, nothing you're doing here in this thread helps anyone but the Tories and UKIP. If you actually want anything positive to happen in the UK(nothing ever can if the Tories get a landslide this year)please just stop.
Just stop.