Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, skend04 said:

All this "they stood on a Labour manifesto, they should have a by-election" nonsense is so fucking childish. Corbyn stood on a Blair/Labour manifesto 3 times

and yet continually voted against the party. Shouldn't he have stood down and gone for re-election on his own manifesto too then? Didn't see much of that over the years.

 

The fact is that they don't have to have a by-election as they haven't died nor have they quit the HoC. They've simply seen that in 5 weeks a bloke is leading the party into a disastrous adventure on some gamble that it'll take down the Tories and they want no part of it. 

That "Corbyn was anti-Blair" guff doesn't wash.

 

He opposed the  (unelected) party leader when Blair was horny for war, neoliberalism and authoritarianism.  Even then, he never colluded with the Tory media in badmouthing and undermining the party itself. Corbyn never stood against Labour principles. 

 

These 7 (like Woodcock and Field) have left the party that their constituents voted for. Of course their constituents deserve a "people's vote".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Woolster said:

 

453 allegations of substance in 10 months, or 0.08% of membership does seem quite low.

 

But 453 allegations compared to 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the whole UK in 2018, well then it seems quite high

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/07/antisemitic-incidents-uk-record-high-third-year-in-row-community-security-trust

 

I have no view on this by the way, but whilst the % was small, 453 'feels' like a high number to me, so thought I would get a comparison. Perhaps my comparison is not like-for-like or valid, but 45 cases a month does not seem like bollocks to me. I am not saying there is a big issue, but I do think there is biased reporting in that article.

I'm guessing that the CST uses a different methodology to Labour.

 

We need the Woolster on the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's actually a couple of decent opinion pieces on the Guardian about the splitters today.

 

Dawn Foster: This is a vanity exercise

 

A rushed press conference, a lineup that surprised no one, and a name and branding exercise that promises not to bother so much as the third page of Google. Splits have been mooted since the very advent of Corbynism, especially since the second leadership election put paid to the idea that the route back to rule for Continuity Blairities was via the membership. The general election in 2017 returned a far greater turnout for Labour than MPs like Chris Leslie and Chuka Umunna had mooted, and seemed to temporarily quell attempts to restart a leadership contest.

 

But as Monday’s press conference shows, the philosophical tussle remains at the heart of the party, but it is less concerned with what the future of Labour should be than how politics itself should function. Labour has always been a broad church: it held John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and many other socialist members of the Labour Representation Committee within its ranks while voting for war in Iraq, and letting private finance initiatives overtake hospitals. Those tensions have always bubbled up: these seven MPs are now discovering how it feels to be sidelined and consigned to the backbench.

 

Their decision to start their own splinter group is a refusal to accept that role. They won’t see any more decision-making ability – that’s not the aim – but they hope to grab as many headlines as possible. In breaking away, they accept the fact that doing so jeopardises a potential Labour government: numbers are tight, regardless, and pulling a handful of MPs away is designed to either block a Labour government, and lead to decades of Conservative rule, or secure a confidence-and-supply deal akin to that enjoyed by the Democratic Unionist party, and greater influence as a result.


Real, transformative social change in the first-past-the-post system requires a majority government. The breakaway seven today have publicly made clear they are willing to see a continuation of deliberate poverty, benefit sanctions, the cruelty of universal credit, and economic mismanagement, rather than accept politics has changed and the terms in which they entered parliament have altered. If Coffey, Smith, Gapes et al had the courage of their convictions and were truly honest about their aims, they would stand for their seats in by-elections: winning would send a clear message to Corbyn and McDonnell that they have their constituents’ backing.

 

But they will not: this is a vanity exercise, and the most high-profile example of political toys being thrown from the pram yet. Many MPs will be watching this spectacle and staunchly steering clear.

 

Joseph Harker: If the seven really believe in what they’re saying, they should let voters decide

 

I have been disenfranchised. My Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, who represents the Streatham constituency, and whom I and 38,000 others voted for less than two years ago, has quit the party and set up in centrist alliance with six others. That 38,000 figure is itself 12,000 greater than in 2015: and those extra voters can be attributed directly to the Corbyn effect – the impact of the Labour leader Umunna has always opposed, yet who galvanised support and won an extra 3.5m votes across the country within two years of taking office.

 

Umunna talked of intolerance within the party, bringing up his own his Irish-Nigerian heritage. Yet it’s Corbyn who has brought minorities into his frontbench in unprecedented numbers – the New Labour years by contrast were conspicuous by their whiteness. (Ironically, though the party was far more institutionally racist in those days, Umunna, who’s so quick to attack Corbyn on this, barely raised a murmur against Blair, Brown or Miliband). And Corbyn, who has always embraced multicultural Britain, won massive support among black and Asian voters in 2017, including many in Streatham.

 

Umunna is entitled to leave the party: it’s become clearer over time that his views are increasingly out of step with modern voters – his cosying up to the wealthy, and his non-opposition to austerity were not in line with the direction Labour’s leadership was taking. I’d rather Umunna stayed in the party; even better, I’d rather he realised how out of touch he’s become and start to represent his constituents and party members better. But if he leaves Labour he has a duty to stand down as MP and let constituents decide whether they want his kind of politics to represent us.

 

It’s ironic that, when asked about whether the MPs should step down, rebel Chris Leslie said we don’t need more elections right now: this from the man who’s spent the last two years campaigning for a second referendum. If these seven really believe in what they’re saying, and all they say about democracy, they should let voters decide.

 

Why won’t they? Because, despite all they claim about Corbyn’s unelectability, they know that he’s far more in touch with voters than they are: and that, in an election, there’d only be one winner.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

What?

 

Quote

Putting the Labour party in the hands of the members was the dumbest thing the Labour party ever did. The members - through their own hubris and delusions about what the party should represent - have cast the party into permanent obscurity. The culling of moderate voices to make way for Corbyn sycophants will not only lead the party further into the abyss.

Quote

It's blatantly obvious to anyone with a clue that the CLP and Momentum are trying to push out the moderate voices in the party to make way for far left socialist MP's. The no confidence vote proves it. They were trying to pull a fast one, and it caused such a stink they had to climb down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nelly-Torres said:

In less than a couple of hours we've had one of their MPs referring to black people and those with a "funny tinge" and the approval of Katie Hopkins. 

 

The institutionally racist Independent Group haven't really had a great start... 

 

She's issued an apology, some of my best friends are a funny tinge... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Boss said:

That's the end of the Labour Party now. A new party splits the vote and gives the Tories an easy victory. Congratulations to the members for destroying the party.

 

We'll have to wait and see what happens next. If it's contained to these 7 MP's then arguably the Labour Party is stronger now than before they left.

 

But yes if this is the beginning of a New New Labour then the Tories will be the winners. I have a feeling this isnt going anywhere though. Could be wrong mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, M_B said:

 

 

We'll have to wait and see what happens next. If it's contained to these 7 MP's then arguably the Labour Party is stronger now than before they left.

 

But yes if this is the beginning of a New New Labour then the Tories will be the winners. I have a feeling this isnt going anywhere though. Could be wrong mind.

Plus, there's a few Tories who haven't ruled out jumping ship yet either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s more chance of them splitting the Tory vote.  This new party is just another version of Tory.  God knows what they think will separate them from the Lib Dem’s.

 

The Guardian and Independent won’t be happy with these 7 and will be calling it selfish because they think it will damage the people’s vote campaign.  That’s literally the only reason they will be being critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Boss said:

That's the end of the Labour Party now. A new party splits the vote and gives the Tories an easy victory. Congratulations to the members for destroying the party.

 

Am guessing the members consist of people that have mainly been shat on for decades by the elites and scammed by Blair's Labour, that want a more honest government that actually cares for them, the well being of this country and other countries, and the environment. They might want a goverment that isn't interested in serving corporations and their own greed over people and the environment, and going around bombing Muslims and whoever else they don't like as they take over their countries until they're infested with facists and terrorists.

 

Maybe it's the fault of those scared of even a moderate amount of socialism, those scared of not being able to feed the warpigs and those scared about not being able to keep crony capitalism going. The crony capitalism that's helped to result in kids out protesting instead of going to school because they're not even sure if they'll have a world in a good enough state to live in when they're older.

 

It's impossible for the sole blame of the current situation to be placed on Labour members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve had Sky News on for about an hour and a half since I got home and the narrative is that this “split” is basically all Corbyn’s fault.

 

They just had Lord Levy on saying that Corbyn isn’t popular with the membership (!) and needs to be removed immediately because the “hard left” don’t listen.

 

So they need to remove him and replace him with a centrist who will then not listen to the left, presumably. He was allowed to spout all of this without challenge at all, even though some of it was just completely and utterly bullshit and far removed from fact. In fact the response was, “thank you Lord Levy, as ever an absolute pleasure to hear your views....”

 

It’s just all so transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

 

Am guessing the members consist of people that have mainly been shat on for decades by the elites and scammed by Blair's Labour, that want a more honest government that actually cares for them, the well being of this country and other countries, and the environment. They might want a goverment that isn't interested in serving corporations and their own greed over people and the environment, and going around bombing Muslims and whoever else they don't like as they take over their countries until they're infested with facists and terrorists.

 

Maybe it's the fault of those scared of even a moderate amount of socialism, those scared of not being able to feed the warpigs and those scared about not being able to keep crony capitalism going. The crony capitalism that's helped to result in kids out protesting instead of going to school because they're not even sure if they'll have a world in a good enough state to live in when they're older.

 

It's impossible for the sole blame of the current situation to be placed on Labour members.

 

Yes, those same members that have been governed by the Tories for 9 years and will be governed by them for 20 more. The members that have seen the country neutered by austerity and watched as food banks need to be wheeled out for over 1 million people and homelessness rises in record numbers.

 

The very same members that would rather send letters wishing death threats on Labour MP's because they're not 'left wing enough' and have seen the party apparatus ripped to pieces, gleefully, because they are more obsessed with delivering a fictitious Marxist utopia than living in the real world and - i don't know - maybe trying to galvanise support and topple the most shambolic version of the Tory party in living memory. Yes, those members.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...