Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[bonesman]

In fairness the party would probably be better off without the Momentum-members.

 

And left to the likes of this savage ?

 

Simon Danczuk made £500 expenses claim for 'crisis management PR' after teen 'sexting' scandal broke

[Gnasher]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-shows-cameron-less-popular-than-corbyn-for-first-time-a6974891.html

 

Not prime ministerial enough, not a leader, won't win nuthink wid him.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-shows-cameron-less-popular-than-corbyn-for-first-time-a6974891.html

 

Well done you fucking traitors.

[VladimirIlyich]

In fairness the party would probably be better off without the Momentum-members.

And then become the unelectable Tory lite party once more. Of course.

[bonesman]

Petition here:

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/a-vote-of-confidence-in-jeremy-corbyn-after-brexit

[jimmycase]

One thing this has all brought home is the dire need for electoral reform. The general fucked up nature of the world is producing too many different views and strands of politics to be contained to two parties forever. If we had some kind of PR system now you could quite easily have two Labour parties, the Greens etc all with their own MPs creating different policies, working together etc.

 

We had a referendum on PR though and of the people who could be bothered to vote, the vote to keep the current system won.

 

I agree with you PR is the way forward.

[Jairzinho]

No, we didn't have a referendum on PR.

 

We had a referendum on the AV system.

[Biscao]

And then become the unelectable Tory lite party once more. Of course.

 

Terrible, terrible times when we won 3 elections in a row.

[dennis tooth]

We had a referendum on PR though and of the people who could be bothered to vote, the vote to keep the current system won.

 

I agree with you PR is the way forward.

 

 

Rearranging deckchairs. Changes nothing, democratically rejected.

 

Keeps the same elites in power by diluting people power. Check

[dennis tooth]

Terrible, terrible times when we won 3 elections in a row.

Privatised the NHS, Went to war with two 3rd world countries. Let the bankers off the leash, murdoch tapping everyones phonecalls, hillsborough white washing, yes lots of great stuff gowan on back in day.

[Biscao]

Privatised the NHS, Went to war with two 3rd world countries. Let the bankers off the leash, murdoch tapping everyones phonecalls, hillsborough white washing, yes lots of great stuff gowan on back in day.

 

You prefer the Tories?

[jimmycase]

Rearranging deckchairs. Changes nothing, democratically rejected.

 

Keeps the same elites in power by diluting people power. Check

 

Wrong. Everything changes. Democratically fewer people are disenfranchised, more people are enfranchised.

 

Regards getting things done, it means MPs at the very least have to engage in more debate and be prepared to give, it means less ideologically driven policies and dogma.

[Jairzinho]

Privatised the NHS, Went to war with two 3rd world countries. Let the bankers off the leash, murdoch tapping everyones phonecalls, hillsborough white washing, yes lots of great stuff gowan on back in day.

 

Even if you thought that period of time was good you can't replicate it now. The fact we had two decades of Blairism has ensured that we can't have any more. The good will of many traditional areas of support has gone. And, of course, good luck trying to get into power without Murdoch's backing. 

[dennis tooth]

You prefer the Tories?

Seems you prefer tories, just ones wearing red ties.

I try to scrutinise politicians a bit more.

 

I dont prefer either. I dont think political parties are legitimate entities. They dont even function on a logical level, poltical parties are the biggest single obstable to democracy, where citizens actually vote for the laws direct and dont have to vote for some 'party' or 'person' to decide their laws for them.

[Biscao]

Privatised the NHS, Went to war with two 3rd world countries. Let the bankers off the leash, murdoch tapping everyones phonecalls, hillsborough white washing, yes lots of great stuff gowan on back in day.

 

Blair's government was the most redistributive since the 60's. Public spending increased massively in real terms. 

 

It's fair you don't like Blair, he's not the most sympathetic person in the world, but I'd rather have him in charge to get real results than a bunch of borderline commies in charge achieving nothing. No matter how 'principled' they are. Principles have no place in real world politics anyways.

[dennis tooth]

Blair's government was the most redistributive since the 60's. 

Whats that actually mean? The poor got poorer and the rich got richer last I looked but Im always open to new data if you have it?

[thechap]

My heart says he should stay as leader because with him Labour have zero chance of being elected.  Zero.  It makes no difference how many Labour Party members wanted him.  It's the people who aren't party members that are FAR more important and Corbyn has no chance convincing enough of those people to vote for him.  You have a party leader who is an electoral liability but his supporters are too blinded by the hard-left suddenly having power and being desperate to cling on to it to realise he will keep you out of government.

 

My head says a pisspoor opposition is bad for democracy and wants him out.

 

 

 

.

[Biscao]

Whats that actually mean? 

 

Simple Wikipedia-search:

 

According to one study, in terms of promoting social equality, the first Blair Government "turned out to be the most redistributive in decades; it ran Harold Wilson's 1960s' government close." From 1997 to 2005, for instance, all the benefits targeted on children through tax credits, Child Benefit and Income Support had gone up by 72% in real terms. Improvements were also made in financial support to pensioners, and by 2004 the poorest third of pensioners were £1,750 a year better off than under the system as it used to be. As a means of reducing energy costs and therefore the incidence of fuel poverty, a new programme of grants for cavity wall and loft insulation and for draught proofing was launched, with some 670,000 homes taking up the scheme. Various adjustments were also made in social welfare benefits. Families were allowed to earn a little more before housing benefit was cut, and the benefit was raised for families where the breadwinner worked part-time, while 2 million pensioners were offered automatic help with their council tax bills, worth £400 each, although many did not take advantage of this benefit. According to one study, the Blair Administration's record on benefits, taken in the round, was "unprecedented," with 3.7% real terms growth each year from 2002 to 2005.

 

Under the years of the Blair Administration, expenditure on social services was increased, while various anti-poverty measures were introduced. From 2001 to 2005, public spending increased by an average of 4.8% in real terms, while spending on transport went up by 8.5% per annum, health by 8.2% per annum, and education by 5.4% per annum. Between 1997 and 2005, child poverty was more than halved in absolute terms as a result of measures such as the extension of maternity pay, increases in child benefit, and by the growth in the numbers of people in employment. During that same period, the number of pensioners living in poverty fell by over 75% in absolute terms as a result of initiatives such as the introduction of Winter Fuel Payments, the reduction of VAT on fuel, and the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee. To reduce poverty traps for those making the transition from welfare to work, a minimum wage was established, together with a Working Tax Credit and a Child Tax Credit. Together with various tax credit schemes to supplement low earnings, the Blair Government's policies significantly increased the earnings of the lowest income decile.^[14] In addition, under the Working Time Regulations of 1998, British workers gained a statutory entitlement to paid holidays.

 

Between 1997 and 2003, spending on early years education and childcare rose in real terms from £2 billion to £3.6 billion. During Blair's first term in office, 100 "Early Excellence" centres opened, together with new nurseries, while 500 Sure Start projects began. Although the number of children fell, the amount of state support to families with children increased, with money paid only to them (child contingent support) going up by 52% in real terms from 1999 to 2005. The Blair Administration also extended to 3-year olds the right to a free nursery place for half a day Monday to Friday. Tax credits assisted some 300,000 families (at January 2004) with childcare costs, while the 2004 budget exempted the first £50 of weekly payments to nannies and childminders from tax and National Insurance, restricted to couples earning not more than £43,000 per annum. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 extended a legal right to walk to about 3,200 square miles of open countryside, mainly in the North of England.

 

New rights for workers were introduced such as extended parental rights, a significant raising of the maximum compensation figure for unfair dismissal, a restoration of the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal to 12 months, and the right to be accompanied by a trade union official during a disciplinary or grievance hearing, whether or not a trade union is recognised. In addition, an Employee Relation Act was passed which introduced for the first time the legal right of employees to trade union representation. In 2003, the Working Families Tax Credit was split into two benefits: a Working Tax Credit which was payable to all those in work, and a Child Tax Credit which was payable to all families with children, whether in work or not.^[14] During Blair’s time in office, over 2 million people had been lifted out of poverty.

 

The Employment Act 2002 extended rights to paternity, maternity, and adoption leave and pay, while the Police Reform Act 2002 established community support officers and reorganised national intelligence gathering. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 enabled unmarried couples to apply to adopt while speeding up adoption procedures, while the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs) Act 2002 banned charges for guide dogs in minicabs. The International Development Act 2002 required spending to be used to reduce poverty and improve the welfare of the poor. The Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 equalised the age at which men and women become entitled to travel concessions. Under the Homelessness Act 2002, councils had to adopt homelessness strategies and do more for those homeless through no fault of their own, and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 made it easier to convert long-term residential leasehold into freehold through "commonhold" tenures. 

[Gnasher]

My heart says he should stay as leader because with him Labour have zero chance of being elected.  Zero.  It makes no difference how many Labour Party members wanted him.  It's the people who aren't party members that are FAR more important and Corbyn has no chance convincing enough of those people to vote for him.  You have a party leader who is an electoral liability but his supporters are too blinded by the hard-left suddenly having power and being desperate to cling on to it to realise he will keep you out of government.

 

My head says a pisspoor opposition is bad for democracy and wants him out.

 

 

 

.

 

Well before the mutiny Labour had just overtaken the tories In the polls, plus

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-shows-cameron-less-popular-than-corbyn-for-first-time-a6974891.html

 

 

We could have spent the week doing a deal with the greens and possibly the SNP and gave the tories one almighty pummelling. The prize was there. Unfortunately the traitors had other ideas.

[Jairzinho]

My heart says he should stay as leader because with him Labour have zero chance of being elected.  Zero.  It makes no difference how many Labour Party members wanted him.  It's the people who aren't party members that are FAR more important and Corbyn has no chance convincing enough of those people to vote for him.  You have a party leader who is an electoral liability but his supporters are too blinded by the hard-left suddenly having power and being desperate to cling on to it to realise he will keep you out of government.

 

My head says a pisspoor opposition is bad for democracy and wants him out.

 

 

 

.

 

No. 

[VladimirIlyich]

Well before the mutiny Labour had just overtaken the tories In the polls, plus

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-shows-cameron-less-popular-than-corbyn-for-first-time-a6974891.html

 

 

We could have spent the week doing a deal with the greens and possibly the SNP and gave the tories one almighty pummelling. The prize was there. Unfortunately the traitors had other ideas.

Absolutely.

Its not unfathomable that Corbyn could have stepped down while in power during a peak in popular support, for a more moderate candidate and used it to extend the life of a Labour government past one term. But the traitors never even looked beyond the short term and simply rebelling for their own ends.

[dennis tooth]

My heart says he should stay as leader because with him Labour have zero chance of being elected. Zero. It makes no difference how many Labour Party members wanted him. It's the people who aren't party members that are FAR more important and Corbyn has no chance convincing enough of those people to vote for him. You have a party leader who is an electoral liability but his supporters are too blinded by the hard-left suddenly having power and being desperate to cling on to it to realise he will keep you out of government.

 

My head says a pisspoor opposition is bad for democracy and wants him out.

 

 

 

.

What do you get if you cross a Tory with a Liverpool supporter?

[Brownie]

All of this "hard-left", "extreme-left", "far-left" etc rhetoric just goes to show how the media can even corrupt the minds of people who are apparently cognizant of how it all works.

[Brownie]

I've just been reading that a branch of Tristram Hunts CLP have apparently passed two unanimous motions:

 

1) Support of Corbyn

2) No confidence in Hunt

 

I'm no sure how true it is, it's just something I read on Twitter earlier so please take it with a pinch of salt initially.

[Jairzinho]

Angela Eagle article from less than a year ago -

 

The political elite need to lay off Jeremy Corbyn

 

The unwelcome briefings and the public prophesies of doom and destruction from senior figures in the Labour Party over the past week about Jeremy Corbyn are doing more damage to the Party than they are to the leadership candidate himself. Not only are they harmful, they are disrespectful to Labour Party members and supporters who want the widest possible debate in this Leadership contest. Every candidate in the Leadership and Deputy Leadership elections have the right to be heard and put forward a vision for Labour’s future and, whether you agree with Jeremy or not, he is in the race and is entitled to participate. The political elite need to lay off him or  run the risk of alienating swathes of Labour supporters.

 

Over thirty-five years in the Labour Party, including my time as Chair of the National Executive Committee and National Policy Forum,  has taught me that the collective wisdom of our members and grassroots should never be dismissed. All views should be respected whatever end of the political spectrum they are.

 

The Labour Party is a broad church and all of our constituency activists and trade unionists, Councillors, members and registered supporters have a legitimate place in deciding our new Leadership team under our rules.  Attacking those for supporting a particular candidate is a dangerous game and not in the spirt this election should be conducted.

 

The talk of coups,  remarks about not serving in Shadow Cabinets and former Prime Minister’s telling people to get ‘heart transplants’ have no place here.

Indeed, many of the questions Jeremy Corbyn  has raised in his campaign are pertinent for the Labour Party’s future; the failure of ‘austerity-lite’ as a policy offer to the UK people in 2015, the need to reformulate the Party’s political economic approach in the light of the financial crash of 2008 and continuing inequality and of course the cruel social security spending cuts affecting some of the poorest people in our country.

Many of the issues that he has highlighted, which incidentally some of the other Leadership candidates have talked about too,  should indeed be on the agenda of any newly elected leadership of the Labour Party. The housing crisis in swathes of the country and social ‘cleansing’ of large areas in London and the South, the need to invest in public services and not default to failed market models to rebuild our economy, putting environmental issues higher up the political agenda, and replacing the politics of fear which dominates the debate on immigration with a more hopeful narrative that celebrates our diversity. These are the issues that people have wanted to talk to me about as i’ve toured the country on my own Deputy Leadership campaign.

Jeremy’s intervention in this contest has certainly generated interest and sparked debate –  this is something that we in the Labour Party should welcome.

Party figures shouldn’t attack him or indeed use his involvement as an argument to move to the right.

If I’m elected Deputy Leader, there will be a place for all views and opinions in the Labour Party. I’ll make sure of that by uniting us and prepare us to fight the real enemy – the Tories.

[sir roger]

Blair offering to be the Brexit negotiator.

 

Not sure it can be done via video-link.