Jeremy Corbyn 2

567 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

In fact the outcome of the vote was very close, so 'respecting the people wishes' means ignoriing the wishes of nearly half of the population.

My solution is for the Labour party to demand an election (Theresa May has not been confirmed by voters), and take the position that they will stay in the EU if they win.

That would solve the problem of what position they should take, and provide them with greatly increased chances of winning government. It would also lend a helping hand to their future, as demographics showed the 'Stay' vote was stronger amongst the young.

I agree. I think supporting an election to determine the path forward would be the best way for Labour to deal with Brexit. Unfortunately Corbyn seems to be supporting Brexit.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
In fact the outcome of the vote was very close, so 'respecting the people wishes' means ignoriing the wishes of nearly half of the population.

Would that be worse than ignoring the wishes of slightly more than half of the population?

Had you (and Josh) not stopped reading after you read the above sentence, you would have encountered my solution to that problem. That is, to call for an election wherein Labour makes staying in the EU an election issue. If they win the election, or can cobble together a coalition of other parties with the same objective, they stay in.

If they lose the election they let the Tories take them out. Everyone's vote fully respected.

I will add one more little thing. This is the kind of issue in which a proprtional representation vote makes no difference. You're either in, or out. At some point that decision has to be made, and it's all, or nothing.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Had you (and Josh) not stopped reading after you read the above sentence, you would have encountered my solution to that problem.

Sorry.  I didn't realize that was a problem.

Didn't they already vote for Brexit?

Rev Pesky

JKR wrote:
...I agree. I think supporting an election to determine the path forward would be the best way for Labour to deal with Brexit. Unfortunately Corbyn seems to be supporting Brexit.

You're right, but I believe it is a mistake on his part. Let's not forget the voting population was well aware that it was not a 'forcing' vote. It was an appeal to gauge opinion, but only in general terms. If the government had created an act, then submitted that to referendum, I think one would say they had no choice to but to enable it.

As it is, legally speaking, the government can ignore the population's choice. It wouldn't be the first time a government had done so...

So, call for an election (which, given the current Prime Minister has not been approved by the public is a reasonable thing), and state clearly that if elected the Labour party will not enact any EU exit law. Let the Conservatives tell the people the exit will be okay because the UK is going to get a lot closer to Trump's USA... That'll give them something to think about.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Had you (and Josh) not stopped reading after you read the above sentence, you would have encountered my solution to that problem.

Sorry.  I didn't realize that was a problem.

Didn't they already vote for Brexit?

Magoo is right. When they voted for a common market referendum in 1975, no one suggested calling an election to confirm the vote.

nicky

Corbyn, who set a record in voting against his party in the Commons, is now imposing a 3 line whip on the Brexit vote. Ironic.

It seems that at least 50 Labour MPs are prepared to defy him on this.

There are two by-elections in Labour seats in late Feb. Perhaps double defeats for Labour may help to ease Corbyn out of the leadership before he utterly destroys the party.

josh

And if he didn't whip the vote, they'd say, what a weak leader. Can't win.

nicky
josh

Corbyn is consistent with the views of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle who opposed the 1975 referendum on participation in the common market. Their warnings were prescient. Corbyn is simply trying to stop Labour from losing the remainder of its working class base. It's like Sanders against the Clintonites.

nicky

Corbyn supported the No side in the Brexit referenedum. Not very effectively prhaps. But then what is he effective at? It is his lack of simple competence that is leading Labour to doom. 

 

sherpa-finn

josh wrote: Corbyn is consistent with the views of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle who opposed the 1975 referendum on participation in the common market. Their warnings were prescient. Corbyn is simply trying to stop Labour from losing the remainder of its working class base. It's like Sanders against the Clintonites.

I do not think that tying one's political wagon to a (losing) proposition from 40 years back is a particularly astute political strategy.  

Time marches on .... you might remember that one of the few parties to actively campaign against the EU back in 1975 was the SNP - we can probably agree that Scottish opinions have shifted over the intervening four decades.

And the Labour Party shifted on this issue years back, - through the 80's and '90s. Largely in response to the growing realisation amongst progressive Brits that European policies were actually far more supportive of social programs and trade unions than Britain was under the Thatcher-Major Tories. 

As for today, - we are told that two thirds of current Labour voters voted Remain in last year's referendum.. while two thirds of Labour-held constituencies voted for BREXIT. So Corbyn and the Party are truly caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.  It would have been politically easier, IMHO, for Corbyn to allow a free vote on the issue. But he has decided to 'stand on principle' and endorse the results of the Cameron-driven referendum and in so doing support the Conservative legislation. This is not going to be pretty. 

Rev Pesky

josh wrote:
Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Had you (and Josh) not stopped reading after you read the above sentence, you would have encountered my solution to that problem.

Sorry.  I didn't realize that was a problem.

Didn't they already vote for Brexit?

Magoo is right. When they voted for a common market referendum in 1975, no one suggested calling an election to confirm the vote.

And if you had read a little closer, you would have noticed that I didn't suggest calling for an election based on the Leave vote. I suggested calling for an election because Theresa May has not been confirmed by the voters, and at the same time state a clear position on remaining in the EU if Labour formed the government.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Corbyn supported the No side in the Brexit referenedum. Not very effectively prhaps. But then what is he effective at? It is his lack of simple competence that is leading Labour to doom. 

 

Not true.  Corbyn spoke at Remain rallies.  He didn't make a passionately uncritical pitch for Remain, but he felt he had to be honest...his pitch(unlike that of the Labour Right) was that staying in the EU was preferable, but that there are severe problems with the UK/EU relationship.  I suspect that what Corbyn would have preferred was for Labour to take a stand that was Remain and revolt...that is, to remain and actively challenge the EU on the spending restrictions it imposes on member countries and on the brutal austerity the EU has imposed on Greece in exchange for bailouts.  However, at the time of the referendum, Labour's policy-making apparatus was still controlled by the right-wing, so Corbyn didn't have the latitude to take this stand. 

nicky

Not sure why you say my assertion that Corbyn opposed Brexit is "not true.", Ken?
You seem to agree with me.

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
and actively challenge the EU on the spending restrictions it imposes on member countries and on the brutal austerity the EU has imposed on Greece in exchange for bailouts.

What spending restrictions? Other EU members such as Finland spend a far greater % of GDP than the UK does or is likely to do even under Labour. As for Greece, every source I've seen says the bailout negotiations were between Greece and the Eurozone, which the UK doesn't belong to in the first place.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:
Not sure why you say my assertion that Corbyn opposed Brexit is "not true.", Ken? You seem to agree with me.

Because Corbyn supported Remain(and the Labour Right putsch against him was based on the claim that he secretly wanted Leave to win) because he saw that as a way to defend the new multicultural fact there...it's just that he was honest about the problems with the EU.  He was attacked for saying that he wouldn't try to further restrict immigration-what he actually said was that it wasn't POSSIBLE to add additional immigration restrictions as an EU country.  He was nearly deposed as leader for refusing to lie.

And Islington North, Corbyns constituency, had one of the highest Remain votes in the UK.

sherpa-finn

Simply stated, Corbyn supported Remain and opposed Brexit. 

Both happy?

ETA: Maybe the confusion in this exhange springs from the fact that in this referendum, there wasn't actually a Yes side and a No side.   Cameron had originally framed the question in those terms "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?', but the Electoral Commission said that this loaded the dice in the Yes sides favour. 

So the actual question on teh ballot was 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' with voters given the choice of putting their X next to one or the other of:

  • Remain a member of the European Union
  • Leave the European Union

Thus the two sides becoming known over the campaign simply as "Remain" and "Leave"

nicky

Ken Burch

If the PLP had accepted Corbyn and not spent the whole time trashing him, the polls would not be like that.

And it still goes without saying that there's no one to Corbyn's right who'd even have the party in a better position in the polls and be capable of offering policies worth voting Labour for.

The PLP STILL refuses to dialog with those who back Corbyn or to try to understand what they want, and still refuses to make any compromise with them.  They won't let this end with anything but a full Blairite restoration, probably with a near-Tory like David Miliband as leader.

nicky

Saying it three times doesn't make it so Ken.

If Corbyn had any loyalty to the Labour Party he would resign rather than doom it to it's worst defeat since the 30s under his so-called leadership.

Ken Burch

(self-delete. dupe post).

Ken Burch

(Self-Delete. Dupe post).

Ken Burch

If he just resigned, Labour would never stand for anything again.  The PLP wouldn't allow anyone outside the right wing of onto the leadership ballot and you'd have to concede that it would be meaningless to ever vote Labour again if it was led by someone like Yvette Cooper or David Miliband.

A successor to Corbyn that did what the PLP wants and supported the benefits cap, the budget charter, Thather's union laws and bombing Syria, while opposing any nationalization and any increase in taxes on the rich, wouldn't disagree with the Tories on anything that matters.  If you're right wing on what I listed there, you're right wing on any issue a British prime minister could ever deal with.  Any other issue besides those is a meaningless triviality that affected no one.  The Tories are exactly the same as Labour on LGBTQ and environmental issues now, and if you add those in, there isn't anything else at all

And none of those the PLP would accept could possibly ever be popular with the electorate.  If no one else in the party has any personal popularity now, it couldn't be possible for any such person to present her or himself as a leader and as a clear alternative to the Theresa May became leader.

The PLP doesn't want Labour to ever again stand for anything but trying to win elections for the sake of winning elections.   And there's no difference between winning an election by renouncing your principles and not winning an election at all. 

Why do you believe a tiny group of anti-socialist, anti-democracy hacks who hate most of the people in their own party and most of the people Labour exists to fight for?

And what you don't seem to understand is, even if Corbyn has flaws, no credible potential replacement exists at this point.  The public knows everything about every sitting Labour MP and feels no enthusiasm for any of them.  If the voters thought Owen Smith would be better, enough of them would have joined the party to elect him.  And there'd have been polls, at least SOME polls, showing Labour would do better under Owen.  Or under his fellow right-winger Angela Eagle.

It's pointless to try to undermine Jeremy when there's no one at all who would do better.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Saying it three times doesn't make it so Ken.

If Corbyn had any loyalty to the Labour Party he would resign rather than doom it to it's worst defeat since the 30s under his so-called leadership.

Didn't mean to post it three times.  It's just the weird forum software.

If the PLP really wanted Corbyn to go, here's how they could probably get him to do so(the man has said he would stand down if it looked like he was going to be a real drag on Labour's chances):

1) Guarantee that a left-wing candidate would be on the leadership ballot to succeed him, rather than an all right-wing contest(or, as the PLP would really prefer, a single-right wing candidate as in the succession from Blair to Brown);

2) The restoration of membership and voting rights for everyone who was suspended or expelled just for supporting Corbyn in the second leadership race;

3) The end of all attempts to drive Momentum out of the party and an admission that Momentum never deserved to be accused of thuggishness or antisemitism;

4) The restoration of full internal democracy in the party, with the party conference having a REAL say in policy and the leadership being accountable to conference;

5) An agreement that, no matter who became leader, at least the most popular of Corbyn's policies(and many of them ARE popular would be retained;

Would you personally have a problem with any of the above?

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Saying it three times doesn't make it so Ken.

If Corbyn had any loyalty to the Labour Party he would resign rather than doom it to it's worst defeat since the 30s under his so-called leadership.

Didn't mean to post it three times.  It's just the weird forum software.

If the PLP really wanted Corbyn to go, here's how they could probably get him to do so(the man has said he would stand down if it looked like he was going to be a real drag on Labour's chances):

1) Guarantee that a left-wing candidate would be on the leadership ballot to succeed him, rather than an all right-wing contest(or, as the PLP would really prefer, a single-right wing candidate as in the succession from Blair to Brown);

2) The restoration of membership and voting rights for everyone who was suspended or expelled just for supporting Corbyn in the second leadership race;

3) The end of all attempts to drive Momentum out of the party and an admission that Momentum never deserved to be accused of thuggishness or antisemitism;

4) The restoration of full internal democracy in the party, with the party conference having a REAL say in policy and the leadership being accountable to conference;

5) An agreement that, no matter who became leader, at least the most popular of Corbyn's policies(and many of them ARE popular would be retained;

Would you personally have a problem with any of the above?

nicky

It's pretty facile to claim there are no prospective Labour leaders who would do better than Corbyn. It is doubtful that anyone could do worse.

Among those touted as his successor are Clive Lewis and Keir Starmer. Starmer seems particularly impressive;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer

Ken Burch

I could live with Clive Lewis, and as far as I know he's on the left and NOT an anti-Corbynite.

It's hard to believd, though, that with only three years between now and a general election, that either of those people could make a signficant positive impression on the electorate. 

The question is, would the PLP even allow those two on the ballot, given that the overwhelming majority of them still want a reactionary like Liz Kendall or David Miliband as leader? 

And would it mean anything if the PLP did, as long as they didn't keep fighting to make the number of people eligible to vote in the leadership contest as small as possible and as long as they DON'T keep doing all they can to keep internal party democracy suppressed?

I think you'd have to concede the point that, if the PLP does keep the current Labour internal structure, Labour will never stand for anything again, since it's only the grassroots that care about fighting against austerity and cuts and the exploitation of workers.

It isn't just about Jeremy...this has never been a personality cult...it's about whether Labour is going to be a vibrant, living party in which people have a say from below of it its going to stay on the Fabian-Leninist hybrid model of all power to the leader and the inner circle?

Would you agree with me that the Labour Right needs to stop making this a war against Corbyn's supporters and their principles?  That Labour can't win if they either drive all of those people away or only allow them to stay in in a status of utter voicelessness?

 

nicky

Afraid not Ken. Corbyn is a worse enemy to the Labour Party than the Conservatives and UKIP combined because he is an existentail threat to the very survival of the party and to left-wing politics in Britain.

There may not be a Labour party to revive after the armagedon Corbyn will lead it to in the next election. True loyalists of the party must continue to seek to depose him before then.

In three weeks there are two by-elections in Labour -held seats. If Corbyn loses one or both (almost unprecedented for an opposition to drop a seat in a by-election), would you still maintain that Corbyn should stay? What if he gets thrashed in the council elections in May? These would be actual election results, not just polls manipulated by the Blairite media conspiracy you see whenever anyone questions Corbyn.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

Afraid not Ken. Corbyn is a worse enemy to the Labour Party than the Conservatives and UKIP combined because he is an existentail threat to the very survival of the party and to left-wing politics in Britain.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. There is clearly plenty of support for a left of centre party in Britain, and no one, not even the super-unpopular Corbyn could change this.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

There are many people in Britain who believe that it is a "Socialist Country", and they will continue to be loyal to Labour no matter who the leader is.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Afraid not Ken. Corbyn is a worse enemy to the Labour Party than the Conservatives and UKIP combined because he is an existentail threat to the very survival of the party and to left-wing politics in Britain.

There may not be a Labour party to revive after the armagedon Corbyn will lead it to in the next election. True loyalists of the party must continue to seek to depose him before then.

In three weeks there are two by-elections in Labour -held seats. If Corbyn loses one or both (almost unprecedented for an opposition to drop a seat in a by-election), would you still maintain that Corbyn should stay? What if he gets thrashed in the council elections in May? These would be actual election results, not just polls manipulated by the Blairite media conspiracy you see whenever anyone questions Corbyn.

If all semblance of Corbyn's principles and all of Corbyn's supporters in the party were erased from Labour, nothing that mattered would survive within it.  Nothing at all even mildly left-of-center would exist, and the party would have no policies to the left of Tony Blair(which is the same thing as having no policies to the left of Theresa May).  

Labour doesn't need a leader who is arrogantly anti-socialist and anti-activist.

 

 

nicky

Nor does Labour NEED a leader who will lead it to destruction and irrlevance.

Do you think the poll I posted above in #218 is some kind of hoax? Like the many other polls that presage the same disater?

josh

Michael Moriarity wrote:

nicky wrote:

Afraid not Ken. Corbyn is a worse enemy to the Labour Party than the Conservatives and UKIP combined because he is an existentail threat to the very survival of the party and to left-wing politics in Britain.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. There is clearly plenty of support for a left of centre party in Britain, and no one, not even the super-unpopular Corbyn could change this.

And pretty ironic since no one did more damage to left-wing politics in Britain than Blair and his crowd.

Ken Burch

You're right.  BTW, I just realized I forgot to put an "and" between the words "Corbynites" and "embracing".  Would you mind editing your quote of my post to add that?  I'll edit my original as well.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Nor does Labour NEED a leader who will lead it to destruction and irrlevance.

Do you think the poll I posted above in #218 is some kind of hoax? Like the many other polls that presage the same disater?

The poll is probably real.  But at least half the reason for those ratings is the PLP's refusal to accept that he was the party's democratic choice for leader and their insistence on doing nothing but undermining him and "briefing against him"-I.E., trashing him in the press.  No previous leader in Labour's history was ever treated like that by his party's MPs.

And again...even if there are issues with Corbyn, why insist on also trying to drive his supporters away or leave them with no voice in the party if they stay?  Labour desperately needs all of those people to be working for it in the 2020 election.  There's no way the party will be able to get any of them to do so if it not only deposes Corbyn but erases the Corbyn movement from the party.  You can't win an election when none of your party's campaign workers are under 50. 

Why couldn't they have left it at just asking Corbyn himself to step down? 

It's not as though everyone who's loyal to the guy is an enemy of the party.

And it's not as though what Corbyn supports is universally unpopular...many of the things he calls for have majority support.

Why does it have to be unrelenting heavyhandedness from the PLP?  Do they have anything to lose from actually engaging Corbynites and embracing the best of what they stand for?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Why does it have to be unrelenting heavyhandedness from the PLP?  Do they have anything to lose from actually engaging Corbynites and embracing the best of what they stand for?

Yes, their cozy relationship with monied donors, similar to the U.S. Democratic Party. They'd love Cory Booker.

nicky

Ken, if for whatever reason , the polls are real, as you concede, what justification is there in Corbyn clinching to the leadership? Especially when 80% of his caucus, the people who know him best, want him gone? What possible good is it to let Corbyn lead the party to electoral catastrophe?

josh

Because he was elected by the rank and file.  Because the election is not likely to take place for another 2-3 years.  During which time things could change.  Because some have wanted him to quit since the day he was elected, and would be calling on him to so even if he were running even in the polls.

sherpa-finn

Pundits and politicos are still trying to weigh the fall out following the Brexit vote in Parliament this week in which 47 Labour MPs resisted Corbyn's 3-line whip to vote with the Tory Gov't. In so doing, they remained loyal to the Labour membership which voted 2/3 in favour of Remain.

Two shadow cabinet ministers resigned before voting: Corbyn now has to decide what to do about the 13 junior frontbenchers and whips who opposed his directive.

Interestingly, Diane Abbott - one of Corbyn's closest allies - got "Bexit flu" that day and was one of 19 MPs (13 Labour, 6 Cons) who were conveniently not present for the vote. Her riding voted strongly pro-Remain. 

josh

they remained loyal to the Labour membership 

 

That's refreshing.

Sean in Ottawa

Like manyt things there is often truths that appear to contradict but actually do not.

All the following cound be true:

1) Corbyn could be a leader unable to get enough support to win a national election

2) Corbyn could be the closest leader to one who could -- just becuase he stands for something

Corbyn may be both unelectable and the party's best hope.

This is a comment on more than one possible situation:

1) the outlook of the people and the political climate

2) the present chocies for leaders

Lots to debate but I seem to hear people suggesting that these things are mutualy exclusive when I do not think they are.

 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:
Ken, if for whatever reason , the polls are real, as you concede, what justification is there in Corbyn clinching to the leadership? Especially when 80% of his caucus, the people who know him best, want him gone? What possible good is it to let Corbyn lead the party to electoral catastrophe?

The reason 80% of the PLP want Corbyn out, the reason they never accepted him as leader, is that 80% of the PLP don't want Labour t disagree with the Tories.

These are the people who wanted Labour to move furthe right aftet Ed Miliband blew the 2015 election.

They want Labour to not only continue to keep Thatcher's anti-union laws on the books(laws that leave working people totally powerless against the bosses), want a guarantee of no increase in tax on the wealthy, and want nationalization kept totally off the table, but also want Labour to support: the Tory benefits cap, including the benefits sanction process in which everyone on any form of state benefit is subject to a constant program of harassment and forced to repeatedly show up at assessment sessions to prove they should continue to receive them; the Tory budget charter, which mandates a balanced budget and therefore makes any increased spending on benefits or on education; further restrictions on immigration; AND the bombing of Syria and Yemen.

Since the fight for LGBTQ rights has largely been won in the UK, a Labour government pledged to all of that would'nt be able to do anything at all that was perceptibly different than a Tory government.  There's nothing not included on that list that matters.

It was that post-2015 insistence on a massive swing to the right that so alienated the vast majority of the people who do the work of electing a Labour government that the Corbyn phenomenon occurred.  When Jeremy Corbyn entered the leadership contest, it never occurred to him that he might actually win.  He mainly wanted to run to make sure there was one candidate supporting actual Labour values(none of the others presented any).  It's true that Corbyn won because the leadership election process was changed to be more grassroots and democratic, but this has taught a very telling:  the vastly largest group of the people will have to do the work of electing a Labour government want the party to stand for a program clearly different than that of the Tories; the vast majority of MPs, virtually all of whom represent constituencies that would automatically vote Labour at a general election no matter what, don't want that, don't want Labour to be a party of change, don't want it to fight for working people and the poor, and supported the leadership candidates committed to making Labour into a second party of the right.

I don't beieve Corbyn is personally infallible, and I suspect he would go is he was given the commitments I listed above; all the PLP offered him instead of those commitments, instead of anything at all, was a meaningless figurehead title as "party president".  Let's face it, Nicky, that position would be nothing but a means for the Labour Right, almost none of whose policy ideas are any more popular than Corbyn's, to humiliate the man by forcing him to defend all the reactionary and essentially Thatcherite ideas they would impose of instead of his and to force him to accede in the expulsion of Momentum and of nearly all of the people who are loyal to what he stands for.  Why would you possibly think he would or should agree to leaving on those terms?

Do you actually reject the idea that not only should Corbyn go, but every thing and everyone associated should go with him?

If that happened, and Labour once again became a party of the neoliberal militarist status quo, became a party that stands for nothing and has no compassion for anyone as it would have been under Liz Kendall and would automatically be under Chuka Umunna, what good reason would there be for anyone other than billionaires to vote Labour again?

Why not, instead of that, if the PLP really wants Corbyn to go, actually make him an offer that doesn't require him to betray both his principles and his supporters?  Why not propose something that acknowledges the reality that MOST of the party wants policies well to the left of the PLP and that what Labour's supporters and activists want should matter as much as a handful of time-servers whose only achievement was to win seats that would never vote for any party other than Labour?

Could you respond to what I've written there, nicky, rather than continually acting as if I see Jeremy Corbyn as a DPRK-style "Dear Leader"?

I've shown you the respect of responding to the actual points you have made...you owe my posts the same respect in return.

 

sherpa-finn

Ken wrote: The reason 80% of the PLP want Corbyn out, the reason they never accepted him as leader, is that 80% of the PLP don't want Labour to disagree with the Tories.

The irony being of course that this very week in the most significant political decision of a generation, we have seen the absolute oposite.

Corbyn directed Labour MPs to stand as one with the May Conservatives. While it is the "dissidents" of the PLP who are standing loyal to the Labour membershp which voted overwhelmingly for Remain.

Life is odd, sometimes.

 

Ken Burch

The had to vote yes on first reading to be able to propose changes to the bill first.  It's not possible to defeat the bill, so changing it is the only option.

And everyone knows the referendum put the EU question to rest.  It's not possible to prevent Brexit now, and there's no way to continue opposing it without being elitist and antidemocratic. 

Corbyn did all he could to support Remain.  If he'd promised to implement stricter immigration controls if Remain passed, he'd have been lying.  It is impossible for any EU member nation to implement any restrictions on EU immigration.  There's no way he could have promised reduced EU immigration and still retained any personal integrity.

Jeremy's argument for Remain was the only honorable one...the UK was better in than out, but there were serious problems with the arrangement and everyone needed to acknowledge that.

There was no such thing as a genuinely socialist case for Remain(and I say this as someone who would have voted Remain because of the tiny number of antibigotry measures the EU permits). The only case might have been Remain and Revolt, i.e., stay in but defy EU rules and support anti-austerity and pro-worker forces within it, but the problem is that the UK will be controlled by hardline austerity enforcers for the rest of eternity so chaging the EU is completely impossible.  And Corbyn wouldn't have been allowed to present a Remain and Revolt case anyway, because those who controlled Labour's policy apparatus weren't ready yet to allow Labour to be an anti-austerity party. 

And now, he's taking the only resposible position, trying to fight for preserving the best of the EU situation while acknowledging that it's not possible for nothing to change

 

 

 

Ken Burch

The simple truth is, no Labour politician would ever have been able to persuade working-class voters in the North and Northeast of England, areas were EU policies brought nothing but misery, to vote Remain. 

No Labour figure ever made an effective Remain case to Northern/Northeastern voters. 

Why would anyone ever vote to continue something that had deprived them of all hope?

 

josh

I'd be willing to wager that in his heart of hearts Corbyn supported Brexit. And had people like Tony Benn, Barabara Cadtle and Peter Shore been around, they would have been right there with him. Labour was divided over Europe 40 some years ago as well.

nicky

At least Corbyn is more popular than Trump (barely)

http://politicalbetting.com/

Ken Burch

josh wrote:
I'd be willing to wager that in his heart of hearts Corbyn supported Brexit. And had people like Tony Benn, Barabara Cadtle and Peter Shore been around, they would have been right there with him. Labour was divided over Europe 40 some years ago as well.

He supported Remain as a defender of multicuturalism and the rights of immigrants.  The problem is, there's no way to campaign for Remain without being at least a passive defender of the right-wing parts of the EU, and without being a defender of the misery the EU has inflicted on Greece.

 

 

nicky
Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/05/when-corb... Corbyn destroying Labour Party in Scotland

This is a bit disingenuous in that Labour lost Scotland in 2015, when Ed Milliband was the party leader. In that election Labour lost all but one of their seats in Scotland.

To say now that Corbyn is 'destroying Labour' in Scotland is just 'alternative facts'. Labour was destroyed in Scotland by a combination of the Scottish National Party and Ed Milliband.

If Corbyn's leadership managed to win two seats in Scotland in the next election, that would be double what the last Labour leader got.

Pages

Topic locked