Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

38 minutes ago, A Red said:

Yes they will try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a remainer. You're a remainer, what deal would make you want to leave? Realistic remember.

 

Therefore (fucking boring I know) they have to take one of the other 2 options as i stated above

I'm a remainer.  I voted remain in 2016 and I will again in 2020.

 

I know that other people exist who disagree; many of them for valid reasons.  I don't want Labour to totally ignore those people.   I would prefer my party not to come down on one side or the other in the referendum on the deal Labour negotiates.

 

I don't consider myself a brilliantly original thinker. If I'm holding this opinion, there's a good chance that plenty of other people are too. Therefore, Labour do not have to take a Leave or Remain stance for the referendum. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Were past negotiations on these terms not in good faith? 

May's negotiations did not allow for the possibility of the UK electorate having any say in the outcome of the process, they were framed by Tory aims and red lines and were held with the UK pressing the loaded gun of No Deal against its temple.

 

It's probably fair to say that they were in good faith, but they were a different thing altogether to Labour's proposed negotiations. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

I think Labour need a new leader. I like Corbyn and his policy's but the underserved baggage and how unpalatable he is to many at the moment it's giving Boris too much of a chance. I hate this is the way it is but it needs somebody with fight to really give that fucking burst sheep a beating without all the Marxist, anti semitic, commie stuff. We are at too an important time, a conservative brexit is a disaster and especially now Boris has turned full dictator and quite prepared to tear the country to pieces using divisive language thinking this is his churchilian moment. It sucks arse the propaganda machine has painted a truly distorted picture of a decent man. As well as he's done under the circumstances he's fought against, he's no chance. We need some chance.

 

The country is a fucking mess. It feels hate is winning.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

55 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I think Labour need a new leader. I like Corbyn and his policy's but the underserved baggage and how unpalatable he is to many at the moment it's giving Boris too much of a chance. I hate this is the way it is but it needs somebody with fight to really give that fucking burst sheep a beating without all the Marxist, anti semitic, commie stuff. We are at too an important time, a conservative brexit is a disaster and especially now Boris has turned full dictator and quite prepared to tear the country to pieces using divisive language thinking this is his churchilian moment. It sucks arse the propaganda machine has painted a truly distorted picture of a decent man. As well as he's done under the circumstances he's fought against, he's no chance. We need some chance.

 

The country is a fucking mess. It feels hate is winning.

 

If he's ever going to win an election or lead a coalition, now is his chance. If he doesn't win this upcoming election, he should obviously stand down. However, it would be almost ridiculous for Labour to start the process of electing a new leader now. First, there's so much going on that it's the wrong time; second, how can you expect the country to vote for somebody who has been in the job five minutes; finally, it'd be unfair and tactically unwise for the next leader to still be fighting this Brexit shit. At best, he/she wins an election and has to sort Brexit out. At worst, they lose an election and are throwing shit against the wall of a Tory/Brexit Party coalition. 

 

Like it or not - and I don't - but Corbyn 'has the wheel'. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

I quite strongly disagree with that, mate. I think a large part of the reason he has been targeted in the way he has is because he's an easy target. A career-long backbencher with views that vary all the way out to the far left, has had dealings with questionable characters (certainly in ways that others who could lead the party do not), and has long been in that same left-wing school of thought that the likes of Galloway come from regarding Europe, Iran, Israel, etc.

 

Any Labour leader will be attacked, there's no doubt about that, but it's obvious that Corbyn is beyond an easy target. I think there are people in the Labour Party that will win both the easy votes, by not being awkward and being able to sell themselves and their vision in a significantly more coherent way, and the tougher votes that will come from other parts of the political spectrum (which, to some, is a dirty concession to make. To others, it's what wins a majority and a platform to actually do a single thing you want). If Corbyn is ever going to win an election, it will be this one and it'll be because he has perhaps the most hideous PM in history in the most bizarre circumstances in history. Not because he can take a hit and is squeaky clean. 

 

If he loses, he will surely stand aside. My fear is that Labour members will double down and select somebody who isn't particularly electable and has a more radical agenda. That's fine, that's their prerogative, I just don't think it's going to win an election. So we will likely end up, as I've said many times before, have 0% of their dream agenda, 100% of a Tory agenda, when we could have had 80% of an agenda people on the left are comfortable with. Still, it's the choice for the Labour Party members. I'm not one of those and unless they want to get serious about getting into power, and put pragmatism before idealism, I doubt I ever will be. 

[Stickman]

22 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

 

 

You'll only have to watch Question Time tonight and see how many times James Cleverley gets away with calling Corbyn an anti-Semite racist while Fiona Bruce nods in agreement...   

[Scooby Dudek]

11 hours ago, A Red said:

Yes they will try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a remainer. You're a remainer, what deal would make you want to leave? Realistic remember.

 

Therefore (fucking boring I know) they have to take one of the other 2 options as i stated above

No they will not try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a leaver. You're a leaver, what deal would make you want to back it? Realistic remember.

 

 

 

 

The above is not aimed at you, it is a dig (as I boringly keep repeating) on the Tory No deal agenda of the Tory membership and cabinet. 

 

It could be argued that at least (maybe not clever politically) Labour are being honest in their splits, whereas the Tories are not. 

Again as has been stated numerous times (which unfortunately I agree with), Labour are terrible at playing politics, whereas the Tories are very good at. 

 

Labour could politically state they will renegotiate a deal and then back the deal. However, after the negotiations have finished, blame the EU and say the deal is so bad (due to the nasty Europeans) they have to reluctantly back remain. 

 

Hence changing their policy post election but it not being their fault, just like the (honest) Tories are currently doing. 

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

Couldn’t agree more with this.

[Scooby Dudek]

[Scooby Dudek]

[Brownie]

50 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I quite strongly disagree with that, mate. I think a large part of the reason he has been targeted in the way he has is because he's an easy target. A career-long backbencher with views that vary all the way out to the far left, has had dealings with questionable characters (certainly in ways that others who could lead the party do not), and has long been in that same left-wing school of thought that the likes of Galloway come from regarding Europe, Iran, Israel, etc.

 

Any Labour leader will be attacked, there's no doubt about that, but it's obvious that Corbyn is beyond an easy target. I think there are people in the Labour Party that will win both the easy votes, by not being awkward and being able to sell themselves and their vision in a significantly more coherent way, and the tougher votes that will come from other parts of the political spectrum (which, to some, is a dirty concession to make. To others, it's what wins a majority and a platform to actually do a single thing you want). If Corbyn is ever going to win an election, it will be this one and it'll be because he has perhaps the most hideous PM in history in the most bizarre circumstances in history. Not because he can take a hit and is squeaky clean. 

 

If he loses, he will surely stand aside. My fear is that Labour members will double down and select somebody who isn't particularly electable and has a more radical agenda. That's fine, that's their prerogative, I just don't think it's going to win an election. So we will likely end up, as I've said many times before, have 0% of their dream agenda, 100% of a Tory agenda, when we could have had 80% of an agenda people on the left are comfortable with. Still, it's the choice for the Labour Party members. I'm not one of those and unless they want to get serious about getting into power, and put pragmatism before idealism, I doubt I ever will be. 

You’re basically agreeing with what he said. His point is that any Labour leader that is 100% true to Labour principles, won’t be allowed to win.

 

You’re saying someone less radical could win, we all know that as history has proven it.

 

Recent history has also proven that any truly leader from the left of the party won’t be allowed to win.

 

The establishment stands to lose too much from the application of proper Labour policies. I admire the fact that people are willing to approach it balls out rather than not be true to themselves just to get into power.

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, Brownie said:

You’re basically agreeing with what he said. His point is that any Labour leader that is 100% true to Labour principles, won’t be allowed to win.

 

You’re saying someone less radical could win, we all know that as history has proven it.

 

Recent history has also proven that any truly leader from the left of the party won’t be allowed to win.

 

The establishment stands to lose too much from the application of proper Labour policies. I admire the fact that people are willing to approach it balls out rather than not be true to themselves just to get into power.

Nope, I’m definitely not agreeing. I’m saying somebody with the same manifesto would be more likely to win because he’s way less of a target and would be a better leader and better able to sell their vision. 

[Dr Nowt]

It’s worth considering whether the Tories would have felt such a nakedly unsuitable leader as Johnson and his current viper’s nest would be remotely tenable to lead them into an election if a different Labour leader was in charge. Is it just correlation, or more than that? 

 

The stakes are infinitely higher here than they were with even Cameron or May, so the no compromise imperative of Labour being absolutely true to their ideal selves at this precise moment needs to be considered with that in mind. For example, in my opinion the public schools being taken back by the state policy is genuine madness while on this sort of cliff edge, let alone unfathomably bad political judgement. Pick your fucking moment. I think the easy target of Corbyn in that regard has almost certainly emboldened the right to be progressively authoritarian.

 

I’ll be voting for Corbyn in the election, yet again. I like the man, his ethos and many of his policies. He’s obviously a thoroughly decent human and I won’t waste time talking about the forces gathered against him and the dirty tricks used. However, I sadly also think that when we look back on this rapidly metastasising political era, him being leader of the opposition at this exact point in history and how flawed he is as a politician for reasons in and out of his control, is almost certainly one of the many, many key elements making it such a Greek tragedy of a situation.

[Brownie]

24 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nope, I’m definitely not agreeing. I’m saying somebody with the same manifesto would be more likely to win because he’s way less of a target and would be a better leader and better able to sell their vision. 

Well you mentioned 80% of an agenda which would suggest a manifesto that has to remove 20% of true left labour policies.

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

It’s worth considering whether the Tories would have felt such a nakedly unsuitable leader as Johnson and his current viper’s nest would be remotely tenable to lead them into an election if a different Labour leader was in charge. Is it just correlation, or more than that? 

 

The stakes are infinitely higher here than they were with even Cameron or May, so the no compromise imperative of Labour being absolutely true to their ideal selves at this precise moment needs to be considered with that in mind. For example, in my opinion the public schools being taken back by the state policy is genuine madness while on this sort of cliff edge, let alone unfathomably bad political judgement. Pick your fucking moment. I think the easy target of Corbyn in that regard has almost certainly emboldened the right to be progressively authoritarian.

 

I’ll be voting for Corbyn in the election, yet again. I like the man, his ethos and many of his policies. He’s obviously a thoroughly decent human and I won’t waste time talking about the forces gathered against him and the dirty tricks used. However, I sadly also think that when we look back on this rapidly metastasising political era, him being leader of the opposition at this exact point in history and how flawed he is as a politician for reasons in and out of his control, is almost certainly one of the many, many key elements making it such a Greek tragedy of a situation.

I agree especially the first para. Corbyn is not suited to this vicious shit show which we now have.  I know I will get shot down in flames but Blair would have wiped the floor with Johnson and his ilk. 

 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, magicrat said:

I agree especially the first para. Corbyn is not suited to this vicious shit show which we now have.  I know I will get shot down in flames but Blair would have wiped the floor with Johnson and his ilk. 

 

It depends how you look at it. If success in parliament is simply embarrassing the opposition by arguing then yes he would. If you think Corbyn is sitting back and letting Johnson unravel himself then I'd say not. 

[magicrat]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

It depends how you look at it. If success in parliament is simply embarrassing the opposition by arguing then yes he would. If you think Corbyn is sitting back and letting Johnson unravel himself then I'd say not. 

I regret to say Corbyn doesn't have a cunning plan to let Johnson hang himself . If he did he would have his arm round the opposition parties, install a new government , expose the Tory lies about their negotiations, yellowhamer and the rest. Then go for a public vote before a GE.  At best Corbyn is lukewarm on EU membership as we all know and thinks he can beat the Tories at the ballot box.  I fear neither is a tenable position faced with vicious onslaught we will see from Johnson on the campaign trail with all the advantages of being the Government, controlling the BBC and the scum press.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Well you mentioned 80% of an agenda which would suggest a manifesto that has to remove 20% of true left labour policies.

In reference to Labour members doubling down, I did. But yeah, in addition, I think they could have a smarter manifesto. Prime objective should be winning an election and building on that. In my opinion, of course. 

[moof]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nope, I’m definitely not agreeing. I’m saying somebody with the same manifesto would be more likely to win because he’s way less of a target and would be a better leader and better able to sell their vision. 

Well, there’s absolutely no evidence for that. Who is this mythical leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, moof said:

Well, there’s absolutely no evidence for that. Who is this mythical leader?

Of course there’s no evidence for it, it’s a future event. There is only reason and logic to back up judgments. Surely it’s self evident that there are MPs in the Labour Party that don’t have the baggage that Corbyn does and therefore couldn’t be attacked for it? 
 

I don’t know anything about mythical leaders, I do know about real MPs with real ability in the real world. We can discuss those if you want, although it’s obvious how that will go. I suspect you’ll say they’re either right wing lunatics who will betray the party or they’re not a patch on Corbyn. 
 

As you know, I like Starmer. There are others, though. I do doubt you’d much like them, though. That’s fine, it’s up to you who you support of course. Surely it would be nice to have a leader who was popular with a bigger section of the electorate though. We have to quite unpopular leaders going into the next election. 

[magicrat]

I like Starmer too but he cant shout as loudly as the fat fuck.  We need a very shouty leader that lie with a straight face.  

[Rico1304]

Starmer is excellent.  He’d appeal to a much wider group than JC whilst keeping the left supporters as JC seems to trust him.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

21 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 Surely it’s self evident that there are MPs in the Labour Party that don’t have the baggage that Corbyn does and therefore couldn’t be attacked for it? 
 

The main thing Corbyn gets attacked for is his alleged anti-Semitism. 

 

He has campaigned against anti-Semitism and all forms of racism all his life. He has never once been shown to have done or said anything that could honestly be described as anti-Semitic. 

 

Don't imagine that the absence of baggage will save any democratic Socialist from attacks.

[moof]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Of course there’s no evidence for it, it’s a future event. There is only reason and logic to back up judgments. Surely it’s self evident that there are MPs in the Labour Party that don’t have the baggage that Corbyn does and therefore couldn’t be attacked for it? 
 

I don’t know anything about mythical leaders, I do know about real MPs with real ability in the real world. We can discuss those if you want, although it’s obvious how that will go. I suspect you’ll say they’re either right wing lunatics who will betray the party or they’re not a patch on Corbyn. 
 

As you know, I like Starmer. There are others, though. I do doubt you’d much like them, though. That’s fine, it’s up to you who you support of course. Surely it would be nice to have a leader who was popular with a bigger section of the electorate though. We have to quite unpopular leaders going into the next election. 

I’d love to discuss the real world, as opposed to vague speculative assumptions, but you’d have to leave your haughty sneering at the door. 

 

Would you trust Starmer to fight for a radical agenda? Is there anything in his record that suggests he will push for big systemic change? Is there any evidence that he can garner the support of a mass movement a la Corbyn? Does he have a coherent foreign policy background? These are absolutely non-negotiable traits for the next leader. It’s not about “right wing lunatics” as you rather derisively sniped. It’s about shaping this country for the next decades, preparing us to tackle the huge challenges to humanity that are facing us. It’s going to take a huge effort