Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Numero said:

Also, you know what my guess is... my guess is there’s a reason he didn’t link the document. I’d guess that it’s because there’s something either immediately before or after that says something he doesn’t want others to read. 

Im really not sure what they mean on the covid issue, some criticism early in the pandemic about Starmer being too supportive of the tories but that's a bit Meh/ either/ or argument which seems an age ago. Another dispute may be Starmers difference of opinion with Long Bailey over the schools reopening but I'm not sure what that's got to do with a bakers union plus most would agree with the Starmer line of getting kids back in the classroom. As Starmer called for a firebrake and was proved right then surely the union are not against lockdown's altogether? Although I can see how they hurt that business, the sight of kids throwing custard creams at each other outside Gregg's is a British way of life.

 

Like I say I'm not sure what the gripe is it's open to speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Im really not sure what they mean on the covid issue, some criticism early in the pandemic about Starmer being too supportive of the tories but that's a bit Meh/ either/ or argument which seems an age ago. Another dispute may be Starmers difference of opinion with Long Bailey over the schools reopening but I'm not sure what that's got to do with a bakers union plus most would agree with the Starmer line of getting kids back in the classroom. As Starmer called for a firebrake and was proved right then surely the union are not against lockdown's altogether? Although I can see how they hurt that business, the sight of kids throwing custard creams at each other outside Gregg's is a British way of life.

 

Like I say I'm not sure what the gripe is it's open to speculation.

To be fair, I had a Greggs for the first time in years. I had a coffee and something called a ‘yum yum’. It was... okay. 
 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Numero said:

When a blogger like Steve Walker makes one blog post saying ‘So it’s on record that it is the right of the party leader to withdraw the whip – no approval or endorsement from the NEC or other party body is required. There is also precedent – the right has been exercised before, as shown in the example given.

This puts the issue of ability beyond doubt. This blog believes that such a move is not only necessary but would also have a huge positive impact on the public/media perception of Jeremy Corbyn’ then makes another one talking about a ‘parliamentary Labour party (PLP) code of conduct’ that isn’t even linked and that I can’t even find, I find it hard to know which way to turn without going and reading tans of thousands of words on obscure Labour rules. For this I’m called out. For not knowing.

 

Thanks hadn't seen that before. Would be interesting to know what the actual case is to see which one is wrong. Maybe as this goes on Starmer or others will explain further. Surely someone will have to eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Thanks hadn't seen that before. Would be interesting to know what the actual case is to see which one is wrong. Maybe as this goes on Starmer or others will explain further. Surely someone will have to eventually.

I’ve had a little look this morning, and I can’t actually find where he’s getting this stuff. The nearest thing I can find is some annex from a dignity at work document from Labour that’s on the Parliament site, that then has some stuff about exceptional circumstances in a clause later on. Who the fuck knows, I sure as shit don’t. He might have made some procedural errors, not informing the right people at the right time or something, which in a legal sense won’t get you too much more than a slapped wrist when it’s an internal matter. Maybe he knew that and didn’t give a fuck, deciding it’s worth the wrist slap. Maybe there’s a clause somewhere that allows for it. I honestly don’t know. Truth is, I’m not sure which document, or set of documents, to start with or even which set of rules are applicable and which set of rules are over which other set of rules. So, ya know, it’s difficult to pretend to know what’s going on. I can’t just take Stave Walker’s blog post to be correct. Either blog post. 

 

Some are saying that the fact that the whip and involvement with PLP are different from party membership is also relevant. In short... I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to this. I’d suggest those who say they do are either a handful of Labour insiders or people pretending in order to further their agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Numero said:

I’ve had a little look this morning, and I can’t actually find where he’s getting this stuff. The nearest thing I can find is some annex from a dignity at work document from Labour that’s on the Parliament site, that then has some stuff about exceptional circumstances in a clause later on. Who the fuck knows, I sure as shit don’t. He might have made some procedural errors, not informing the right people at the right time or something, which in a legal sense won’t get you too much more than a slapped wrist when it’s an internal matter. Maybe he knew that and didn’t give a fuck, deciding it’s worth the wrist slap. Maybe there’s a clause somewhere that allows for it. I honestly don’t know. Truth is, I’m not sure which document, or set of documents, to start with or even which set of rules are applicable and which set of rules are over which other set of rules. So, ya know, it’s difficult to pretend to know what’s going on. I can’t just take Stave Walker’s blog post to be correct. Either blog post. 

 

Some are saying that the fact that the whip and involvement with PLP are different from party membership is also relevant. In short... I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to this. I’d suggest those who say they do are either a handful of Labour insiders or people pretending in order to further their agenda. 

 

They could probably do with making their rules clearer too. You might be right that he broke one or two rules but not the load that's been listed in that article/post, because it seems odd that someone with Starmer's qualifications and history would be as stupid to break that entire list of rules then hope things worked out for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

They could probably do with making their rules clearer too. You might be right that he broke one or two rules but not the load that's been listed in that article/post, because it seems odd that someone with Starmer's qualifications and history would be as stupid to break that entire list of rules then hope things worked out for him.


That’s why the complaints procedure is being changed and why the report, whatever it’s finding, is important as it recognised and found failings of procedure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

They could probably do with making their rules clearer too. You might be right that he broke one or two rules but not the load that's been listed in that article/post, because it seems odd that someone with Starmer's qualifications and history would be as stupid to break that entire list of rules then hope things worked out for him.

Yeah, it’s just illogical that he is so shit at following rules that he walked blindly into a full list of legal problems yet managed to somehow work his way to the top of a profession that is all about rules. So he either knew what he was doing, broke some rules that don’t matter to his objective, or he’s cleared by something else. I’d be shocked if it’s just rank stupidity and ignorance. Not because I’m his bum-chum (haha, fucking hell... haven’t used that one since the late 90s) but because it wouldn’t make sense for somebody with his knowledge to do that. 
 

I don’t know if you’ve ever read about his time as a barrister, but here’s just one list overview of their articles on him. I can see the potential for complete cock up, as he is human, but reading this doesn’t scream ‘incompetent and evil’ to me. It just doesn’t. 
 

https://www.thelawyer.com/keir-starmer-25-years-of-coverage-in-the-lawyer/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Numero said:

Yeah, it’s just illogical that he is so shit at following rules that he walked blindly into a full list of legal problems yet managed to somehow work his way to the top of a profession that is all about rules. So he either knew what he was doing, broke some rules that don’t matter to his objective, or he’s cleared by something else. I’d be shocked if it’s just rank stupidity and ignorance. Not because I’m his bum-chum (haha, fucking hell... haven’t used that one since the late 90s) but because it wouldn’t make sense for somebody with his knowledge to do that. 
 

I don’t know if you’ve ever read about his time as a barrister, but here’s just one list overview of their articles on him. I can see the potential for complete cock up, as he is human, but reading this doesn’t scream ‘incompetent and evil’ to me. It just doesn’t. 
 

https://www.thelawyer.com/keir-starmer-25-years-of-coverage-in-the-lawyer/

 

Thanks for the link will have a read soon. Maybe it'll be cleared up if Corbyn takes it to court too. The main reason I think it's odd is that even Corbyn with whatever lesser knowledge he has of legal stuff compared to Starmer, would've surely consulted with legal people around him before taking such a drastic action. I obviously don't agree with what happened and side with Corbyn but would still be shocked if Starmer has broken a set of rules like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the whip from MPs has happened before, the 21 Tories last year. Even Gnasher's crush, Michael Foot, had the whip withdrawn. If there was a legal challenge available it would have been done by now, in all the cases. This article hints at it being difficult after a previous high court decision.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/tory-mps-to-seek-legal-advice-after-having-whip-withdrawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Removing the whip from MPs has happened before, the 21 Tories last year. Even Gnasher's crush, Michael Foot, had the whip withdrawn. If there was a legal challenge available it would have been done by now, in all the cases. This article hints at it being difficult after a previous high court decision.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/tory-mps-to-seek-legal-advice-after-having-whip-withdrawn

Surely the Labour and Tory party rules are different ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they were disputing Johnson's decision outright, more trying to establish the local party's right to have them as a candidate if they wanted, and I assume the two parties have totally different rule books anyway.

 

With reference to Numero's diversionary comments regarding the guy from Skwawkbox, he may well be a shit journalist and a hypocrite, I don't care, but the actual truth is that Corbyn didn't use those tactics and there is no evidence he even considered using them, whereas Starmer has, so the establishment of the correctness of the application of them only applies to the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


His solicitors are already involved.

 

Maybe it’s posturing, I don’t know, but legal proceeding have been started.

I know his lawyers have written to ask for clarification on why the whip was withdrawn. I just can't see him dragging the party through the courts, I could be wrong obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I know his lawyers have written to ask for clarification on why the whip was withdrawn. I just can't see him dragging the party through the courts, I could be wrong obviously.

I don't mind Corbyn, don't have strong feelings on him either way as everything to do with him has got so muddied. But if he drags the Party through the courts after letting numerous instances of defamation from outside the party slide while he was leader, well he would certainly go down in my estimation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Thanks for the link will have a read soon. Maybe it'll be cleared up if Corbyn takes it to court too. The main reason I think it's odd is that even Corbyn with whatever lesser knowledge he has of legal stuff compared to Starmer, would've surely consulted with legal people around him before taking such a drastic action. I obviously don't agree with what happened and side with Corbyn but would still be shocked if Starmer has broken a set of rules like that.

Well this is exactly it. You don’t have to be on one side or the other to acknowledge that the man has ‘some’ legal knowledge and experience. 
 

As for the talk of going to court, legal proceedings, etc, I need to ask... on what grounds? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I don't think they were disputing Johnson's decision outright, more trying to establish the local party's right to have them as a candidate if they wanted, and I assume the two parties have totally different rule books anyway.

 

With reference to Numero's diversionary comments regarding the guy from Skwawkbox, he may well be a shit journalist and a hypocrite, I don't care, but the actual truth is that Corbyn didn't use those tactics and there is no evidence he even considered using them, whereas Starmer has, so the establishment of the correctness of the application of them only applies to the latter.

What am I diverting from? I’m saying I don’t know which of comments to believe, whether he does have the power to do it unilaterally or if he doesn’t. He has said both about the Labour leader. I’m not an expert so I haven’t been able to come to a conclusion. I have no idea. Far from diverting from it, I want to explore it and be accurate about it and I said, multiple times, if Starmer has done something wrong he should face the consequences. How is that diversionary? 

 

You might not care if he’s a hypocrite, I doubt you even care if he’s right or wrong, you’re a tribalist who isn’t interested in truth, you’re interested in making your tribe look good. You’ve already decided there’s truth in it. I do care though. I care what’s right or wrong and what is applicable to Starmer and this case. I’ve no idea what he was or was not supposed to do or if he did it. Because you don’t care about him being a shit ‘journalist’ (he’s a blogger, as he states in his own blog) or a hypocrite, you’re happy to soak up whatever he says because, suffering once more from confirmatory bias, it says something you want to hear. I’d like to hear the full version before coming to a conclusion. It’s what us non-tribalists do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

Starmer is playing a clever tactical game here. Hang Corbyn out to dry and all the Momentum members will leave in protest, a bit like when you put out a jam jar full of sugary water to distract wasps from your picnic. It’s working, Twitter this week is full of hard left members loudly resigning from the party. Corbyn too dumb to see how he is being played, he should retire if he wants to preserve any legacy from his leadership. 

Not sure losing members of any organisation could be viewed as clever to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Numero said:

Well this is exactly it. You don’t have to be on one side or the other to acknowledge that the man has ‘some’ legal knowledge and experience. 
 

As for the talk of going to court, legal proceedings, etc, I need to ask... on what grounds? 

 

I don't know what case he'll go for if it goes to court and after days of spending too much time with politics am hoping to have a break from it for a bit. Hopefully we'll find out soon enough what's happening though because it's damaging for both sides and dragging it out like this isn't helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I don't know what case he'll go for if it goes to court and after days of spending too much time with politics am hoping to have a break from it for a bit. Hopefully we'll find out soon enough what's happening though because it's damaging for both sides and dragging it out like this isn't helping.

I mean, I really have no idea if there’s a legal basis for an unincorporated association like Labour, to be taken to court over their internal procedures. They’re a private concern. Maybe they can, it’s distinctly possible. I’m just asking out of interest, because I don’t know. Maybe @Anubis can help on that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The centuries-old Left/Right distinction may not be particularly useful any more.

I’ve seen/heard a few people say that now but I don’t understand why? It’s just a tool whereby you measure where you sit on the political spectrum on particular issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Numero said:

I mean, I really have no idea if there’s a legal basis for an unincorporated association like Labour, to be taken to court over their internal procedures. They’re a private concern. Maybe they can, it’s distinctly possible.

 

With Chris Williamson they ruled that Labour had acted unlawfully so maybe there's a case to be had, I've no idea how it'd work though. From October last year :

 

Quote

Ruling on Thursday, Justice Pepperall said Labour’s decision in July to suspend Williamson was unlawful because the party failed to follow the rules and questioned the party’s evidence that claimed Keith Vaz was unfit to be involved in the judgment.

The Leicester East MP had sat on the three-member panel that agreed to let Williamson back into the party in June and had called for the decision to suspend him again shortly afterwards to be reviewed.

However, the judge found there was “nothing in the new allegations, the timing of the letter of 3 September or the decision to suspend that entitles me to take the view upon the papers that the Labour party is acting either unfairly or other than in good faith”.

He added: “While the Labour party is no longer able lawfully to pursue the original disciplinary case against Mr Williamson, that does not afford him immunity from any subsequent disciplinary action.”

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/10/chris-williamson-loses-legal-bid-over-labour-party-antisemitism-suspension

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I’ve seen/heard a few people say that now but I don’t understand why? It’s just a tool whereby you measure where you sit on the political spectrum on particular issues.

It's because the terms are now used so fluidly.

 

20 years ago for instance, left wing would have meant you were into public ownership, opposed to free market economics, pro union, pro public sector, pro strong welfare state. Opinions on things like foreign policy, gay marriage, transgender rights etc wouldn't have factored into that definition at all, IMO.

 

Now being on a BLM protest gets you labelled left wing, or having strong opinion on Palestine etc. 

 

I'd consider myself left wing because I believe in nationalisation of certain industries, a strong welfare state, and believe the private sector should be firmly muzzled. Many people would consider me a 'centrist' though because I don't particularly expend any thought on Yemen.

 

Left wing is now kind of a mish mash term that can be applied to anyone whose views don't jive with Nigel Farage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...