Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[magicrat]

The problem with Labour negotiating a deal and putting it to the people is that they need to get a majority which seems unlikely . The immediate danger is crashing out and they need to address that above all else.  The next thing that needs to happen is a referendum then the election. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, magicrat said:

The problem with Labour negotiating a deal and putting it to the people is that they need to get a majority which seems unlikely . The immediate danger is crashing out and they need to address that above all else.  The next thing that needs to happen is a referendum then the election. 

Who is going to call a referendum if Labour aren’t in Government?

[skend04]

Unison are going to essentially thwart the NECs wait and see policy and Lansman has said Momentum members should vote with their consciences. Will likely see Labour move to a full remain position this conference. 

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Who is going to call a referendum if Labour aren’t in Government?

I expect now there is a majority in the house to support a second referendum or  confirmatory vote on any cobblers Johnson brings back disguised as a withdrawal agreement. Depending on the vote today in conference I would expect Corbyn to have to swing behind it and support remain. It's been obvious for over a year that a second vote is the only way to avoid a car crash. It may require the courts to intervene and ask for an extension to A50 .

I think with a remain vote at a 2nd referendum Labours chances will be much better than if they go to the polls now .

 

[Barrington Womble]

12 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

1. Negotiate a deal that protects jobs, etc.

2. Put that deal to the a public vote

 

 

There's nothing unclear about that and pretty much everyone in Labour is behind it.  When the time comes for a public vote, some people are now having the debate - as is entirely appropriate at Conference - about whether Labour should campaign for one side or the other.  Personally, I think the most sensible thing will be to give MPs free rein to campaign as they see fit: it makes no sense to consider going to negotiate a deal with the EU, having first committed to campaign against that deal.

 

This isn't sitting on the fence: it's refusing to be divided by the fence.  The bottom line is that the whole Brexit debacle is a Tory creation and Labour are quite right in refusing to be defined by it.  There are many more important divisions in the country and many important issues that unite people who disagree about Brexit.  Corbyn set this out clearly at the start of the year, in a speech in Wakefield (which starts about 16:40 into this clip).  Basically, stop fixating on the fence.

And which way would they campaign in that public vote? Because this is important. If Labour campaigns to remain (as most of the front bench want to do, but not Corbyn), well why would Labour try to get a deal that is worth putting to the people? Labour seems to think they can leave which direction they would support until the deal is done, thus avoidinig taking a position in the GE. It is in the interests of Labour if they wish to remain to get a bad deal, so the public is backed into a corner on remain. And why would the EU want to give us a good deal? The EU want us to stay, so it is in their interests to only offer something that makes remaining feel appealing to swing leave voters. How can the electorate take Labour's position to negotiate to leave as serious when key members of the shadow cabinet already say they will back remain no matter what deal is negotiated? The party needs a position. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

12 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

"it's refusing to be divided " 

 

This seems to make him very divisive.

To be fair, is there a position - any position - on Brexit that isn't going to be divisive? 

[SasaS]

Anybody have a link on why did Andrew Fisher resign? Or better yet, an explanation?

[Sugar Ape]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Anybody have a link on why did Andrew Fisher resign? Or better yet, an explanation?

This is the Times articles which broke it before he issued his own statement saying he was stepping down for family issues. 
 

 

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Anybody have a link on why did Andrew Fisher resign? Or better yet, an explanation?

 

Andrew Fisher? Never heard of him, mate.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

This is the Times articles which broke it before he issued his own statement saying he was stepping down for family issues. 

Because he hates Corbyn, you say? Interesting. Very interesting. 

[SasaS]

29 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

This is the Times articles which broke it before he issued his own statement saying he was stepping down for family issues. 
 

 

Thanks for the article, I've seen it quoted when the story broke, didn't see any follow-up analyses about possible policy shifts etc.

[lifetime fan]

My local MP was on the regional news on the weekend stirring shit and trying to split the party over Corbyn. 

 

Sent the smarmy bastard an email. 

 

 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I think today might be the day when Labour made it harder for themselves to win an election. 

 

Some of the proposals put forward by McDonnell are great, mirror what is happening in parts of Europe and pojnt to there being "another way" of governing, but they'll upset so many establishment groups and their vested interests that the press will go in extra hard on Labour now and will create the perverse situation whereby you'll have council estate dwellers from Hartlepool brainwashed into defending the rights of private schools etc. 

[moof]

It’s not as though the press has been taking it easy up to this point. Anybody offering a systemic rebalancing or a populist transformative economic agenda - i.e anyone who threatens their power and hegemony - is going to be absolutely hammered by the corporate press. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

And which way would they campaign in that public vote? Because this is important. If Labour campaigns to remain (as most of the front bench want to do, but not Corbyn), well why would Labour try to get a deal that is worth putting to the people? Labour seems to think they can leave which direction they would support until the deal is done, thus avoidinig taking a position in the GE. It is in the interests of Labour if they wish to remain to get a bad deal, so the public is backed into a corner on remain. And why would the EU want to give us a good deal? The EU want us to stay, so it is in their interests to only offer something that makes remaining feel appealing to swing leave voters. How can the electorate take Labour's position to negotiate to leave as serious when key members of the shadow cabinet already say they will back remain no matter what deal is negotiated? The party needs a position. 

That is all a very lucid argument for why the party needs to back Corbyn's position. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Andrew Fisher? Never heard of him, mate.

 

He's obviously been to a "reeducation" camp, because his Twitter feed is full of stuff supporting Labour policies. 

[TheHowieLama]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

To be fair, is there a position - any position - on Brexit that isn't going to be divisive? 

Within the individual parties - yea probably.

[Jairzinho]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Within the individual parties - yea probably.

Which major party in the UK?

 

Brexit Party and the Greens. Who will get about five seats between them.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Within the individual parties - yea probably.

There's one party where one view wouldn't be divisive - the Lib Dems/against. In general, with the country, there's no position. In the Labour Party, there's no position. His is just about the most sensible, though; which is pretty much the only direction you can go when nobody can agree. 

[Jairzinho]

Not even the Lib Dems. At the announcement of the move towards revoke being the policy people were saying it was ridiculous.

[TheHowieLama]

Is there a noticeable Tory faction pushing for remain?

[Jairzinho]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Is there a noticeable Tory faction pushing for remain?

They're the reason we haven't left.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Not even the Lib Dems. At the announcement of the move towards revoke being the policy people were saying it was ridiculous.

They can all agree that they want to remain though, right? I mean, the point I was getting at was there could be, feasibly, something that wouldn't be classed as divisive. But yeah, I'm talking about the wider country though, and unless somebody can show me something else that Corbyn could have done that would have not been divisive, I don't think it's a fair criticism of him.

[Jairzinho]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

They can all agree that they want to remain though, right? I mean, the point I was getting at was there could be, feasibly, something that wouldn't be classed as divisive. But yeah, I'm talking about the wider country though, and unless somebody can show me something else that Corbyn could have done that would have not been divisive, I don't think it's a fair criticism of him.

Yes, the message could have been delivered better. Obviously. But I don't think he could have taken a different position. 80% of members want to remain, two thirds of constituencies want to leave. What can he do?

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That is all a very lucid argument for why the party needs to back Corbyn's position. 

really? corbyn's position is not to have a position on which way to fight a referendum until after the election. that is no position, just has it has been since the revokation of article 50.