Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, cloggypop said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/01/jeremy-corbyn-questions-impartiality-ehrc-conducting-antisemitism-inquiry

Like I said...

[Kevin D]

18 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think you raise a good point there. Corbyn is like Sanders and (don't shoot) Trump in that he's a politician for people who don't like politicians and politics. If it was a presidential election he'd probably have more of a chance, certainly in 2017 he would have done. 

 

But as a Parliamentary operator he's seriously wanting, as you say, he's never achieved anything policy-wise as an MP, never been near the shadow front bench I don't think, wasn't particularly good (or seemingly that interested) in leading the PLP, he was more into the idea of a mass movement - nothing wrong with that, but it didn't pan out for whatever reason. 

 

People raging at Starmer are often doing so because they don't like what he represents, someone from 'the Parliamentary establishment' who seemingly is tying  to (re) build a party machine aimed at winning a general election. 

 

Whether he does or not remains to be seen, but for my money that's the fundamental difference between them. 

 

I think that's a fair assessment, but I also think it's worth pointing out the masses of Bame who joined Labour because they had someone who represented a multi-racial working class coalition.

 

I also think we've seen the value of moral leadership and clarity in the last 6 months. I don't know if it can win an election with first past the post, but I was proud to have voted for Corbyn and think he was wrong to resign.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

28 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

That very much depends on the ailment. Sometimes splinters have to be removed before the wound can heal. Sometimes surgery makes things feel worse before they get better. Either way, the root of the problem needs dealing with before any healing can happen. He needs to take back control, clean up the inherited mess, then go about planning for the future. 

This looks a bit like removing a splinter by chopping a hand off. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of any party but the Tories. 

[Gnasher]

If anyone fancys getting in touch with their MP or any MP here you go..

 

https://www.writetothem.com/

[Numero Veinticinco]

19 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

This looks a bit like removing a splinter by chopping a hand off. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of any party but the Tories. 

Suspending somebody - one person - is chopping a hand off? I think this is an overreaction by overreacters who like to overreact. It’s almost as like some people think Corbyn is the left. He isn’t.

[Numero Veinticinco]

27 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

 

I think that's a fair assessment, but I also think it's worth pointing out the masses of Bame who joined Labour because they had someone who represented a multi-racial working class coalition.

 

I also think we've seen the value of moral leadership and clarity in the last 6 months. I don't know if it can win an election with first past the post, but I was proud to have voted for Corbyn and think he was wrong to resign.

Wrong to resign? He lost two elections, and the second of which was by fucking huge margin. How could he have possibly carried on? People want to talk about splits in the party, well there certainly would have been splits in the party if that happened. 

[Kevin D]

9 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Wrong to resign? He lost two elections, and the second of which was by fucking huge margin. How could he have possibly carried on? People want to talk about splits in the party, well there certainly would have been splits in the party if that happened. 

 

My view was that having lost decisively to Johnson, it was appropriate for Corbyn to resign.

 

I thought his position was untenable.

 

I've now reassessed that.

 

The scale of PLP chicanery and shenanigans that have been revealed made me reassess. Had Corbyn won 3,000 more votes in 2017, he would be the PM. In my view, it's fair to think that had the party actually been try to win the election as was their stated purpose, then everything would be different.

 

Moreover, in light of the pandemic, the ideas Corbyn has spent his life advocating grow and grow in moral prestige. Whether it's opposing the 2019 Bolivian coup, disavowing laws that allow security forces to murder/shag who the MET wants, or demanding a living wage, or BLM. He's not a natural leader, by any means, but he knows right from wrong and doesn't equivocate.

 

He's a person I want to vote for.

[Numero Veinticinco]

This 3000 votes thing is just a touch blinkered. If you count close seats it was closer than that. As it is if you do it in any year. The thing that isn’t being said is that by the same standard that he was just over 2200 votes from the potential of being able to form a coalition, May was just over 200 votes from being able to form a majority. 

Edit: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html

[Kevin D]

I think that's fair. 

 

I also think it's fair to say that we have no evidence that senior members of the Conservative party had no interest in winning the election. We do have information that is true of the PLP heirarchy.

[skend04]

I might be wrong here but isn't this alleged sabotage of Corbyn subject to claims and counterclaim and now being investigated?

 

Whatever the issue Jeremy has this air or sense of nothing ever being his fault. Idealogues always appear to have something or someone else to blame you tend to find.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

I think that's fair. 

 

I also think it's fair to say that we have no evidence that senior members of the Conservative party had no interest in winning the election. We do have information that is true of the PLP heirarchy.

I’ve always said that anybody working against the Labour Party from inside the party to lose an election needs to be out. Same with the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens. I say it again to anybody doing it against Starmer. It’s just self defeating. I’ve no idea how big that issue actually was, but members need to see. 
 

Thing is, there’s two sides to that coin. He was leading a group of people who lost confidence in him. That’s bad when it’s 1 or 2 in 5, but it was more than 4 in 5. That’s outrageous. If Starmer is subject to a vote of no confidence where 85% of his own MPs have no confidence in him, then he should go. If you can’t inspire any confidence that your leadership is good, then you’re fucked from the outset. This was the case with Corbyn. I am politically quite well aligned with Corbyn, but there are other factors. There are certainly other people. 

[Jairzinho]

Were there many people politically well aligned with Corbyn within the PLP that had lost confidence in him to the point that they wanted to lose the election?

 

I would imagine the answer is no.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Were there many people politically well aligned with Corbyn within the PLP that had lost confidence in him to the point that they wanted to lose the election?

 

I would imagine the answer is no.

But the number is 81%, more than 4 out of every 5, 172 vs 40. So if the point - which you hint at - is that because they’re not politically aligned so they were happy to go along with a VONC, then you have to question whether a split isn’t actually the best outcome (spoiler... it isn’t). If 20 of your own shadow cabinet members, who you chose, walk out... something isn’t right. They didn’t all take those positions in the ignorance of what Corbyn’s politics were like. There’s a myth that they’re all right wing, socialist-hating Blairites. Blair wasn’t even a right wing, socialist hating Blairite, much less nearly the entirety of the MPs in Labour.

If more than 4/5 MP in your own party don’t want you, something is badly wrong. If the response is ‘this means nothing’ (Diane Abbott) or ‘constitutional irrelevant’ (Corbyn) and to say that almost everyone else is wrong and there’s no issue with the leader, then things absolutely need to change. Whether that change is getting rid of almost everybody so you can rebuild what you want (death of Labour) or split off so you can start old Labour (death of old Labour) or you step down and get somebody able to command the respect of a large enough percentage to carry on (the sensible option), it needs to change. instead, he fought his ground - as was his right - and we’ve seen a bunch of pretty unpopular Tories run riot. Corbyn strikes me as somebody who is led by those close allies around him. I think he would have fucked off much sooner if it wasn’t for those around him pushing him to stay. 
 

I miss Gordon Brown. That’s all I’m saying. Shame he is about as inspiring to people as a jar of farts, cause he knows what’s up. He also treads the ‘politically acceptable’ area that most of the party can get behind. Slam his brain in Obama’s body, then rock on winning an election. 

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

But the number is 81%, more than 4 out of every 5, 172 vs 40. So if the point - which you hint at - is that because they’re not politically aligned so they were happy to go along with a VONC, then you have to question whether a split isn’t actually the best outcome (spoiler... it isn’t). If 20 of your own shadow cabinet members, who you chose, walk out... something isn’t right. They didn’t all take those positions in the ignorance of what Corbyn’s politics were like. There’s a myth that they’re all right wing, socialist-hating Blairites. Blair wasn’t even a right wing, socialist hating Blairite, much less nearly the entirety of the MPs in Labour.

If more than 4/5 MP in your own party don’t want you, something is badly wrong. If the response is ‘this means nothing’ (Diane Abbott) or ‘constitutional irrelevant’ (Corbyn) and to say that almost everyone else is wrong and there’s no issue with the leader, then things absolutely need to change. Whether that change is getting rid of almost everybody so you can rebuild what you want (death of Labour) or split off so you can start old Labour (death of old Labour) or you step down and get somebody able to command the respect of a large enough percentage to carry on (the sensible option), it needs to change. instead, he fought his ground - as was his right - and we’ve seen a bunch of pretty unpopular Tories run riot. Corbyn strikes me as somebody who is led by those close allies around him. I think he would have fucked off much sooner if it wasn’t for those around him pushing him to stay. 
 

I miss Gordon Brown. That’s all I’m saying. Shame he is about as inspiring to people as a jar of farts, cause he knows what’s up. He also treads the ‘politically acceptable’ area that most of the party can get behind. Slam his brain in Obama’s body, then rock on winning an election. 

They don't have to be right wing, just simply not socialists. The myth that they're all right wing is only believed by some window lickers on twitter, it isn't the view of people making mild criticisms of Starmer on here.

 

If you were an MP and had lost confidence in Corbyn I would believe they were your motives. Because you wouldn't have a voting record and a donation list like a sizeable number of the PLP.

 

As for picking them, well it was either that or not having a shadow cabinet at all. As for them taking the roles, there are a multitude of reasons for why they might have done. Maybe they thought they could move him to the right from within. Maybe it was easier to sabotage him. Maybe they simply wanted to further their own profile. Maybe a few of them did actually believe in his plan but grew tired of his management. But this was the same group of Labour MPs who only 48 of which decided to vote against IDS' welfare bill. I didn't, and don't, trust them. 

 

I agree with most of the rest of your post. Basically Corbyn took over a socialist party that had very few socialists in it, he then attempted to make it a socialist party again. The results were about as successful as one might imagine. He could have gambled and tried to fuck a large chunk of them off but as you say, it probably wouldn't have worked. But his approach of letting it all slide was never going to either. I favoured something in between. He should have fucked off the 10/15 biggest cunts in the party, made a real example of them. As for Starmer, he doesn't have this internal problem. He has a few pissed off people on twitter. And he clearly doesn't give a fuck anyway, otherwise his actions re RLB and Corbyn would have been different. And that's fine, it's his party now. He won, and anyone expecting him to give a fuck about the left is going to be very disappointed. They need to make their peace with it now. Stick around, don't stick around. Whatever. 

 

And I agree re Gordon. He'll always be grouped with Blair sadly. Which I don't think is fair, because Brown came across as a fundamentally good human. Whilst Blair is an absolutely atrocious one.

[Kevin D]

2 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

I’ve always said that anybody working against the Labour Party from inside the party to lose an election needs to be out. Same with the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens. I say it again to anybody doing it against Starmer. It’s just self defeating. I’ve no idea how big that issue actually was, but members need to see. 
 

Thing is, there’s two sides to that coin. He was leading a group of people who lost confidence in him. That’s bad when it’s 1 or 2 in 5, but it was more than 4 in 5. That’s outrageous. If Starmer is subject to a vote of no confidence where 85% of his own MPs have no confidence in him, then he should go. If you can’t inspire any confidence that your leadership is good, then you’re fucked from the outset. This was the case with Corbyn. I am politically quite well aligned with Corbyn, but there are other factors. There are certainly other people. 

 

I think we might agree.

 

Corbyn has a 70% approval rating among Labour members.

 

After he became leader and they tried to Owen Smith him, which eneded up with him getting a bigger victory within the party, he should have cleaned house and fucked off or marginalised everyone who had just had their arse kicked.

 

That's what you do when you're wielding power, instead of constantly trying to placate opponents who won't be placated. Starmer is playing the game very well, in fairness, I just happen to dislike who he's playing it against, but it's clear he's no fool.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I just want a labour leader that fights for workers rights. Its been a downward slide for years. Shift patterns and hours are a fucking joke, redundancy diminished massively. Workers rights shit all over. I know people in their 60s now who are smug as fuck with the benefits they had in their working life. Money and security in more peoples pockets benefits the whole country including the rich but the short term profit wankers would see everything burn as long as their gated community is the nicest. Well when it all goes tits up I'll be there on my quad bike in just a pair of leather chaps and ill smash the place to bits and ill kill that little feral fuck with the boomerang too.

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

 

I think we might agree.

 

Corbyn has a 70% approval rating among Labour members.

 

After he became leader and they tried to Owen Smith him, which eneded up with him getting a bigger victory within the party, he should have cleaned house and fucked off or marginalised everyone who had just had their arse kicked.

 

That's what you do when you're wielding power, instead of constantly trying to placate opponents who won't be placated. Starmer is playing the game very well, in fairness, I just happen to dislike who he's playing it against, but it's clear he's no fool.

Yes, it was Corbyn's biggest error.

 

People like Ian Austin should have been locked in a fucking shed.

[Kevin D]

Cool. Normal democracy.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html

 

A senior serving general has reportedly warned that a Jeremy Corbyn government could face "a mutiny" from the Army if it tried to downgrade them.

 

The unnamed general said members of the armed forces would begin directly and publicly challenging the labour leader if he tried to scrap Trident, pull out of Nato or announce “any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”

 

He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.

 

“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”

 

The general, who served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, said he and many soldiers were sickened by Mr Corbyn’s refusal to condemn the IRA, which killed 730 troops and injured 7,000 more during the conflict.

His shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was forced to apologise when it was revealed he had called for IRA members, including hunger striker Bobby Sands, to be honoured by the British government.

 

The general said: “Many soldiers are disgusted by the comments of Corbyn and John McDonnell [about] the IRA — men who have not only murdered British soldiers but also hundreds of members of their own community.”

Responding to the general's suggestion of a potential mutiny among members of the Armed Forces, a senior Labour source told The Independent: "It does seem like quite an extraordinary statement".

 

Labour's newly appointed shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, has said he does not believe Labour would back either nuclear disarmament or a withdrawal from the military alliance.

 

Mr Corbyn had earlier announced he would be pulling out of the Stop The War Coalition's annual conference due to his busy schedule.

And it comes after senior members of the Shadow Cabinet said they were planning to rebel if Mr Corbyn attempted to block another vote for air strikes against Syria.

 

The Sunday Times reported that half of Mr Corbyn’s Cabinet have approached David Cameron to say they are prepared to defy the whip and vote with the government so long as Mr Cameron comes up with a coherent plan.

[Section_31]

28 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

They don't have to be right wing, just simply not socialists. The myth that they're all right wing is only believed by some window lickers on twitter, it isn't the view of people making mild criticisms of Starmer on here.

 

If you were an MP and had lost confidence in Corbyn I would believe they were your motives. Because you wouldn't have a voting record and a donation list like a sizeable number of the PLP.

 

As for picking them, well it was either that or not having a shadow cabinet at all. As for them taking the roles, there are a multitude of reasons for why they might have done. Maybe they thought they could move him to the right from within. Maybe it was easier to sabotage him. Maybe they simply wanted to further their own profile. Maybe a few of them did actually believe in his plan but grew tired of his management. But this was the same group of Labour MPs who only 48 of which decided to vote against IDS' welfare bill. I didn't, and don't, trust them. 

 

I agree with most of the rest of your post. Basically Corbyn took over a socialist party that had very few socialists in it, he then attempted to make it a socialist party again. The results were about as successful as one might imagine. He could have gambled and tried to fuck a large chunk of them off but as you say, it probably wouldn't have worked. But his approach of letting it all slide was never going to either. I favoured something in between. He should have fucked off the 10/15 biggest cunts in the party, made a real example of them. As for Starmer, he doesn't have this internal problem. He has a few pissed off people on twitter. And he clearly doesn't give a fuck anyway, otherwise his actions re RLB and Corbyn would have been different. And that's fine, it's his party now. He won, and anyone expecting him to give a fuck about the left is going to be very disappointed. They need to make their peace with it now. Stick around, don't stick around. Whatever. 

 

And I agree re Gordon. He'll always be grouped with Blair sadly. Which I don't think is fair, because Brown came across as a fundamentally good human. Whilst Blair is an absolutely atrocious one.

 

Good post mate but the highlighted bit is the bit I'm not too sure about. I'm no student of the Labour Party, only bits and pieces, but I've never seen it as a purely socialist party, more a working class party built on things like union membership. Union, blue collar workers very often can be socially conservative, Liverpool's traditional politics in many ways could be described as 'blue Labour'. Corbyn's 'brand' of socialism, which, while embracing things like nationalisation, also seemed to me to focus outwards on foreign policy, and I honestly don't think most of these traditional, Labour working class voters - as was - gave a toss about any of it. 

 

Just going by the Labour party's fortunes in my lifetime it's basically gone like this, and BTW I use the term 'far left' very loosely here, and only say it in relation to where they sit next to the other names on the list. 

 

Foot - far left - rejected

Kinnock, rejected - starts moving towards the centre 

Blair - centre left, - elected

Brown - centre left - rejected (for reasons possibly not always to do with his politics) 

Miliband - moves left - rejected

Corbyn - far left - rejected

 

Now. Even while all this was going on, there were plenty of left win fringe groups doing the rounds. My mate used to go to the socialist party meetings in Liverpool. They had discussions like 'how to forcibly nationalise the top 50 FTSE companies', and had guest appearances by Che Guevarra's granddaughter and the likes. Lots of these folks would probably vote labour in a GE, but considered it timid and centrist. 

 

Interestingly, Orwell wrote about this in the early 40s, he basically says back then that it was like it is now, paraphrasing massively here but he basically writes: "Labour not really socialist, why would they be if they're affiliated to unions - whose sole goal is to protect jobs, jobs which invariably exist in a capitalist construct. But it's the best of a bad bunch and you play the cards you're dealt."

 

He also says, again paraphrasing, "There are hard left socialist organisations, but their policies and approaches frequently disenfranchise and needlessly alienate the majority of the British public, who often end up voting Tory because they feel they have nobody else to vote for."  

 

Under Corbyn's leadership a lot of the above would have joined the party purely to support him. Now he's gone, they're either leaving or are waging some kind of Twitter resistance against Starmer (or indeed, anyone but Corbyn). 

 

What I'd argue though is this. Taken in context of the above, Corbyn is painted as someone who restored the left wing soul of the Labour party, and that Starmer/Blair and the rest were insurgents. Evidence of previous elections would suggest that the opposite was true, that the labour party is a party of working people, centre left in ecomomic outlook and centre or possibly even centre right in social outlook. It doesn't want to bring down the system, it wants to strengthen the system for its members - many of whom are workers who want to have, and keep, their jobs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

Yeah I'd agree with that. He is/was too socially liberal for lots of people. That and being in London meant it didn't resonate, even if people agreed with a lot of the economic policies. 

 

Policy focus was generally poor under Corbyn. He needed to park some stuff.

[Jairzinho]

One of his biggest errors was not making a point of the distinction between small business and big business. Consequently a lot of butchers, bakers, etc just thought he was anti business.

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

I agree with most of the rest of your post. Basically Corbyn took over a socialist party that had very few socialists in it, he then attempted to make it a socialist party again.

The crazy thing is the answer when you ask the question ‘did he really’? I mean, how socialist was he really trying to go. Owning a few things in a capitalist economy isn’t really turning the party socialist. It’s tweaking the existing recipe. I don’t think it was nearly radical enough or representative enough of Corbyn, certainly not worth the push back. 
 

39 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

And I agree re Gordon. He'll always be grouped with Blair sadly. Which I don't think is fair, because Brown came across as a fundamentally good human. Whilst Blair is an absolutely atrocious one.

He’s smart as fuck too. Which, ya know, used to be a bonus. 

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

The crazy thing is the answer when you ask the question ‘did he really’? I mean, how socialist was he really trying to go. Owning a few things in a capitalist economy isn’t really turning the party socialist. It’s tweaking the existing recipe. I don’t think it was nearly radical enough or representative enough of Corbyn, certainly not worth the push back. 
 

He’s smart as fuck too. Which, ya know, used to be a bonus. 

Yes, that's true. Often the rest of the baggage re his opinions on the royals, nukes, foreign policy, etc meant a picture of him trying to nationalise cornflakes was quite easy for the opposition and our media to paint.

 

The standard of politicians across all parties is utterly dire now. A complete lack of intelligence, knowledge or any gravitas whatsoever. 

[mattyq]

Labour has always had 2 strands; Socialism and Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism as the Americans call it.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

14 minutes ago, mattyq said:

Labour has always had 2 strands; Socialism and Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism as the Americans call it.

Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism aren’t different terms for the same thing, Matty. It’s not just a Americanism, there’s an ideological difference.