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

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I don't see it that way at all.

 

It's the Leader of the Opposition taking a leadership role in opposing the Government's utterly ruinous plans.  It's basically Corbyn doing his job; and SNP, Plaid and the Greens recognise this.  

 

Imagine the grief he'd get if he was just sat on his hands, waiting for Swinson or Ken fucking Clarke to save the day, while the Johnson clique pressed on with this madness.

But if he can't get the liberals onboard, then it means no result, which means Johnson gets his own way. 

 

I'll put it another way. What is the last thing Johnson wants? I will bet you 100% it is some sort of cooperation with all on the opposition benches and members of his own party to bring him down. He wants to be seen to control this, his party and the timetable for both brexit and a GE. It matters little to me who inflicts this defeat. In an ideal world as leader of the opposition this would be Corbyn, but as we've seen over the last 3 years it's a far from ideal world. We need to focus on outcomes and not political posturing. This is a national crisis with the clock ticking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

But if he can't get the liberals onboard, then it means no result, which means Johnson gets his own way. 

 

I'll put it another way. What is the last thing Johnson wants? I will bet you 100% it is some sort of cooperation with all on the opposition benches and members of his own party to bring him down. He wants to be seen to control this, his party and the timetable for both brexit and a GE. It matters little to me who inflicts this defeat. In an ideal world as leader of the opposition this would be Corbyn, but as we've seen over the last 3 years it's a far from ideal world. We need to focus on outcomes and not political posturing. This is a national crisis with the clock ticking.  

Exactly, so if the Libs and Tory remainers are serious then they need to put their votes where their mouths are.

Pretty simple.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Exactly, so if the Libs and Tory remainers are serious then they need to put their votes where their mouths are.

Pretty simple.

I don’t understand why Corbyn is the only person who’s being asked to compromise here... real baffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I don’t understand why Corbyn is the only person who’s being asked to compromise here... real baffling.

Someone has to?  I think if Corbyn could use the compromise to his advantage then he should really consider it.  However although he could still look like he's putting the "country first" and use this to his advantage, it seems the option of using Clarke to split the Tories is a non-starter as someone mentioned above he'd want to negotiate a new deal with the EU and is against a second referendum.  If this is the case then Swinson mustn't have done her homework as the LDs couldn't possibly support him, could they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

Exactly, so if the Libs and Tory remainers are serious then they need to put their votes where their mouths are.

Pretty simple.

And there's your stalemate. Both are willing to bring down the government, just neither wants Corbyn to front it. We can sit here blaming each other or we can get this unity government in place, get article 50 extended and then call a GE to give someone a mandate to see it through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moo said:

Someone has to?  I think if Corbyn could use the compromise to his advantage then he should really consider it.  However although he could still look like he's putting the "country first" and use this to his advantage, it seems the option of using Clarke to split the Tories is a non-starter as someone mentioned above he'd want to negotiate a new deal with the EU and is against a second referendum.  If this is the case then Swinson mustn't have done her homework as the LDs couldn't possibly support him, could they? 

Why should it matter what Clarke wants? His or any other persons role as acting PM in a unity government is to extend article 50 and allow a general election to give someone the mandate to break this brexit deadlock. He'll be gone then, he's not even standing in the next election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the process is to install a “neutral” non Corbyn temporary PM, that could only work with Corbyn’s plan and support though right?

 

So that person would be painted as a Corbyn stooge by the Tories and all the right wing media anyway.

 

So that could actually work - but does also remove the supposed reasons why the Libs and Tory remainers won’t back it. Never mind the actual issue of finding the amazing neutral temporary PM in the first place.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

And there's your stalemate. Both are willing to bring down the government, just neither wants Corbyn to front it. We can sit here blaming each other or we can get this unity government in place, get article 50 extended and then call a GE to give someone a mandate to see it through. 

Well, I don’t think the Tory remainers are that willing to bring down the government.

 

I also don’t think the Lib Dems have any leverage whatsoever. Imagine Labour bring a no confidence motion with this aim of stopping a no deal Brexit and they block it.

If a no deal Brexit went ahead they would get absolutely decimated at the next General Election.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Well, I don’t think the Tory remainers are that willing to bring down the government.

 

I also don’t think the Lib Dems have any leverage whatsoever. Imagine Labour bring a no confidence motion with this aim of stopping a no deal Brexit and they block it.

If a no deal Brexit went ahead they would get absolutely decimated at the next General Election.

I think there's plenty of Tories that would back a no confidence motion should they feel no deal is inevitable. 

 

Swanson can also vote for no confidence in the government without supporting a Corbyn led government. They can just play it out and see what happens. There's plenty of legal opinion saying no deal will not be possible during an election period. They could go all in on that. There's absolutely nothing there right now that forces them to back Corbyn as PM. I honestly don't know why labour supporters are so hung up on it. We'll get an election, which is supposedly what everyone wants? I'm far from convinced labour can win an election, but I think the chances are greater if we can split the Tories on the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Why should it matter what Clarke wants? His or any other persons role as acting PM in a unity government is to extend article 50 and allow a general election to give someone the mandate to break this brexit deadlock. He'll be gone then, he's not even standing in the next election. 

It didn't matter to me at all until I read that Clarke doesn't view the role as described above (and as intended by Labour), instead that the role would be to "sort Brexit out" and negiotiate a deal with the EU...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/16/sadiq-khan-lib-dems-jo-swinson-corbyn-only-viable-pm-stop-no-deal-brexit

... about two thirds of the way down this article.

Labour would not, and should not, support this suggestion nor should the LDs and Swinson, who seems to have prematurely shot her load. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Moo said:

It didn't matter to me at all until I read that Clarke doesn't view the role as described above (and as intended by Labour), instead that the role would be to "sort Brexit out" and negiotiate a deal with the EU...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/16/sadiq-khan-lib-dems-jo-swinson-corbyn-only-viable-pm-stop-no-deal-brexit

... about two thirds of the way down this article.

Labour would not, and should not, support this suggestion nor should the LDs and Swinson, who seems to have prematurely shot her load. 

I'd not seen those words from Clarke, it feels a bit like he's making them all up as he goes along when you read through that. Like someone has just woke him up or something! If his plan is to do that, well he won't have support either and judging on that article wouldn't have support even of the liberals. For me Corbyn's plan is the only one, I heard a number of Tories talk about this plan before Corbyn raised it last week, so I think that can be the way through it. As I mentioned several posts back yesterday, I'm not locked into any individual, because I don't think it matters - find anyone who can split the Tories apart for me. What does matter is ensuring an extension to A50 and getting a GE. I don't see anyone would have a mandate or be able to find a compromise that could commit to more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

But if he can't get the liberals onboard, then it means no result, which means Johnson gets his own way. 

 

I'll put it another way. What is the last thing Johnson wants? I will bet you 100% it is some sort of cooperation with all on the opposition benches and members of his own party to bring him down. He wants to be seen to control this, his party and the timetable for both brexit and a GE. It matters little to me who inflicts this defeat. In an ideal world as leader of the opposition this would be Corbyn, but as we've seen over the last 3 years it's a far from ideal world. We need to focus on outcomes and not political posturing. This is a national crisis with the clock ticking.  

I agree almost word-for-word with that, but as we urgently need to build a Parliamentary consensus, where's the best place to start: with a group of 287 MPs who have both credibility and a plan, or a group of 14 MPs who have neither?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I'd not seen those words from Clarke, it feels a bit like he's making them all up as he goes along when you read through that. Like someone has just woke him up or something! If his plan is to do that, well he won't have support either and judging on that article wouldn't have support even of the liberals. For me Corbyn's plan is the only one, I heard a number of Tories talk about this plan before Corbyn raised it last week, so I think that can be the way through it. As I mentioned several posts back yesterday, I'm not locked into any individual, because I don't think it matters - find anyone who can split the Tories apart for me. What does matter is ensuring an extension to A50 and getting a GE. I don't see anyone would have a mandate or be able to find a compromise that could commit to more. 

I hadn't read it until this morning either, so that's the Clarke suggestion dead in the water.  Another Labour figure leading this, such as Harmon, would damage Corbyn's credibility so if it has to be someone from Labour it has to be Corbyn imo.  Therefore Corbyn needs to be open minded to suggestions of candidates from other parties, there's a bit of time to thrash it out behind the scenes, hopefully they're doing that but I'm not hopeful, especially with Swinson involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Moo said:

I hadn't read it until this morning either, so that's the Clarke suggestion dead in the water.  Another Labour figure leading this, such as Harmon, would damage Corbyn's credibility so if it has to be someone from Labour it has to be Corbyn imo.  Therefore Corbyn needs to be open minded to suggestions of candidates from other parties, there's a bit of time to thrash it out behind the scenes, hopefully they're doing that but I'm not hopeful, especially with Swinson involved. 

Starmer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Moo said:

I hadn't read it until this morning either, so that's the Clarke suggestion dead in the water.  Another Labour figure leading this, such as Harmon, would damage Corbyn's credibility so if it has to be someone from Labour it has to be Corbyn imo.  Therefore Corbyn needs to be open minded to suggestions of candidates from other parties, there's a bit of time to thrash it out behind the scenes, hopefully they're doing that but I'm not hopeful, especially with Swinson involved. 

Why should he? He’s the most credible candidate against no-deal Brexit now. If you don’t want no-deal, back Corbyn... it’s really that simple. The rest is just noise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I agree almost word-for-word with that, but as we urgently need to build a Parliamentary consensus, where's the best place to start: with a group of 287 MPs who have both credibility and a plan, or a group of 14 MPs who have neither?

I know the point you're making. But like the problem the Tories have had through this whole brexit process, you need a plan that gets everyone on-board, there's no scope to just drop one or two people with the numbers there are in parliament currently. I understand the position that some people just won't want to be seen supporting Corbyn. I know lots of people on here don't understand that or think "fuck them", but we don't have the numbers to say fuck them imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Moo said:

I hadn't read it until this morning either, so that's the Clarke suggestion dead in the water.  Another Labour figure leading this, such as Harmon, would damage Corbyn's credibility so if it has to be someone from Labour it has to be Corbyn imo.  Therefore Corbyn needs to be open minded to suggestions of candidates from other parties, there's a bit of time to thrash it out behind the scenes, hopefully they're doing that but I'm not hopeful, especially with Swinson involved. 

Well there's probably some other Tories who would and Clarke when he wakes up and gets with the proposal can maybe make the compromise required. For me the ideal way is a Tory to do it as it will be extremely damaging to them. I also don't see Corbyn ever getting that backing, Swanson either, in fact if the kind rulen our Corbyn, by default I think it rules out Swanson. . As you say another labour candidate (unless perhaps it was starmer as he's brexit sec) would undermine Corbyn so it's a non-starter. So that leaves a pretty short field of others or a Tory. Maybe Lucas could be the one? She seems to be pretty well respected on all sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their reasoning is bullshit, and the liberal media should be calling them on it, rather than playing Football Manager GNU Cabinet Edition, which is of zero fucking use to anyone.

 

You also have to factor in that Corbyn bowing to the pressure of a handful of Tories and the CUKTIG whoppers makes him look incredibly weak, which isn't exactly ideal if you're about to fight a general election.

 

The Lib Dems, who actually have the most to lose here, are prepared to vote for the motion. At the very least the Tories should be also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I know the point you're making. But like the problem the Tories have had through this whole brexit process, you need a plan that gets everyone on-board, there's no scope to just drop one or two people with the numbers there are in parliament currently. I understand the position that some people just won't want to be seen supporting Corbyn. I know lots of people on here don't understand that or think "fuck them", but we don't have the numbers to say fuck them imo. 

I'm not saying "fuck 'em" I'm saying "challenge them".  If they can come up for a reason why they would support Corbyn's plan, but not only if they went against democracy and parliamentary precedent to put up a temporary Prime Minister who isn't even a party leader, then maybe we should take them seriously.  Then and only then should we spend any time speculating about who that interim Prime Minister should be.

 

As far as I can see, the best we're getting is "I don't like him" and that's not reason enough for people who claim they don't support any sort of Brexit to allow Johnson to force through a No Deal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Why should he? He’s the most credible candidate against no-deal Brexit now. If you don’t want no-deal, back Corbyn... it’s really that simple. The rest is just noise.

I think that’s right. We are where we are. Wishing it was different achieves nothing. 

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...