Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Gnasher]

21 minutes ago, Numero said:

This is a creative framing of those events, mate. 

Yeah it doesn't involve laying all the blame on that Corbyn bastard.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Yeah it doesn't involve laying all the blame on that Corbyn bastard.

Rent free. 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Whatever lessons are drawn from the defeat of 2019, we mustn't return to the failed pre-Corbyn approach. 

 

The approach that won three successive general elections, you mean.

[Elysian Red]

Corbyn was right.

[Numero Veinticinco]

31 minutes ago, Elysian Red said:

Corbyn was right.

Of course. He wasn't the first one to say it either. It's obvious that this was going to happen. These arguments were being made when Cameron put it in the manifesto, when the referendum was going on, after the referendum was lost, and ever since. We know that we are going to end up with damage to the healthcare service, we know that we are going to end up with shitty US produce, and we know we are going to end up poorer for it. 

[Jairzinho]

4 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The approach that won three successive general elections, you mean.

Yes, the one that absolutely definitely could be repeated exactly the same in any era.

 

You must be hoping the Lib Dems create a manifesto that Viscount Palmerston would have been in favour of.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Numero said:

This is a creative framing of those events, mate. 

It's just basic statement of facts.

 

Which bits are you questioning?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The approach that won three successive general elections, you mean.

With decreasing vote shares each time, continuing into the next two defeats.

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's just basic statement of facts.

 

Which bits are you questioning?

The non factual bits. I’ll reply latet

[AngryOfTuebrook]

40 minutes ago, Numero said:

The non factual bits. I’ll reply latet

Hmm.

 

I'll look forward to that.

[Duff Man]

Can't believe Labour haven't just simply repeated what Tonty did 25 years ago. Idiots.

[Strontium]

They've been too busy repeating what Michael Foot did 40 years ago. It was such a rip-roaring success back then, after all.

[Duff Man]

Ye, no difference at all between the policy offerings of Labour under Brown and Labour under Corbyn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 hours ago, Duff Man said:

Ye, no difference at all between the policy offerings of Labour under Brown and Labour under Corbyn.

Corbyn put forward some policies that would help people but let’s not start slagging of Brown who actually achieved a great number of them. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Talking of Corbyn. Lots of talk on Twitter ‘from Labour sources’ that Corbyn is going to have the whip withdrawn as a result of the findings and recommendations of the report into antisemitism. Should go down well. I hope Corbyn would resign if they have any validity rather than let the party rip apart. That said, it could be a load of bollocks. 

[Duff Man]

37 minutes ago, Numero said:

Corbyn put forward some policies that would help people but let’s not start slagging of Brown who actually achieved a great number of them. 

I wasn't.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I wasn't.

It certainly seemed like it from your previous two posts. Unless there's no sarcasm in there at all and I've read it as if there was a fucking load. 

[Duff Man]

Just now, Numero said:

It certainly seemed like it from your previous two posts. Unless there's no sarcasm in there at all and I've read it as if there was a fucking load. 

There's huge amounts of sarcasm in both posts, but neither are intended to mock Brown, or even Blair. The one you picked up on does, however, mock the idea Labour were the same proposition under Brown as they were under Corbyn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

There's huge amounts of sarcasm in both posts, but neither are intended to mock Brown, or even Blair. The one you picked up on does, however, mock the idea Labour were the same proposition under Brown as they were under Corbyn.

In which case, I apologise for my misreading it as a slight on Brown. I agree that they were not the same proposition. That said, Brown wasn't the leader - though he was undoubtedly important - when doing most of his actual work in government. He got a lot of good things done for people. That, to me at least, is far more valuable than words in a manifesto. 

[Strontium]

In other news, Labour has apologised and paid damages for defaming antisemitism whistleblowers and John Ware.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

 

Quote

Labour has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to seven former employees who sued the party in an anti-Semitism row.

The party has issued an unreserved apology in the High Court for making "false and defamatory" comments about seven whistleblowers who spoke out in a BBC Panorama programme last year.

The individuals had criticised the then leadership's handling of complaints.

Labour said they were wrongly accused of "bad faith" and caused "distress, embarrassment and hurt" by the party.

In the July 2019 programme, entitled Is Labour Anti-Semitic?, a number of former party officials alleged that senior figures close to the leadership at the time had interfered in the process of dealing with anti-Semitism complaints.

They also claimed they had faced a huge increase in complaints since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

In response, a party spokesman denounced them as "disaffected former staff" who had "personal and political axes" to grind. They were also accused of trying to undermine Mr Corbyn.

'Valuable contribution'

Seven of the whistleblowers - Kat Buckingham, Michael Creighton, Samuel Matthews, Dan Hogan, Louise Withers Green, Benjamin Westerman and Martha Robinson - took legal action and asked the Labour Party formally to apologise in court.

In a statement read out in the High Court, Labour said it unreservedly apologised and was determined to root out anti-Semitism in the party and the wider Labour movement.

"Before the broadcast of the programme, the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these whistleblowers," the party said.

"We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff. We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the party.

"We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication. We have agreed to pay them damages."

'Long overdue'

Labour has also agreed to pay damages to the presenter of the programme, BBC journalist John Ware.

It said Mr Ware, an award-winning investigative reporter who has worked for the BBC for more than 30 years, was subject to "false and defamatory" comments before the programme was aired which had now been withdrawn.

The BBC welcomed what it said was the party's "long-overdue" apology for what were "painful and damaging personal attacks" on the integrity and character of those involved in the programme.

It said Mr Ware was a "reporter with an extraordinary record of excellence at Panorama for investigative journalism in the public interest".

"The BBC will always support fair and impartial reporting, exposing wrongdoing and holding power to account," the corporation said.

"The Panorama programme did precisely that, but was subject to an extraordinary and vitriolic attack by the Labour Party."

The BBC said it "applauded the strength" of the whistleblowers and was "pleased it has been recognised in court that these extremely serious and damaging allegations against them were false".

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

I still haven't seen that documentary. 

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

In other news, Labour has apologised and paid damages for defaming antisemitism whistleblowers and John Ware.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

 

And rightly so too. 

 

I wonder if those who falsely accused people of anti-semitism will also be properly held to account? Genuine question, I know they got punished but did the Jewish Chronicle have to pay out for false allegations (essentially making things up) ? 

[Gnasher]

26 minutes ago, Numero said:

I still haven't seen that documentary. 

You're one of the lucky ones.

[Duff Man]

5 minutes ago, Numero said:

In which case, I apologise for my misreading it as a slight on Brown. I agree that they were not the same proposition. That said, Brown wasn't the leader - though he was undoubtedly important - when doing most of his actual work in government. He got a lot of good things done for people. That, to me at least, is far more valuable than words in a manifesto. 

No, but he was when Labour first lost after Blair. Again, I wasn't mocking the Brown/Blair governments or their achievements, I was mocking the idea that the reason Labour have lost four successive elections is because on each occasion they were too left wing, and that they instead should have simply redone New Labour and romped home to victory. It's nonsense on just about every level.

[Gnasher]

19 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

They've been too busy repeating what Michael Foot did 40 years ago. It was such a rip-roaring success back then, after all.

Foot had a healthy poll lead throughout 1981 and early 82. The tories were slumped on 27%. and were considered the most unpopular government in history. Then of course the Falklands happened around spring 82 and jingoism saw the tories shoot to over 50%. 

It's obvious looking at the figures that the Falklands war had an effect.

 

Surprised no one on here pulled Stronts  on his post but considering the Labour party of that time planned to take us out of Europe whilst Thatcher didnt, maybe not so surprising after all. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-falklands-gamble