Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Bruce Spanner]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I think any court in the land would very quickly remember that Labour = good and the case would fall away.  That’s what we believe right? 

Only some Labour members, the rest are Tory shills.

 

I think that’s the official position.

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Only some Labour members, the rest are Tory shills.

 

I think that’s the official position.

Remember, winning elections isn’t important.  
 

 

[sir roger]

It's a lot more important now than it seemed to be to the majority of the parliamentary party in 2017 and 2019.

[Bjornebye]

Anyone remember Paxman calling Clegg deluded? Jo Swinson is another deluded cunt. Liberals my arse. Tory enabling lying racists. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

[Anubis]

About time. He’s one horrible little shit.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 21/02/2021 at 10:11, Rico1304 said:

Remember, winning elections isn’t important.  
 

 

Daft and disingenuous point you're trying to make  (no change there) but it seems odd to illustrate it with footage of a leader who never won an election. 

[Captain Turdseye]

On 19/02/2021 at 17:56, Rico1304 said:

How do you get on with Private Eye? I’ve had a subscription for about 6 months but I bet I don’t read more than 3 or 4 articles an edition. The layout just hurts my eyes.  

 

On 19/02/2021 at 18:10, Bruce Spanner said:

I read it in four blocks, though mostly skim the comics and silly stuff. So, lead stories and SOS, Agri-Rotten Borough/funny old world, comics and finally ‘in the back’

 

I fall in and out of love with it.

 

Yeah, the comics and satire pieces in the second half of the mag are crap. I subscribe, read it for a few months then I get bored and have two or three sitting there unread so I cancel my sub. Then a couple of times I’ve kind of missed it so I’ve subscribed again. Rinse and repeat. 

[Gnasher]

Corbs having a liquid breakfast,

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

On the subject of Corbs wonder what is was about Mark Drakefords socialist vision that made the Welsh go out to vote for him yesterday,

 

https://newsopener.com/uk/first-minister-mark-drakeford-backs-radical-socialist-traditions/

 

 

We'll keep the red flag flying here,

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 31/03/2021 at 00:53, Captain Turdseye said:

 

Yeah, the comics and satire pieces in the second half of the mag are crap. I subscribe, read it for a few months then I get bored and have two or three sitting there unread so I cancel my sub. Then a couple of times I’ve kind of missed it so I’ve subscribed again. Rinse and repeat. 

Viz does political satire better than Private Eye; a propos of this thread, the spread they did a few years ago on "The Most Evil Man in Britain" was perfect.

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 30/03/2021 at 23:49, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Daft and disingenuous point you're trying to make  (no change there) but it seems odd to illustrate it with footage of a leader who never won an election. 

Well, his politics won quite a few elections and the things he listed are the result of winning elections, he just came in at a time when he was doomed to fail. 
 

What I’d do for Gordon Brown in an Obama suit. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero said:

What I’d do for Gordon Brown in an Obama suit. 

Not sure what that means. What I am sure is that Labour in 1997-2010 achieved a fair bit, but could and should have done much, much more. 

 

One advantage Blair and Brown had, of course, was nobody in the PLP, or on the NEC or in Party HQ actively working against the party.  It's easier to win elections that way.

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not sure what that means. What I am sure is that Labour in 1997-2010 achieved a fair bit, but could and should have done much, much more. 

 

One advantage Blair and Brown had, of course, was nobody in the PLP, or on the NEC or in Party HQ actively working against the party.  It's easier to win elections that way.

What it means is Brown wasn’t particularly easy on the eye or likeable, Obama very much was. 
 

A fair bit is an understatement. And yes, they did their job very well in terms of brining the party along with them. If you can’t even command the respect of the MPs in your party, it’s not a great sign you’re a leader that’s going to achieve much. 
 

It does stick in the throat a little, this ‘should have done so much more’ when the ‘achieve nothing’ mantra was so well backed under Corbyn. In fact, you hear him heralded as a hero for getting an inch in opposition and then those who made significant progressive changes get dismissed as ‘a fair bit’. 
 

It’s literally a no win scenario, so I’d just forget trying to please the unplease-able

[Section_31]

It's telling and disturbing in equal measure that the only Labour leader to win elections in my lifetime was the only one ever to be backed by Murdoch.

[Kepler-186]

4 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's telling and disturbing in equal measure that the only Labour leader ever to win elections was the only one ever to be backed by Murdoch.

 

[Section_31]

Just now, Kepler-186 said:

 

 

I should reword that as "in my lifetime".

 

I remember Peter Oborne cooing over Brown because he'd "restored seriousness" to the office of PM, as he'd fucked off the weekly meetings with Rebecca Brooks and was doing stuff like hosting dinners for academics and stuff instead. I thought at the time it wouldn't end well.

[Elite]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's telling and disturbing in equal measure that the only Labour leader ever to win elections was the only one ever to be backed by Murdoch.

Yeah, scary.

 

It's insurmountable without that influence for whoever is the leader.

[Kepler-186]

20 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I should reword that as "in my lifetime".

 

I remember Peter Oborne cooing over Brown because he'd "restored seriousness" to the office of PM, as he'd fucked off the weekly meetings with Rebecca Brooks and was doing stuff like hosting dinners for academics and stuff instead. I thought at the time it wouldn't end well.

Yeah, it was more a nod to the obscene level of influence that Murdoch wields with Cousin Greg the UK electorate. 

[Strontium]

32 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's telling and disturbing in equal measure that the only Labour leader to win elections in my lifetime was the only one ever to be backed by Murdoch.

 

It reads like you're suggesting that Blair won because Murdoch backed him. When really, it was that Murdoch backed Blair because he was going to win.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

49 minutes ago, Numero said:

What it means is Brown wasn’t particularly easy on the eye or likeable, Obama very much was. 
 

A fair bit is an understatement. And yes, they did their job very well in terms of brining the party along with them. If you can’t even command the respect of the MPs in your party, it’s not a great sign you’re a leader that’s going to achieve much. 
 

It does stick in the throat a little, this ‘should have done so much more’ when the ‘achieve nothing’ mantra was so well backed under Corbyn. In fact, you hear him heralded as a hero for getting an inch in opposition and then those who made significant progressive changes get dismissed as ‘a fair bit’. 
 

It’s literally a no win scenario, so I’d just forget trying to please the unplease-able

Nowt wrong with expecting more from Labour in power. They achieved a fair bit (I disagree that it's an understatement) but when Labour have been in power for a decade, you shouldn't have increasing inequality, a growing underclass of people who have fallen through the net, increasingly authoritarian sentencing, Thatcher's anti-union laws and... y'know, that other unpleasantness. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

44 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's telling and disturbing in equal measure that the only Labour leader to win elections in my lifetime was the only one ever to be backed by Murdoch.

When Kinnock lost to Major in 1992 and they ran the headline "It's The S*n Wot Won It" it was a message aimed primarily at party leaders: you work for Rupert or you stay in opposition. 

 

God, I love democracy!

[Megadrive Man]

22 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

It reads like you're suggesting that Blair won because Murdoch backed him. When really, it was that Murdoch backed Blair because he was going to win.

 

If Blair was definitely going to win why didn't he stick two fingers up to Murdoch and those other rags and tell them he was going to stop them having a stranglehold of the media.

 

If Blair had done that the next 25 years may have played out very differently?   

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nowt wrong with expecting more from Labour in power. They achieved a fair bit (I disagree that it's an understatement)

It's quite easy to list enough things to show 'fair bit' up for what it is, but let's be honest here... it's done and there's probably no changing your view no matter how many huge things are listed and no matter how many 'then why was the Tories dismantling it such a big deal?' rebuttals are given, so I think moving on is probably the best use of time. Expecting more from Labour is fine - infinitely so when they don't align with your exact politics, it seems - just as long as when they're out of power we don't start talking about how it'd be better if they lose if it's not 100% on their terms. That's what Rico was talking about in that response to you (I just realised it's a bit old, so might be worth saying). The importance of doing whatever it takes to get into power shouldn't be underestimated, and on here it often is. 

[Strontium]

Just now, MegadriveMan said:

If Blair was definitely going to win why didn't he stick two fingers up to Murdoch and those other rags and tell them he was going to stop them having a stranglehold of the media.

 

If Blair had done that the next 25 years may have played out very differently?   

 

Probably because he thought it couldn't hurt to have Murdoch's support? Remember at the time, while everyone expected Labour to win, people were mostly surprised by the scale of victory.