Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

The Eagle has landed. Angela "Iraq War/What housing bubble?" Eagle will run.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36756975

From the BBC article:

Quote:

Labour's ruling National Executive Committee will decide whether he [Corbyn] must seek MPs' nominations to run again.

I guess that answers my question of who will decide this matter.  If they decide he must then he'll be shit-outta-luck, I think.

josh

He may take legal action in that eventuality.

mark_alfred

Yes.  The leader should be considered to already have passed any preliminaries.  The burden should have to be solely on the challenger to initiate a challenge.  Once that burden is met, then a vote can be held.  So I feel Corbyn should not have to seek MP's nominations to run for leader in this challenge, since he is already leader.  If the rules are silent on it regarding the current leader, then it's not applicable to him, IMO.

bekayne

josh wrote:
He may take legal action in that eventuality.

Yes

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/jeremy-corbyn-challenge-...

sherpa-finn

So Leadsom drops out of the Tory leadership because she admits that she does not have adequate support in caucus to govern effectively. 

Welcome to the realpolitik of British parliamentary politics, folks.

Over to you Mr Corbyn. 

josh

Unlike Leadsom, Corbyn already has been elected leader.  Over to you Ms. Eagle.

sherpa-finn

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It would be fair and legitimate for there to be a leadership contest of Corbyn vs. Eagle.

It would not be a legitimate contest if only Eagle and other anti-left candidates are permitted to stand.  Such a contest would be meaningless, since none of the anti-Corbyn MPs disagree with each other on any major issues.  They all support the benefits cap and the Tory "budget charter", which commits all of them to govern on a program identical to Theresa May if any of them become prime minister.  Any "fiscally conservative" party is going to have to be exactly like any other "fiscally conservative" party.  All tight budgets are essentially the same,

Labour can only win the next election if everyone who has joined to support Corbyn is kept in the party and is given a real say in Labour's future, and if the Labour MPs give up their dismissive cynicism and actually listen to what the Corbyn movement is saying.

Labour can't win if no one feels enthusiasm about voting for the party, and it's impossible for Labour to generate any enthusiasm if it's led by a centrist who still thinks UK military intervention in the Middle East is justified and who still thinks Labour should commit to tight budgets, "law abd order" and "market values".  The only way Labour can beat the Tories is if the electorate thinks a Labour government will be clearly different than the Tories.  Nobody would want to replace a Conservative government with a just-barely-not-Conservative government, and people who think the Tories are basically right on the issues would ever vote against the Tories.

Your approach can only lead to a Labour defeat.  The party ran things exactly as you say they should in 2010 and 2015.  The losses in those elections prove that centrist, elitist campaigns can never work for Labour again.  Young people in the UK can't feel enthusiasm for any party that isn't on the left, isn't idealistic, and doesn't present a visionary program of change.  And Labour can't win if young voters stay home. 

A return to cynical, passionless centrism can't make Labour a party worth electing.  Or a party that would do anything for the workers or the poor if it was elected(only massive spending increases can make a difference to the state of the powerless.  Minor changes and shuffling small amounts of money can't help at all).

What I can't figure out is if you actually believe all the Blairite propaganda you've been posting(if you do, you've stopped being a progressive at all)or if you're just doing an extended parody of a Labour "insider".

 

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

Why are you so afraid of Jeremy Corbyn?

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
The party ran things exactly as you say they should in 2010 and 2015.  The losses in those elections prove that centrist, elitist campaigns can never work for Labour again.  Young people in the UK can't feel enthusiasm for any party that isn't on the left, isn't idealistic, and doesn't present a visionary program of change.  And Labour can't win if young voters stay home.

You can also mention that the Labour government took big losses under Tony Blair in 2005. That makes 3 consecutive elections with seat reductions for Labour.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
The party ran things exactly as you say they should in 2010 and 2015.  The losses in those elections prove that centrist, elitist campaigns can never work for Labour again.  Young people in the UK can't feel enthusiasm for any party that isn't on the left, isn't idealistic, and doesn't present a visionary program of change.  And Labour can't win if young voters stay home.

You can also mention that the Labour government took big losses under Tony Blair in 2005. That makes 3 consecutive elections with seat reductions for Labour.

When it only got 35% of the vote.

josh
josh

Fixed it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

josh wrote:

Apparently Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/labours-nec-set-ensure-j...

The link doesn't work.

Try this version:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/labours-nec-set-ensure-j...

mark_alfred

I think the headline of this story which proclaims that a decision has been made is misleading.  From within the article,

Quote:
Labour's National Executive Committee is is due to meet at 2pm tomorrow to decide the terms of the contest, including whether Corbyn is automatically on the ballot. The party's HQ and the leader's office have received contradictory legal advice on whether he requires 50 nominations. But it is the NEC that will ultimately decide.

So it's not yet known what their decision will be.  I'm guessing that they would prefer a contest rather than having Eagle win by default.

Notalib

So it looks like the Blairites have once again thrown electability under the bus to serve childish tantrums against the leader.

" The UK needs a government that works for everyone not just the privileged few" is one leader's slogan in the UK right now..... care to guess who that is?

You would think that would be Corbyn, you would be wrong, its May's.

So I assume the right in the Tory party will now destroy her, or just wait no no no, they just coronated her instead.

Much like Trump using Bernie's stump speech, the Tories just took labours platform while they were busy eating their own.....

And as an aside, it sure is interesting how a few posters here are totally supportive of running at the leader in the UK but absolutely dismissive about anyone who has confronted the Canadian leader since his devastating loss.....

The hypocrisy of the right is unending....

nicky

It's pretty sad that 80% of Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn. Of the 40 who supported him on that ballot seven now have said they will not support him as leader. So he is down to 15% support among the people who work with him every day.

Even Greg Selinger retained majority support in his caucus and he went down to an ignominious defeat. His stubornnness ensured his party's slaughter. Corbyn looks to do the same.

One of the attributes of leadership is putting your party's interests above your own ego.

 

 

josh

One of the attributes of leadership is putting your party's interests above your own ego. 

 

Yes, that lesson applies quite well to the coupsters.

wage zombie

sherpa-finn wrote:

And that's what made the overwhelming vote of non-confidence in him so politically devastating.

Yes, Mr Corbyn may well be able to hang on to his post of Leader of the Opposition.

But he will never, ever be Prime Minister. That you can take to the bank, my friend. 

And EVERYONE (echoing Ken's earlier use of caps for emphasis) in the country, save a handful of devotees, know that. 

Your smugness suggests that you feel some sense of accomplishment.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

nicky

Mulcair maintained the support of 85 % of his caucus. Corbyn lost 85% of his.
Have any of you Corbyn supports watched him in Parliament or looked at his poll ratings? His MPs did and voted accordingly, even many on the left.

wage zombie

One simple question from Andrew Neil leaves Labour coup leader Angela Eagle floundering (VIDEO)

Quote:

Even after Neil repeated his question, the MP for Wallasey was still unable to name a single policy that set her apart from Corbyn, despite being so against him.

And this lack of vision comes after everything the rebelling MPs have sidelined to carry out their coup.

...

This simple question from Neil has exposed the plotters. After handing the Conservatives free-reign on the Brexit narrative, Eagle has revealed that the plotters do not even have a vision. She could not name one inspiring policy that sets her apart from Corbyn. From Eagle, all we hear in response are phrases like “strong, united opposition”. It seems the plotting MPs abandoned the nation in the name of empty buzzwords. And not for the first time.

In her answer, Eagle attempted to rebrand herself as anti-austerity. But in doing so, she fails to distinguish herself from Corbyn. It appears the leadership hopeful is trapped. She knows anti-anti-austerity is not a good look, and the membership would roast her for such a stance.

 

 

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
Mulcair maintained the support of 85 % of his caucus. Corbyn lost 85% of his. Have any of you Corbyn supports watched him in Parliament or looked at his poll ratings? His MPs did and voted accordingly, even many on the left.

Corbyn didn't 'lose the support of his caucus'. He never had it. The Labour caucus didn't want him as leader, ever. It was the members of the party who elected him to the position, with full knowledge that the caucus didn't want him. That was the membership of the party rejecting the caucus, who apparently didn't get the message, or did get the message and decided to ignore it.

Now they will try to keep Corbyn's name off the ballot, knowing full well the membership of the party will elect him again if his name stands. This isn't a battle between Corbyn and the caucus, it's a battle between the caucus and the party membership. I suggest that if the caucus wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The next election will see Labour voters staying home in droves, and the Labour caucus reduced to a rump that will take decades to recover.

Here's chunkymark on Angela Eagle and the phony 'he's unelectable' line of the caucus. Note chunkymark channeling sherpa-finn at around the 3 minute mark.

Tony Blair has been been through the mill

 

Notalib

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/embarrassing-video-cracking-everyone-...

Filling in for Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the MP for Wallasey said:

"Instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their narrow self interest."

Eagle is speaking of the Conservatives using the EU referendum to joust for the leadership of their party.

 

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

Gee Magoo, I gave you more credit than that bogus comparison.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

Heh.

josh

Notalib wrote:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/embarrassing-video-cracking-everyone-...

Filling in for Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the MP for Wallasey said:

"Instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their narrow self interest."

Eagle is speaking of the Conservatives using the EU referendum to joust for the leadership of their party.

 

There's a Yiddish word for that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Oh, there's always a difference.

Seems that in this case the biggest difference is that Mulcair had party support, and Corbyn has membership support.

But I think the question in both cases is "is this guy leadership material?"  I guess I just find it funny that in the case of Mulcair it was supposedly obvious that he wasn't - COUGHMargaretThatcherCOUGH.

But in Corbyn's case it should be obvious that he is.  He's scruffy, and he bends the knee to nobody, and people we don't like don't like him.  So what's not to love?  Just sayin'.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "It's a COUP!  He was AMBUSHED!!"

Tom Mulcair loses the support of his party after an important vote:  "Hahaha!  Get lost, beardo!  Don't go away mad, just go away!!"

Corbyn lost a meaningless vote held by his party's MPs, a group which never supported him or accepted him as leader...Mulcair lost a vote of the rank and file, most if whom did support him until his indefensibly disastrous performance during the 2015 election campaigb.  You honestly can't see the difference?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mulcair lost more than half of the NDP's seats in 2015.  How could a person who was solely responsible for that kind of a disaster(Corbyn, by contrast has no significant electoral failures on his record at this point) still be considered "leadership material?  How could any leader who did as badly as Mulcair did in his first national electoral test ever do better in a second?

 

BTW, membership support IS party support.  No party is ever just its parliamentarians.  And the parliamentarians shouldn't be above the rest of the party.

mark_alfred

I think his reaction to the Brexit vote miffed a few people.

Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn has said Article 50 - which triggers Britain's formal exit from the EU - must be invoked now.

The Labour leader told the BBC that the British peoples' wishes must be respected and the two-year withdrawal process should be started immediately.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/jeremy-corbyn-invoke-article-5...

josh

mark_alfred wrote:

I think his reaction to the Brexit vote miffed a few people.

Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn has said Article 50 - which triggers Britain's formal exit from the EU - must be invoked now.

The Labour leader told the BBC that the British peoples' wishes must be respected and the two-year withdrawal process should be started immediately.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/jeremy-corbyn-invoke-article-5...


Yeah, he has this annoying habit of letting the people decide. In some quarters they call that democracy.

nicky
nicky

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-la...

Labour forecast to lose 100 seats if Corbyn remains leader

mark_alfred
josh

nicky wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-la...

Labour forecast to lose 100 seats if Corbyn remains leader


Always nice when the Mirror and the Telegraph join forces to write slanted articles against the same leader. Corbyn must be doing something right,

nicky

Yes Josh,  Corbyn is doing something "right" - ensuring a massive conservative victory in the next election

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

From my personal point of view, I don't think there is a good analogy between Mulcair and Corbyn. I supported Mulcair for leader because I thought he could become the first NDP PM. When he and his team failed so egregiously in the election, I decided that I had made a mistake. I was not a delegate at the Edmonton convention, but if I had been, I would have voted for a leadership contest. On the other hand, all the hot air from the establishment Labour parliamentarians does not convince me that Corbyn can't win, and I would still be supporting him if I were a Brit. If he actually leads the party through a disastrously incompetent election campaign, as Mulcair did, then I would quickly change my mind.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

Yes Josh,  Corbyn is doing something "right" - ensuring a massive conservative victory in the next election

He was cruising to a win until the Thatcherites in the Labour party decided to knife him in the back. But I guess caucus solidarity is merely something to bludgeon lefties with and centrists get to ignore it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
From my personal point of view, I don't think there is a good analogy between Mulcair and Corbyn. I supported Mulcair for leader because I thought he could become the first NDP PM. When he and his team failed so egregiously in the election, I decided that I had made a mistake.

Quote:
On the other hand, all the hot air from the establishment Labour parliamentarians does not convince me that Corbyn can't win

So basically the difference is that Mulcair lost, whereas Corbyn hasn't yet.

Quote:
He was cruising to a win until the Thatcherites in the Labour party decided to knife him in the back.

I thought they were the "Blairites".  When did they "level up"??

bekayne

nicky wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-la...

Labour forecast to lose 100 seats if Corbyn remains leader

And here's the "source":

One Labour MP said the party could lose more than 100 seats - close to half of the 230 they currently hold - while another said the losses would more likely be around 50. 

Here's the latest actual polling:

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

 

bekayne

josh wrote:
Notalib wrote:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/embarrassing-video-cracking-everyone-...

Filling in for Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the MP for Wallasey said:

"Instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their narrow self interest."

Eagle is speaking of the Conservatives using the EU referendum to joust for the leadership of their party.

 

There's a Yiddish word for that.

But what's Yiddish for "bedbug"?

mark_alfred

Post #189 wrote:

I don't think there is a good analogy between Mulcair and Corbyn.  [..] all the hot air from the establishment Labour parliamentarians does not convince me that Corbyn can't win, and I would still be supporting him if I were a Brit.  If he actually leads the party through a disastrously incompetent election campaign, as Mulcair did, then I would quickly change my mind.

The possible analogy is the Brexit referendum that some in the Labour Party may have felt Corbyn could have done a better job with.  I think it's easy for us to discount this, but from reading articles, it was a very big deal to people in the UK.  Consider the reports of the petition on people wanting to have a redo of it.  This had a handful of signatures initially and grew to over four million after the result.  People (largely Labour supporters) were freaked out.  And Corbyn calling for Article 50 to be invoked immediately likely didn't play well either.

Labour suffered losses during the local (council) elections.  Also, they've not been polling well (even before the "coup").  So, given that an election could occur soon, and given that Labour is a party that's been in power and strives for this (IE, most of them don't even consider the idea of "conscience of parliament") it makes sense that some may want to dump the risk of Corbyn.  Also, I've heard the last time a more left leaning campaign was attempted that it was a failure (1983 with Michael Foot).

That said, I still think it would be wise for Labour to keep him.  The enthusiasm of the youth and new members that have been attracted to Labour should not be discounted.  This could lead to a good ground game and a lot of excitement for an election.  There's been a lot of new members who've signed up.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I thought they were the "Blairites".  When did they "level up"??

Since Blair has become a pariah I figure they might as well be called what they really are. 

Rev Pesky

Elections, especially close ones, are won and lost by the level and enthusiasm of party volunteers. One of the jobs of the party leader is to energize those volunteers.

In this respect, the comparison of Mulcair with Corbyn is utterly fallacious. Corbyn has energized the party, has made huge increases in the party membership. Mulcair did neither.

The members of the Parliamentary Labour Party don't care whether the party forms the government. They only want to keep their seats. Well, I supose I can't blame them for that. After all, who wants to be the next government of the UK. Since all of the 'Leave' campaigners are gone, whoever in next Prime Minister will be a 'Remain' poliitician who'll have to negotiate the terms of separation.

And as far as the criticism of Corbyn for saying Article 50 should be declared now, well, why not. What's to be gained by delaying the declaration? The only possible reason for the delay would be to hope that people forget there was a referendum, and that the whole thing just goes away. The situation as it is, is just plain ridiculous. Having had the vote, having the leader of the Conservatives saying she will honour the wishes of the voters, then saying 'well, we will honour the wishes of the voters, but not right now. Let's wait for six months or so' is just plain humourous.

What is to be gained by waiting? I can't see anything, and at the same time, the instability and uncertainess are bound to increase. Corbyn is exactly right. If you're going to go ahead with the separation, waiting won't do anything for you. If you're not going to go ahead with it, just say so, and take the flak.

By the way, what's Angela Eagle's position on declaring Article 50?

Ah, here it is:

Angela Eagle on Article 50

Quote:
Jeremy did not campaign with enough confidence to stay in the European Union. He then came out and said we need to sign Article 50 straight away. That would cause chaos.

We need to spend more time disentangling ourselves from the European Union in a way which does the least damage.

We need to be very focussed on that.

Which betrays a complete misunderstanding of what declaring Article 50 means. It does not mean that the UK would leave the EU immediately. It only means the negotations to 'disentangle' begin. The effective date is two years from the declaration. It seems like Eagle wants to do the negotiating with the EU with referendum in hand, and then if things don't go well, to threaten to declare Article 50. Somehow I doubt the EU is going to go along with this strategy. In fact they are already demanding the UK make the declaration so the negotations can begin.

If I was the leader of the Labour right now, I would call a press conference, I would ask for an election to be called to allow voters to give their opinion on Theresa May as Prime Minister, and I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum. At least we'd get to see whether the voters preferred straight talk to the weasling of the Conservatives and the Eagle led Labour MPs.

 

wage zombie

The best analogies between Mulcair and Corbyn are contrasts, not comparisons.

I never thought Mulcair was a good choice but after he became leader I recognized that the members had spoken and they picked Mulcair, and so I gave him his chance.

The contrast to how Corbyn has been treated is infuriating, even as an outside observer.

mark_alfred

As I mentioned earlier I think a more apt comparison is how the Liberal Party treated Dion.  Dion was chosen by delegates of the Liberal membership, but he was rushed out the door by insiders.  Seems similar to what's going on with Corbyn, except Corbyn is resisting whereas Dion did not.

josh

The NEC has agreed that as the incumbent leader Jeremy Corbyn will go forward onto the ballot without requiring nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party and the European Parliamentary Labour Party. All other Leadership candidates will require nominations from 20% of the PLP and EPLP." 

 

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

If I was the leader of the Labour right now, I would call a press conference, I would ask for an election to be called to allow voters to give their opinion on Theresa May as Prime Minister, and I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum. At least we'd get to see whether the voters preferred straight talk to the weasling of the Conservatives and the Eagle led Labour MPs.

So what you are saying is that the referendum results should be overthown and voters should be told it isn't an option.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum.

Better add "... but it's only just this ONE TIME.  Seriously, after that I'll definitely make every effort respect the electorate!"

Pages

Topic locked