Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Gnasher]

22 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

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.

It is and it's a nonsense you are seeing pushed in all quarters of the media and internet, its happening on here.

[Numero Veinticinco]

28 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

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.

It was a mixture of extreme lack of credibility, poor leadership, internal issues, and external circumstances, depending on which era we are talking about. I'm sure there are other things in there too. Brown didn't lose because he was too right wing - I mean, that really would mean that I need to shut up shop and take my ball home and all the other things - he lost for other reasons.  I agree with you on the 'lost because left' stuff, it's nonsense (though, there is a limit to what can be put forward and still expect to win an election), but so are claims that the falling figured are just a representation of 'they're like the Tories so we won't vote for them' and then pretending it was Corbyn's left wing agenda that halted the slide. It's all partisan nonsense that neglects to real and important factors. I maintain, as I have done for years and years and years - before Corbyn - that we on the left are our own worst enemies and it plays right into the hands of the Tories. 

[Mudface]

23 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

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.

2010- credit crunch aftermath and government fatigue, people wanted a change, although not enough to put the Tories directly in power.

 

2015- insipid response from Miliband to austerity, collapse in Scotland, Lib Dem collapse.

 

2017- decent push, highest number of votes since 1997, but fell short. Should have been a springboard to winning the next election.

 

2019- unrealistic manifesto, Brexit, anti-Semitism, Lib Dems opportunistically pushing for a GE when Johnson was on the ropes instead of keeping him there.

[Duff Man]

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

Yep, I forgot to add it's not really a left right thing. People generally liked the 2017 manifesto, the 2019 one was half baked with too many surprises. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

I don't really know who you're arguing against then, because who is suggesting just going back to being Blairite? Who is your sarcasm aimed it? 

[Duff Man]

1 minute ago, Numero said:

I don't really know who you're arguing against then, because who is suggesting just going back to being Blairite? Who is your sarcasm aimed it? 

Dude, it's right there on the page you picked my initial quote up from.

[Duff Man]

9 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Yep, I forgot to add it's not really a left right thing. People generally liked the 2017 manifesto, the 2019 one was half baked with too many surprises. 

Disagree, it very much is, imo. And your analysis that the 2019 manifesto was "half-baked" and the 2017 not so is contradicted by 160 economists and academics.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Dude, it's right there on the page you picked my initial quote up from.

You didn't quote anyone. Can you help me out?

[sir roger]

1 hour 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

 

Labours legal advice was that they would win the case , but Starmer has decided to just put it behind the party and hope it's worth the money. Only time will tell.

 

On a personal note , the thought that my subs are going to these shower of cunts fair sticks in my craw and if I ever find myself with poor Sam Matthew's on the Labour HQ ledge with him wondering whether to jump , I'll certainly help him.

[Duff Man]

3 minutes ago, Numero said:

You didn't quote anyone. Can you help me out?

Just read the page, mate. We're both expending too much energy on this.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I've read every word. You could just name them? Or not, whatever.

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Labours legal advice was that they would win the case , but Starmer has decided to just put it behind the party and hope it's worth the money. Only time will tell.

 

On a personal note , the thought that my subs are going to these shower of cunts fair sticks in my craw and if I ever find myself with poor Sam Matthew's on the Labour HQ ledge with him wondering whether to jump , I'll certainly help him.

If a lawyer tells you that you would win a case, it’s time to change the lawyer.  

[Duff Man]

Just now, Numero said:

I've read every word. You could just name them? Or not, whatever.

If your interpretation is that nobody was suggesting a return to the approach that won those 3 elections, then we differ, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

[sir roger]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

If a lawyer tells you that you would win a case, it’s time to change the lawyer.  

Ha ha , Get the point.

 

I think in this case Labour had plenty of evidence that some of the HQ people deliberately sat on a/s cases , sent emails and whatsapps clearly showing their dislike of the Corbyn officials and destroyed files relating to disciplinary cases on 2017 election night to cause delays.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

If your interpretation is that nobody was suggesting a return to the approach that won those 3 elections, then we differ, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

I just want to know exactly who you were referring to, mate. Don't know why you're being evasive. I responded like I did because it seemed completely out of place, so there's a disconnect here somewhere. I'm not trying to be a cunt (although, ya know, I don't need to try; it comes naturally), and I'm not trying to trip you up. You might be talking about Stronts, you might be talking about me, I don't know. Neither of us want that, Stronts because it wouldn't be good for his party, and me because it's not the right approach for the future. 

[Duff Man]

Just now, Numero said:

I just want to know exactly who you were referring to, mate. Don't know why you're being evasive. I responded like I did because it seemed completely out of place, so there's a disconnect here somewhere. I'm not trying to be a cunt (although, ya know, I don't need to try; it comes naturally), and I'm not trying to trip you up. You might be talking about Stronts, you might be talking about me, I don't know. Neither of us want that, Stronts because it wouldn't be good for his party, and me because it's not the right approach for the future. 

I'm not being evasive, but I'm also not interested in trying to change your mind about whether someone was suggesting a return to that approach.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Well, we're going to have to disagree on whether or not you're being evasive (not evading is this: I'm talking about Stonts). Ah well, fuck Blair. The prick. 

[Duff Man]

I mean definitely fuck Blair. Everyone should be able to agree on that.

[mattyq]

35 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Ha ha , Get the point.

 

I think in this case Labour had plenty of evidence that some of the HQ people deliberately sat on a/s cases , sent emails and whatsapps clearly showing their dislike of the Corbyn officials and destroyed files relating to disciplinary cases on 2017 election night to cause delays.

I think this is right but I can see Starmer not wanting to have a drawn out case with AS being in the news every day.

Draw a line under it and move on

Sticks in the craw paying out money like this, though

[Bjornebye]

25 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I mean definitely fuck Blair. Everyone should be able to agree on that.

You'd fuck Cherie Blair? 

 

 

 

[cloggypop]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

You'd fuck Cherie Blair? 

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just read this in the JC. 

 

Corbyn, Milne and Formby attempt to stop Labour apology

 

EXCLUSIVE: Three former senior Labour figures hire lawyers to try to stop party apologising over Panorama libel

 

The JC understands that Jeremy Corbyn, Jennie Formby and Seumas Milne have instructed lawyers to complain to the Labour Party about the party's proposed settlement of its libel suit from whistleblowers featured in the BBC's Panorama last July.

 

High Court listings for Wednesday appear to confirm that Labour is ready to publicly apologise to the BBC Panorama antisemitism whistle-blowers who sued the party for libel after the programme was aired last year.

 

Court listings suggest statements by lawyers representing the Labour Party are due to be read out in open court in the cases of seven whistle-blowers and also that of John Ware, the Panorama reporter who also sued the party after Labour said he had deliberately set out to mislead viewers.

 

The listing confirms this will take place at Court 14 in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court before Mr Justice Nicklin at 10 am.

 

But the JC understands that Mr Milne is claiming that the Labour Party has breached the terms of his departure agreement – that the party would keep him informed about the progress of the case and they did not.

Allies describe the three as "livid" that there has been a settlement. 

 

Their lawyers are demanding to see the proposed Statement In Open Court prior to the scheduled time.

The JC understands that this last minute legal action is being funded by Unite.

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/corbyn-milne-and-formby-attempt-to-stop-labour-apology-1.501779

[Numero Veinticinco]

And here is Corbyn's statement, posted 40 seconds ago on twitter and facebook. 

 

 

[Anubis]

Despite the fact he’s correct about Forde’s inquiry, we’ll no doubt have the Board Of Deputies, The Jewish Chronicle (does it still exist?) and the usual twats (both inside and outside the party) calling for him to be kicked out, thrown in that prison from The Dark Knight Rises, burnt at the stake, etc.