Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[TheHowieLama]

Is it possible a radical agenda is not electable?

[cloggypop]

11 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Is it possible a radical agenda is not electable?

Well, most observers seem to be suggesting that leaving the EU, dropping all safety and work regulations and setting the country up as a far right libertarian tax exile dream is in with a chance. 

[aRdja]

1 hour 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. 

 

Yeah but Blair was right wing enough even The Sun backed him. Of course he was given a free pass by the right wing media.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

Well, most observers seem to be suggesting that leaving the EU, dropping all safety and work regulations and setting the country up as a far right libertarian tax exile dream is in with a chance. 

Unfortunately that is not a radical agenda -- it is business as usual for the elected government. So at the very least you know it is electable.

[aRdja]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Unfortunately that is not a radical agenda -- it is business as usual for the elected government. So at the very least you know it is electable.

Depends where you are on the spectrum I guess, but I’m sad to see that bog-standard social democracy is now seen as ‘radical’ in the UK.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Unfortunately that is not a radical agenda -- it is business as usual for the elected government. So at the very least you know it is electable.

Not really. The Tories weren't elected on a platform of delivering a Trumpian No Deal.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Yeah but Blair was right wing enough even The Sun backed him. Of course he was given a free pass by the right wing media.

Basically, if you support austerity and Israeli Apartheid and you turn a blind eye to tax-dodging and grotesque inequality, you will get the support of the media. 

[Bjornebye]

11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Basically, if you support austerity and Israeli Apartheid and you turn a blind eye to tax-dodging and grotesque inequality, you will get the support of the media. 

Yep. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

23 minutes ago, moof said:

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. 

Fucking hell, hold on a minute. You were the one talking about 'mythical' leaders as if I'm some idiot making up some bullshit. If you're going to finish a reply to me like that, you're going to have to expect that I push back. I've no desire to fall out with you or talk to you in a sneering way, but it's a two way street mate. Let's start again. We've always got on just fine, there's no reason for that to change.

23 minutes ago, moof said:

Would you trust Starmer to fight for a radical agenda?

I'd ask 'what radical agenda?' You and others have maintained - rightly in my view - that the manifesto put out by Labour isn't radical or extreme leftist as portrayed by some; it's actually fairly tame. With that in mind, why would I suggest Starmer would fight for a radical agenda? I don't think he would, I don't think he should, and I don't think it's on the table. I'm not even sure a radical agenda would get anywhere near being popular enough to win an election. If that's what we are talking about, rather than the type of stuff Labour is doing at the moment, then I would agree with the 'nobody' stuff, because the bottleneck is no longer the leadership, it's the agenda.

23 minutes ago, moof said:

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  

I'm not sure Corbyn succeeded on any of these markers outside of a large grassroots following. Actually, on the last one I don't think Corbyn has anything like a coherent foreign policy background. I agree there's a need to shape the country to deal with the challenges that face us, but very little of that is to do with things like OFSTED or Renationalisation etc. We - meaning those of us on the left - just aren't being very smart about this. We are tactically and, more importantly, strategically very poor at the moment. I doubt we disagree very much about our desired objectives, I think our main disagreements come from the best way to get there.

[Bjornebye]

Moof has got NV upside down here. 

 

Moof for Labour leader 

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

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. 

But that’s different to the point being made, which is that a leader from the left with this manifesto will never be allowed to win.

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Brownie said:

But that’s different to the point being made, which is that a leader from the left with this manifesto will never be allowed to win.

Bottom line, I think there's somebody who could increase Labour's chances of winning based on the same manifesto; even more so if they change the manifesto to make it a bit smarter and more focused. Given the opposition, I think they could slam-dunk the fuckers, actually. That said, rather than go that direction, I think Labour members will go deeper down that rabbit-hole. I think there's a big split coming. Some will rejoice because it will get the 'right wing' like the centre-leftists out of the party, but they will relegate themselves to being also-rans. 

[Strontium]

5 hours 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.

 

I think this is nonsense designed to deflect all criticism of Corbyn as being inspired by right-wing fear of socialism, or even more sinister motives. Pick someone politically close to Corbyn - Clive Lewis, for example. Has Clive Lewis ever done any of the extra-curricular things (I won't go to the trouble of listing them all here, we know what they are) that Corbyn has been attacked for? Of course he hasn't. Very few MPs have as much political baggage as Corbyn.

 

It's no skin off my nose, but I think it harms your cause if you're going to portray all critics of Corbyn as being motivated by ideological blinkers rather than opposition to aspects that are peculiar to the man himself.

[Bjornebye]

Motion on a three-day Parliament recess so as to allow Conservative MPs to go to their Manchester conference:

Ayes: 289 Noes: 306 

Rejected.

 

Hahaha

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Motion on a three-day Parliament recess so as to allow Conservative MPs to go to their Manchester conference:

Ayes: 289 Noes: 306 

Rejected.

 

Hahaha

If it wasn't so sad, it's be funny. Wait, it still is funny. But also sad. 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

If it wasn't so sad, it's be funny. Wait, it still is funny. But also sad. 

Watching Rees-Mogg here. Fuck me I hate him more than Johnson. 

[cloggypop]

9 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I think this is nonsense designed to deflect all criticism of Corbyn as being inspired by right-wing fear of socialism, or even more sinister motives. Pick someone politically close to Corbyn - Clive Lewis, for example. Has Clive Lewis ever done any of the extra-curricular things (I won't go to the trouble of listing them all here, we know what they are) that Corbyn has been attacked for? Of course he hasn't. Very few MPs have as much political baggage as Corbyn.

 

It's no skin off my nose, but I think it harms your cause if you're going to portray all critics of Corbyn as being motivated by ideological blinkers rather than opposition to aspects that are peculiar to the man himself.

[Jairzinho]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

Is it possible a radical agenda is not electable?

Is it possible that it isn't remotely radical?

[Captain Turdseye]

13 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I think this is nonsense designed to deflect all criticism of Corbyn as being inspired by right-wing fear of socialism, or even more sinister motives. Pick someone politically close to Corbyn - Clive Lewis, for example. Has Clive Lewis ever done any of the extra-curricular things (I won't go to the trouble of listing them all here, we know what they are) that Corbyn has been attacked for? Of course he hasn't. Very few MPs have as much political baggage as Corbyn.

 

It's no skin off my nose, but I think it harms your cause if you're going to portray all critics of Corbyn as being motivated by ideological blinkers rather than opposition to aspects that are peculiar to the man himself.

 

Clive Lewis is a SEX PEST.

[Bjornebye]

18 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I think this is nonsense designed to deflect all criticism of Corbyn as being inspired by right-wing fear of socialism, or even more sinister motives. Pick someone politically close to Corbyn - Clive Lewis, for example. Has Clive Lewis ever done any of the extra-curricular things (I won't go to the trouble of listing them all here, we know what they are) that Corbyn has been attacked for? Of course he hasn't. Very few MPs have as much political baggage as Corbyn.

 

It's no skin off my nose, but I think it harms your cause if you're going to portray all critics of Corbyn as being motivated by ideological blinkers rather than opposition to aspects that are peculiar to the man himself.

Do you think that Corbyn is a sympathiser of terrorism or sympathetic to a cause that is against genocidal behaviour? 

[polymerpunkah]

Quote

Has Clive Lewis ever done any of the extra-curricular things (I won't go to the trouble of listing them all here, we know what they are) that Corbyn has been attacked for?

Has Corbyn?

 

 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, polymerpunkah said:

Has Corbyn?

 

 

Exactly. 

[Brownie]

42 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Bottom line, I think there's somebody who could increase Labour's chances of winning based on the same manifesto; even more so if they change the manifesto to make it a bit smarter and more focused. Given the opposition, I think they could slam-dunk the fuckers, actually. That said, rather than go that direction, I think Labour members will go deeper down that rabbit-hole. I think there's a big split coming. Some will rejoice because it will get the 'right wing' like the centre-leftists out of the party, but they will relegate themselves to being also-rans. 

Well I respectfully disagree. The character assassination of Corbyn is a result of the threat to the establishment those policies possess.

 

I agree that Labour could have a leader that would decimate the Tories but where we disagree is that I think that leader would need to dilute the policies to achieve it.

[TheHowieLama]

26 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Is it possible that it isn't remotely radical?

Those were Moof's words not mine. 

[Brownie]

It’s funny how we’re talking about alleged “extra curricular activities” by Corbyn at a time when the incumbent Prime Minister is openly breaking the law, lying to the Queen, culling dissenters in his party and stoking the fire of Nationalist hate crimes.

 

Corbyn has been framed as a “loose cannon” and ”dangerous” yet the current Prime Minister is actually engaging in all of that and more, whilst being egged-on by those who have the nerve to criticise Corbyn.

 

It’s a combination of scary and hilarious.