Both of which means it is time for the attacks within Labour on Corbyn to stop.
Is there a term people who are all over threads when the evidence can be spun in their favour, but disappear completely when it comes to either defending a tough position or admitting error. No names mentioned...
The NDP will never draw the zio power attacks that a pro-Palestinian Corbyn has because it is loathsomely pro-Israel by comparison. Which doesn't at all dissuade so-called 'progressives' here from 'holding their noses' and supporting them time after time with little pressure to change either.
Both of which means it is time for the attacks within Labour on Corbyn to stop.Is there a term people who are all over threads when the evidence can be spun in their favour, but disappear completely when it comes to either defending a tough position or admitting error. No names mentioned...
I think it rhymes with "tricky".
There is merit in some of what both sides on this have said in UK politics. But the issue is not MORE important than uniting the Labour Party behind Jeremy Corbyn and getting the Tories out of office. It's not worth splitting the anti-Labour vote and giving Theresa May or whoever might replace her as Tory leader a false majority in an FPTP election, and there is nothing about Jeremy that justifies splitting the anti-Tory vote and causing such a false majority just to get the man out of the leadership.
We all know it's not his fault that Leave won the referendum-that there was no possible way Remain could have prevailed in it, given the abysmal campaign the Remain side ran, that there was nothing Jeremy could have said or done to have singlehandedly changed the outcome.
We all know he's done nothing to deserve the now four-year long sabotage campaign carried out against him by the Tory press, the BBC, and the Labour Right-and it's only the party's far right, there simply aren't any significant number of people in the party who self-identify as socialists or as left-wing in any way who want the Corbyn pushed out-and we know there's nobody, other than John McConnell-who the Labour Right would never accept as leader-who could ever unite the party if Jeremy was deposed and who could ever gain personal popularity of any sort with the electorate, and especially with the young.
We all KNOW that it's a despicable lie to imply that Jeremy has not been a passionate lifelong opponent of antisemitism in all of its forms; that antisemtism is a trivial problem at best within Labour; that antisemitism, while forever indefensible, is the least prevalent form of bigotry within the UK; that criticism of the Israeli government never needs to be restricted-with, I'd say, the sole exception of anathemizing the use of the word "Zionazi" as part of that criticism or in any other context;
We ALL know that Jeremy never, in any way, ever supported terrorism or appeased terrorists and never in any way belittled the suffering of any of the victims of terrorism.
And we all know that, whether you agree with all of his views or not, Jeremy is, without question, the most fundamentally decent person in British politics.
We know it is all a lie.
I agree that Corbyn has been unfairly treated and that his policies are compatible with a large majority of people who support Labour. I also think that the right side of Labour has contributed greatly to the the disunity within Labour. But I also think that as leader Corbyn has to take some responsibility for the disunity within Labour that has reduced the popularity of Labour. I think it’s unacceptable that May’s Conservatives and Labour are tied in the polls after May has completely botched Brexit. Under these circumstances Labour should be miles ahead in the polls. It seems to me Corbyn’s weakness is his inability to work with others in his party he disagrees with on policy. I think he is just not good at that vital aspect of politics. Since he has been unable to unite his party, I can’t see why Corbyn can’t support someone else he agrees with on policies to unite and lead Labour. Am I being naive because I am not that versed in the intricacies of current Labour politics? How can the current disunity within Labour be remedied? I think a lot of UK’ers are depending on that being remedied.
Labour Should Wake Up To EU Reality
https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/1112680609489526784
"Labour should wake up to EU reality. Trample democracy at your peril..."
Tony Benn And The Left Wing Case For Brexit (and vid)
https://semipartisansam.com/2016/03/03/tony-benn-and-the-left-wing-case-...
"What is the left-wing case for Brexit? The same as everyone else's case: democracy and self-determination."
Labour should elect Farage as their new leader!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony Benn and Niles Farage? Congratulations. You win the dumbest post in the thread.
@755
They can start by obeying the clear and democratic instructions of the British people to implement the Brexit they voted for a start rather than succumbing to EU neoliberal supranationalism and anti-democracy under which implementation of the Labour manifesto is impossible.
@755
They can start by obeying the clear and democratic instructions of the British people to implement the Brexit they voted for a start rather than succumbing to EU neoliberal supranationalism and anti-democracy under which implementation of the Labour manifesto is impossible.
Who voted for Theresa May’s Brexit?
You tell me?
No one?
Yet they clearly voted for Brexit, yes?
So, JKR, if they didn't vote for May's Brexit, whose/which Brexit DID they vote for? And how did they indicate this on their ballot?
17.4 million people, the largest majority to vote for anyone or anything in Britain, voted LEAVE:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.?"
They most certainly did NOT vote for this:
"The 'Norway Option', the so-called Common Market 2.0 is the worst possible UK Labour policy. It is electoral suicide, the shortest suicide note in history."
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1112833261733076992
As for Remainer TMay's latest BS-Brexit concoction - who can keep track?
Yet they clearly voted for Brexit, yes?
So, JKR, if they didn't vote for May's Brexit, whose/which Brexit DID they vote for? And how did they indicate this on their ballot?
The 52% who voted for Brexit had very many different ideas of what Brexit would end up being. Unfortunately they had no way of voting for a specific version of Brexit. Most of the 52% who voted for Brexit would have been opposed to most of the versions of Brexit now being contemplated by the UK House of Commons. It seems like the only certain thing now is that most UK’ers will be opposed to the version of Brexit that the UK ends up with. The largest plurality in the UK opposes Brexit altogether but that may not be the opinion of the majority. The confusion over public opinion regarding Brexit is why many now support having a referendum to figure out which of the realistic versions of Brexit has the most support. Maybe a preferential ballot with half a dozen choices could better ascertain the public’s opinion?
17.4 million people, the largest majority to vote for anyone or anything in Britain, voted LEAVE:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.?"
They most certainly did NOT vote for this:
"The 'Norway Option', the so-called Common Market 2.0 is the worst possible UK Labour policy. It is electoral suicide, the shortest suicide note in history."
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1112833261733076992
As for Remainer TMay's latest BS-Brexit concoction - who can keep track?
Like it or not, “The Norway Option” or “Common Market 2.0” would fully comply with the outcome of the Brexit referendum.
They most certainly did NOT vote for this:
"The 'Norway Option', the so-called Common Market 2.0 is the worst possible UK Labour policy. It is electoral suicide, the shortest suicide note in history."
Regardless of whether that's the case, Norway is not part of the European Union, is it? So voting to leave on Norway's terms does indeed comply with the mandate given in the referendum. As, indeed, would a deal signed where the UK's permanently subject to all EU law but gets none of the benefits whatsoever. That's the thing about saying "Nobody voted for [i]this[/i]!" – it works both ways.
I thought the whole idea of a democracy was that the people got to choose. Why are we making this into something far more complex. Josh has pointed out repeatedly that Britain has been part of the EU for decades, so on that basis they knew what was involved in remaining or leaving. To the point that it was never clear the details of how Brexit played out? That was true during the referendum. There were no details about what Brexit meant. The people still chose to vote for Brexit anyways. Now people have made the choice. And in the real world, if you make a choice not knowing in advance what the consequences are, that does not exempt you from the consequences of your choice. The British people made a choice, let them experience the consequences of that choice. There is rampant cynicism worldwide that democracy is a sham and that politicians don't listen to the people. Do you think trying to undo the Brexit results (which as NDPP has pointed out, 17 million people supported, the largest number of people to ever vote for anything in British history) helps rebuild people's confidence in democracy?
Brexit means Brexit. On this point I agree with Theresa May. Let the will of the British voting public prevail.
It seems to me Corbyn’s weakness is his inability to work with others in his party he disagrees with on policy. I think he is just not good at that vital aspect of politics. Since he has been unable to unite his party, I can’t see why Corbyn can’t support someone else he agrees with on policies to unite and lead Labour. Am I being naive because I am not that versed in the intricacies of current Labour politics?
Yes that is naive. Many of the current crop of Labour MPs are corporatists who, on the main points, agree with the public policy programme that the British Conservatives would roll out. Many of these hacks date back from the Blair era. They have never given Corbyn a chance, and they are so committed to a corporatist agenda that they would rather rip apart their own party than to win under a leader like Corbyn. There is nothing that can be done to placate these people. The only options I see are either deselection or for these MPs to leave the Labour Caucus so that they can lose the next election to a Labour MP committed to a left wing public policy agenda.
It seems to me Corbyn’s weakness is his inability to work with others in his party he disagrees with on policy. I think he is just not good at that vital aspect of politics. Since he has been unable to unite his party, I can’t see why Corbyn can’t support someone else he agrees with on policies to unite and lead Labour. Am I being naive because I am not that versed in the intricacies of current Labour politics?Yes that is naive. Many of the current crop of Labour MPs are corporatists who, on the main points, agree with the public policy programme that the British Conservatives would roll out. Many of these hacks date back from the Blair era. They have never given Corbyn a chance, and they are so committed to a corporatist agenda that they would rather rip apart their own party than to win under a leader like Corbyn. There is nothing that can be done to placate these people. The only options I see are either deselection or for these MPs to leave the Labour Caucus so that they can lose the next election to a Labour MP committed to a left wing public policy agenda.
Sounds like Labour is mired in a protracted civil war. Unfortunately big-tent FPTP politics supports these kinds of situations. Too bad Labour mostly supports FPTP.
I’ve not accessed Babble for a week or so and now read that Ken thinks I only surface when I have some particular evidence to validate my viewpoint.
i have been a member of Babble for about 14 years and have posted frequently and on a variety of topics.
particulat criticism is leveled at me because I have been sceptical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. I think I have been consistent in that view ever since 80% of Labour MPs voted non- confidence in him.
his apologists libel all these MPs with slurs like corporatists, Zionists or , worse in their view Blairites.
that is only a convenient deflection from the necessary analysis of Corbyn’ leadership.
it ignores his overwhelming unpopularity with the public ( roughly 72 to 17 % disapproval in a recent poll). It pretends that this has nothing to do with Corbyn himself.
as JKRhas pointed out Labour should be miles ahead of the floundering Conservatives recent events. That Labour is no better than tied can only be attributed to the public’s doubts about Corbyn.
you are doing no favours to the Labour Party by ignoring these doubts.
Labour plans to stop RBS being sold off as new strategy for economy is unveiled
Labour would block the sale of bailed-out bank RBS in a radical overhaul of the financial sector.
Easier access to capital for small firms and more money for public facilities and manufacturing are also part of Labour's plan being unveiled on Sunday.
Scandal-hit RBS is still 62 per cent public owned, having been saved by a £46billion from taxpayers in 2008.
But the Treasury plans to sell the entire public stake by 2024.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said: “Finance is the central nervous system of the economy.
“It directs investment, deciding which businesses and projects get off the ground and which fail.
“For too long, this vital part of our economy has been solely in the hands of the big banks and the speculators.”.....
..who knows who the folks who voted for brexit 3 yrs ago would vote for today. what i do feel is that it would be a mistake for labour to ignore what people are feeling today.
Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.
6,049,741 signatures
I’ve not accessed Babble for a week or so and now read that Ken thinks I only surface when I have some particular evidence to validate my viewpoint.
i have been a member of Babble for about 14 years and have posted frequently and on a variety of topics.
particulat criticism is leveled at me because I have been sceptical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. I think I have been consistent in that view ever since 80% of Labour MPs voted non- confidence in him.
his apologists libel all these MPs with slurs like corporatists, Zionists or , worse in their view Blairites.
that is only a convenient deflection from the necessary analysis of Corbyn’ leadership.
it ignores his overwhelming unpopularity with the public ( roughly 72 to 17 % disapproval in a recent poll). It pretends that this has nothing to do with Corbyn himself.
as JKRhas pointed out Labour should be miles ahead of the floundering Conservatives recent events. That Labour is no better than tied can only be attributed to the public’s doubts about Corbyn.
you are doing no favours to the Labour Party by ignoring these doubts.
1) It isn't just me that thinks you only surface when you think you have evidence to support your viewpoint(at least in this thread); that's the consensus opinion of the regulars in this thread;
2) You keep bringing up the meaningless "no-confidence" motion the MPs passed against Corbyn THREE YEARS AGO, and neglect to mention that Corbyn's re-election as leader by an increased margin made that motion a moot point, just as a governing party regaining a majority in a snap election held after that government lost an ACTUAL no-confidence motion makes the passage of that motion a moot point. The MPs who passed that motion had never accepted Corbyn as leader in the first place; virtually all of them wanted the party to stay Blairite-or, in many cases, to go to the right of Blairism, as the PLP was headed when its interim leader whipped the MPs to abstain on (and in abstaining effectively support) Tory benefit cuts. It was the decision to start abstaining on benefit cuts-and, in effect, both permanently abandon the poor and eliminate the last remaining differences between Labour and the Tories on any major issues of the day, that caused the Corbyn phenomenon, that caused the vast majority of those who voted in the 2015 leadership race-NONE of whom were Tory infiltrators, as has been repeatedly proved-to reject the status quo and put Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership. The MPs who voted for that motion, in virtually all cases, had only become MPs because Blair himself imposed them as Labour candidates against the wishes of their own constituency parties. They hold seats that would vote for anybody as a Labour candidate. Their opinions on his leadership deserve no more respect than the opinion of the Chilean military, and its co-conspirators Nixon and Kissinger, about the leadership of Salvador Allende.
3) Labour has often been in the lead over the Tories under Corbyn; there's been a trend towards Labour in many of the most recent polls; and it goes without saying that, had those in the party-and those who have left it to join what I call the Parliamentary Independent Group-accepted that the leadership issue was settled in 2016 and given Corbyn their all-out support at that point, rather than continuing to try and oust him-if they hadn't KEPT trying to remove the man as leader even during the 2017 election-at a time when everyone knew it was impossible to do a leadership change, at a time when there was nobody else who could possibly have been a credible, uniting alternative leader, at least nobody the PLP would have accepted-there is an excellent chance that the UK would have a Labour government NOW. Corbyn has popularity issues almost exclusively because of the slurs, because of the lies, because of the false accusations.
4) Your posts about Corbyn have gone far beyond "skepticism"-they've been a continuous verbal vendetta. You've even repeated the disgusting and totally discredited slur about Labour having a massive problem with anti-Semitism under Corbyn, and you repeated the discredited Blairite canard about Corbyn only having won because of Tory infiltrators-a result Corbyn's opponents in the party themselves made impossible by setting up a successful screening process that prevented a single Tory from sneaking into the party. And there isn't even any support for the canard that Corbyn was somehow imposed as leader against the party's will-Corbyn won 49.5% of first-preference votes among Labour MEMBERS in the '15 leadership race-it goes without saying that he'd have gone solidly over 50% among that voting group had their second preferences needed to be counted-there is no way every single Labour member who voted against Corbyn on the first-preference in '15 would have united against him if they'd been the only ones voting.
5) Labour might do better in the polls under another leader, but it would HAVE to be a leader whose views the issues and on internal party organization were largely the same as Corbyn. You know full well the PLP won't allow anyone like that on a leadership ballot-that they will insist on making it an all "moderate"(i.e., Thatcherite) contest, between people like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson. They won't allow anyone on the ballot who actually opposes austerity-as virtuall all the party rank-and-file does, or admits that the Iraq War was barbaric and unnecessary, or who deviates from the neoliberal consensus at all. This is why you get the blowback you get from your demands that Corbyn resign. You aren't just fighting to change leaders; everyone knows you're pushing for a full Blairite restoration or for Labour to go to the right of the Blairites by abstaining on(and therefore cheerfully supporting)all cuts to benefits. That is the reality of your agenda.
6) Your bizarrely contradictory positions on Corbyn as Labour leader vs. Mulcair as NDP leader isolate you; nobody else can make sense of the idea that a leader who led his party to a ten percentage point gain in popular vote support and a gain of 30 seats, depriving the governing party of a majority(and would obviously have led his party to victory had his opponents in the party not kept up their campaign to remove him all through the general election campaign of all places, the one time when a party leader should be able to count on full backing from all parts of the party), is a disaster, while a leader who cost his party more than half of its seats, largely through an easily avoidable blunder-his pointless insistence on making a balanced budget the central part of his campaign pitch while virtually never mentioning the parts of his party's program that were actually progressive-a leader who left his party in such a pathetic position that there was no possible way for that party to ever recover in any subsuquent general election under his leadership, was somehow indispensible. This is a massive contradiction, and at some point it would be the decent thing for you to explain why a leader who cost his party the majority of its seats in an election he clearly should have won, an election where he had the full, all-out backing of his party despite his significant, sometimes catastrophic flaws, is better than a leader who gained and massively gained votes and vote share in an election where most of his party's MPs were stabbing him in the back.
Labour plans to stop RBS being sold off as new strategy for economy is unveiledLabour would block the sale of bailed-out bank RBS in a radical overhaul of the financial sector
Would this bank be a fit for the postal service?
Labour plans to stop RBS being sold off as new strategy for economy is unveiledLabour would block the sale of bailed-out bank RBS in a radical overhaul of the financial sector
Would this bank be a fit for the postal service?
..there is already a postal bank in the uk.
..this seems a good reason to save and make use of it though.
Last year RBS posted its first annual bottom line profit in 10 years.
Selling the public stake is projected to lose about £28.5billion, due to the drop in the 502p per share price paid by the Treasury in 2008.
criticism is leveled at me because I have been sceptical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. I think I have been consistent in that view ever since 80% of Labour MPs voted non- confidence in him.
What expertise to MPs have? Most elected officials these days have no clue what it's like to live like an average person, and that they are MPs really says more about their networks than actual public support on the ground. Besides, we're not talking about people who have come to hate Corbyn over time. We're talking about MPs who have always hated Corbyn, and instead of accepting the result of what the members had to say, insisted on attacking Corbyn publicly and behind the scenes. No leader subjected to the internal attacks Corbyn has been subjected to can withstand that.
as JKRhas pointed out Labour should be miles ahead of the floundering Conservatives recent events. That Labour is no better than tied can only be attributed to the public’s doubts about Corbyn.
No matter how badly a government is performing, as an incumbent government they always have an advantage when it comes to public opinion polling. I'm guessing you voted for Andrea Horwath in the last election? Well, public opinion polling since has had the NDP fall behind, and the PCs generally leading. In fact, in the one poll that has come out since that election that doesn't show that, has the Liberals as the top choice of Ontario voters. I guess by your logic the polling trends for the Ontario NDP since last year means Andrea should be replaced?
criticism is leveled at me because I have been sceptical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. I think I have been consistent in that view ever since 80% of Labour MPs voted non- confidence in him.What expertise to MPs have? Most elected officials these days have no clue what it's like to live like an average person, and that they are MPs really says more about their networks than actual public support on the ground. Besides, we're not talking about people who have come to hate Corbyn over time. We're talking about MPs who have always hated Corbyn, and instead of accepting the result of what the members had to say, insisted on attacking Corbyn publicly and behind the scenes. No leader subjected to the internal attacks Corbyn has been subjected to can withstand that.
as JKRhas pointed out Labour should be miles ahead of the floundering Conservatives recent events. That Labour is no better than tied can only be attributed to the public’s doubts about Corbyn.No matter how badly a government is performing, as an incumbent government they always have an advantage when it comes to public opinion polling. I'm guessing you voted for Andrea Horwath in the last election? Well, public opinion polling since has had the NDP fall behind, and the PCs generally leading. In fact, in the one poll that has come out since that election that doesn't show that, has the Liberals as the top choice of Ontario voters. I guess by your logic the polling trends for the Ontario NDP since last year means Andrea should be replaced?
With Mulcair, probably.
To Defeat the Far Right the Left Must Embrace a Socialist and Internationalist Brexit
"The EU enshrines Thatcherism in one continent - the belief it can be reformed from within in deluded. Wherever the social democratic left has adopted a pro-EU politics in Europe it has been decimated. Labour could have led a democratic, pro-Brexit campaign but has refused to do so. Again, the consequences of this inevitably favours the right..."
The social-democratic disease - turns out they only talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk and end up trying to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds. The EU is neoliberal and reactionary. To the degree it supports it, Labour becomes the same.
The Jewish Labour group which has been affiliated with Labour for more than a century and which has supplied numerous great Labour parliamentarians has passed a unanimous motion of non-confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.politicalbetting.com/
what does the Newport by-electionmean for Labour?
It means Labour held a seat. The main story of that night was the swing to UKIP-a swing which only happened because the Labour Right is obsessed with trying to force Corbyn to fight for a referendum in which Remain would be an option. If the anti-Corbynites in Labour hadn't given aid and comfort to the Tories by insisting that the EU question mattered more than actually getting the Tories out of power-remember, if the UK stays in the EU and the Tories win the next election, nothing social democratic can ever happen AFTER that-and hadn't spent the last two years accusing Jeremy of abetting anti-Semitism when there's nothing more he could have done on that issue other than making it impossible to be a Labour Party member and publicly criticize the Israeli government-the end of the Tory era would be a certainty now.
The JLM doesn't care about anti-Semitism-they just want to prevent Palestinians from ever getting a state, and they want to force everybody in the world to accept the bogus argument that, to atone for two milennia of European Christian anti-Semitism, a state that purports to act in the name of the victims of that monstrous hate must give unquestioning support TO that state for whatever it chooses to do to a non-Christian, non-European, nonwhite people who bear no responsibility whatsover for what Christian anti-Semites did to the Jews of Europe and who could never have done anything to prevent any of it.
The Jewish Labour group which has been affiliated with Labour for more than a century and which has supplied numerous great Labour parliamentarians has passed a unanimous motion of non-confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
All Jeremy has to do is swear fealty to Israel and the complaints, resolutions and stories in the press will disappear like magic.
No Ken, it doesn't mean Labour held a seat.
Newport was safe for Labour under almost any circumstances. The lesson you refuse to acknowledge that this incompetent divided discredited detested Conservative government actually achieved a swing at Labour's expense, one that would deliver them a majority in a general election.
There are local elections and perhaps European elections in May. If Labour als does badly in them perhaps you will be able to smell the coffee.
No Ken, it doesn't mean Labour held a seat.
Newport was safe for Labour under almost any circumstances. The lesson you refuse to acknowledge that this incompetent divided discredited detested Conservative government actually achieved a swing at Labour's expense, one that would deliver them a majority in a general election.
There are local elections and perhaps European elections in May. If Labour als does badly in them perhaps you will be able to smell the coffee.
The only party which made significant gains in Newport was UKIP. Nothing ANY Labour leader, even the kind of reactionary-"moderate" means reactionary in UK politics, becaus "moderate" means pro-austerity, anti-worker and pro-war-you would want as leader would have prevented that. The sneering left-hating arrogance any Blairite leader would have projected wouldn't have prevented it. Centering the fight to undo Brexit would only have led to a stronger UKIP showing.
It might be different if the PLP were to give up its veto over the leadership ballot, and recognize that the overwhelming majority of the party WANT Labour to be radically different than the Tories, and that that majority has the right to be able to vote for the kind of leader they would want. You'd have to admit that an all-moderate leadership ballot, since no one on that ballot could represent what Labour at the grassroots wants, would be an intrinsically antidemocratic sham.
That's what the anti-Corbynites want-a leader who rejects any notion that life can be different. That's what being a "Labour moderate" means-it means hating the working and kept-from-working poor, persecuting people on incapacity benefit and cutting their benefits off even when doctors have proved they were unable to work, just because those people weren't able to come into an office in person to talk to a bureaucrat, it means loving the Iraq War and wanting the bombing of Syria and Iran even though neither bombing could have anything but right-wing results-it means embracing the status quo forever.
It wouldn't matter if Labour won under someone like that-and Labour wouldn't, because all replacing Corbyn with a "moderate"(i.e., a Tory) can mean is permanently costing the party the votes of everyone under 55 or so, which means Labour never winning again.
I assume that you'd concede that the local and European elections would only be a fair test of Corbyn as leader if all those in the party who keep demonizing him and trying to force him out will stop doing that and get all the way behind him and the party between now and those polling days, will accept that uniting for victory is the only valid immediate priority.
No Ken. Your simplistic bleating is not the way it works.
Corbyn is responsible for betraying the great majority of Labour voters who are resisting Brexit. They hav3 every right not to vote for Labour if Corbyn remains leader.
he is responsible for the consequences of his inept leadership.
The majority of Labour voters are not demanding that Corbyn put the essentially right-wing fight to stop Brexit above actually getting into power and implementing Labour values.
You can't assume that everyone who opposes Brexit wants Corbyn gone. They accept that he's handling that issue in the only way it can be handled without splitting the party. Labour can only win if everyone who opposes Brexit with its ranks and everyone who supports it unite around the other issues, all of which are far more important than the essentially upper middle-class and white fixation with placing the defeat of Brexit above anything and everything else.
There's no possible Labour leader who would knowingly cause a fatal split in the party by handling things the way you want done. You know perfectly well that it Labour centered the hopeless fight for a referendum in which reversing Brexit was an option, ever Labour Leave voter would abandon the party, probably forever. There's nothing any possible Labour leader could offer them that would ever make up in their minds for that. To those people, the EU means permanent poverty and permanent austerity, and none of the people who've put reversing Brexit above all else, among the People's Vote crowd or among anyone in the PLP, have even offered any proposals to change the EU, to get rid of its compulsory austerity and privatization requirements.
And if the issue was that Corbyn isn't doing enough in the hopeless fight to preserve the EU status quo, wouldn't it have been the LibDems, rather than UKIP, who gained votes in Newport?
BTW, have you not noticed the recent polls which now show Remain losing to Leave? Why should Labour disregard those?
There aren't any fight-Brexit Labour MPs who still hold onto socialist or social democratic values-only "moderates", all of whom have permanently abandoned all social democratic, let alone socialist convictions-who would center the fight against Brexit and still fight to end austerity.
It would be sickening to have this end with someone like Hilary Benn, a person who thinks you still support bombing Syria and still claim to be any sort of progressive or hold any sort of humane values, in the leadership. But let's face it, that's what you want...you want the Corbyn era and all ideals erased from the party. You want the dead zone of the 97-10 era back, when Labour discarded everything it stood for, even though it would have won without abandoning peace, the unions, and the social welfare state and apologizing for ever disagreeing with Margaret Thatcher.
Wonder if Nicky had a hand in writing this headline.
https://mobile.twitter.com/labourpress/status/1114844356106706944
I think no matter how Brexit turns out both May and Corbyn are going to be considerably tarnished by Brexit because it significantly divides both parties. I think Labour is going to be in big trouble if the Conservatives replace May with a moderate who’s not that tarnished by Brexit. I think in the aftermath of Brexit Labour would be best served by finding a bona fide social democratic leader who is relatively untarnished by Brexit. On the other hand, I think Labour with Corbyn as leader would be in very good shape to win the next election if the Conservatives choose a Brexiter like Boris Johnson to replace May.
How perceptive of you Josh !!!
i did write that
How perceptive of you Josh !!!
i did write that
Reasonable assumption that you might have, given that you actually dredged up the antisemitism issue when Corbyn has done everything that could possibly have been done to address it. He's always been a passionate opponent of antisemitism-it's just that it's about the least prevalent form of bigotry in the UK and almost entirely engaged in by the far-right.
No Ken, you are so wrong. Corbyn has tolerated anti-Semitism in many ofhis supporters.
Many respected Labour members recognize this.their view is far more balanced than your myopic excuses.
No Ken, you are so wrong. Corbyn has tolerated anti-Semitism in many ofhis supporters.
Many respected Labour members recognize this.their view is far more balanced than your myopic excuses.
Anti-semitism accusation and defense has become a a polarization. Those on one side lump all who are not friends of Israel as anti-semites. Those on the other lump any who oppose anti-semitism as supporters of Israel's extremes. Corbyn may be trying not to get mired at the price of being seen to tolerate when attacking those he tolerates would lump him in the opposite camp.
No Ken, you are so wrong. Corbyn has tolerated anti-Semitism in many ofhis supporters.
Many respected Labour members recognize this.their view is far more balanced than your myopic excuses.
Bull, this is a smear campaign by those who wanted Corbyn out as soon as he was elected, by those who can't tolerate his support of the Palestinians, and by the Murdoch press. A real axis of evil.
Jewish Labour Movement Was Refounded To Fight Corbyn
"Transcript casts light on group's history as Israel lobby group within Labour."
"Impossible to overestimate the damage UK Labour's Brexit betrayal will do to the socialist cause. The message people will take away is: if it's not even possible to contest membership of a free trade area, how is one supposed to believe that it's possible to contest capitalism?"
https://twitter.com/battleforeurope/status/1115519387438604290
What would good local election results in 2019 look like?
quote:
The councils up for election this year are all in England and Northern Ireland and include almost all the non-London metropolitan areas but also nearly all the rural and small town district councils, which are not good territory for Labour. There are no elections in the Remain strongholds of London and Scotland, nor in heavily-Labour Wales, nor in some areas with unitary (single-tier) councils such as County Durham.
The following elections are being held:
quote:
Whilst Labour is polling a bit better now nationally than the result it got in the 2015 general election, the distribution of the party’s votes has changed because of the patterns of support for both Brexit and Corbyn, boosting Labour in urban areas and university towns, and reducing its support in small towns and former mining areas in the Midlands and North.
The London boroughs where Remain and Corbyn are most popular are not voting this year, whilst a large number of seats are being contested in district councils covering small towns in the Midlands where Brexit is popular (and Labour is perceived as anti-Brexit) and Corbyn is unpopular.
For these reasons, Labour will be fighting a primarily defensive battle in the 2019 local elections, looking to minimise net losses rather than make net gains.
The London boroughs where Remain and Corbyn are most popular are not voting this year, whilst a large number of seats are being contested in district councils covering small towns in the Midlands where Brexit is popular (and Labour is perceived as anti-Brexit) and Corbyn is unpopular.For these reasons, Labour will be fighting a primarily defensive battle in the 2019 local elections, looking to minimise net losses rather than make net gains.
But I thought Corbyn was unpopular because he was pandering to Brexiteers, and if only he would come out and back a second referendum, all of his detractors who voted for Brexit in the referendum would flock to him in droves!
But I thought Corbyn was unpopular because he was pandering to Brexiteers, and if only he would come out and back a second referendum, all of his detractors who voted for Brexit in the referendum would flock to him in droves!
..if this was directed at me..i have never said anything like this.
But I thought Corbyn was unpopular because he was pandering to Brexiteers, and if only he would come out and back a second referendum, all of his detractors who voted for Brexit in the referendum would flock to him in droves!
..if this was directed at me..i have never said anything like this.
No it wasn't. It was aimed at those who try to blame all of Corbyn's woes on mishandling Brexit even though his own supporters are bitterly divided over it.
..txs for clarifying.
You are absolutely right Aristotle. It is unfair to blame all of Corbyn’s monumental unpopularity on his mishandling of the Brexit file.
there are plenty of other reasons why 72% of the British public disapprove of his leadership.
Even the hapless Theresa May polls better.
