Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, A Red said:

I'll say it again, he should retire or at least announce he will stand down at the next election. He is a figure of division and if he hangs around it will be down to his ego rather than wanting to change anything for the better. He's tried that and failed.

 

I'm not a socialist and dont treat any political party as a team that I support but vote for whoever suits me best at the time. I forecast that if Labour go into the next election with Corbyn et all still mp's, they will lose again.

 

Can you stand down instead?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Can you stand down instead?

Mad, isn't it. When Corbyn is the party leader the buck stops with him when elections are lost. When Starmer is leader, if future elections are lost, the buck stops with...er...Corbyn still! 

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Can you stand down instead?

Cutting

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, A Red said:

Cutting

Good, try not to bleed to death .

[Rico1304]

21 minutes ago, A Red said:

I'll say it again, he should retire or at least announce he will stand down at the next election. He is a figure of division and if he hangs around it will be down to his ego rather than wanting to change anything for the better. He's tried that and failed.

 

I'm not a socialist and dont treat any political party as a team that I support but vote for whoever suits me best at the time. I forecast that if Labour go into the next election with Corbyn et all still mp's, they will lose again.

 

We can share a cell in the gulag

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

We can share a cell in the gulag

And rent mine out, we'll be ok

[Numero Veinticinco]

34 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Can you provide the quotes/sources where he "suggested a lot of the report’s findings were exaggerated" as I'd quite like to see this as lots of people have suggested similar but generally try to back up their assertion with a statement where Corbyn says nothing of the sort. I presume you've got a different source? 

Well, I can’t answer the question about whether or not it’s different if I don’t know what source you’re talking about. If you tell me the source, then I can answer it. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 minute ago, Numero said:

Well, I can’t answer the question about whether or not it’s different if I don’t know what source you’re talking about. If you tell me the source, then I can answer it. 

Or, you can just back up your claim? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

Or, you can just back up your claim? 

I can, yes. But it would save me a lot of time if it’s just the same source. I’ve already backed it up with multiple links on this forum, so I’m not in a hurry to waste time if you’re just going to go ‘it’s the same’. If you just tell me what it is, which should take you about the time it took you to type the posted quote, then I will happily go get the links again if it’s different. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

7 minutes ago, Numero said:

I can, yes. But it would save me a lot of time if it’s just the same source. I’ve already backed it up with multiple links on this forum, so I’m not in a hurry to waste time if you’re just going to go ‘it’s the same’. If you just tell me what it is, which should take you about the time it took you to type the posted quote, then I will happily go get the links again if it’s different. 

Okay, I'm happy to leave it at this. It's no skin off my nose if you can't back up your (false) claim. 

[cloggypop]

16 minutes ago, Numero said:

Well, I can’t answer the question about whether or not it’s different if I don’t know what source you’re talking about. If you tell me the source, then I can answer it. 

Here you go

 

https://m.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

[Rico1304]

26 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

Here you go

 

https://m.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

Wasn’t he asked to take that down as part of being readmitted?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Okay, I'm happy to leave it at this. It's no skin off my nose if you can't back up your (false) claim. 

No, we won't be leaving it. You made it up, didn't you? You made up a bogus interaction with a bogus source that you can't name just so you could pre-emptively dismiss it? Anyway, I won't be leaving it; I'm going to back what I said, because asking for somebody to back up what they've said is actually a reasonable request. You didn't need to invent a load of bullshit to go with it. I tell you what though, it does makes you look like incredibly dishonest and it makes you look like you're asking for me to back something up and not willing to type 'his statement' or 'his interview with...'. Now, let's look at how false my claim actually is, then you can go and sit in the same corner that AoT has been sitting in since he wrongly called me out for false claims. 

 

I said that he suggested a lot of the report's findings were exaggerated. You said this is false. Wrong. Leaving aside the fact that, in his statement on Facebook, he said that he didn't accept all the findings and spoke about dramatic over exaggeration of the scale of the problem, he also followed this up by disputing more of the findings in an interview that (link here) where he rejected that he rejected findings about harassment, rejected claims that there was political interference and has said that he isn't part of the problem and didn't fail. The report disagrees. Heavily. So yes, it does suggest he rejects a lot of the findings, considering that that's almost all of the findings.

 

Let me guess what the reply is 'that was the same source... it's rubbish'. I just wish the Corbynite enthusiasm was matched with some sort of intellectual rigour. Still, I guess it's not about being accurate, just as it isn't for Trump supporters, it's about selling a different version of the truth to make your guy look good. Oh how I love this 'post truth' world. 

 

1 minute ago, cloggypop said:

Here you go

 

https://m.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

You know what source he's talking about? Interesting. 

 

[cloggypop]

He does not say the findings themselves are exaggerated though . It is false . 

 

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

He does not say the findings themselves are exaggerated though . It is false . 

What? Is that something in response to what I've written, surely it isn't? I know full well you can read. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

He does not say the findings themselves are exaggerated though . It is false . 

 

 

 

 

Correct. It's an often repeated lie. He clearly says that some people have exaggerated the problem within the Labour Party and he specifically names political rivals and the press. He didn't say that the report was exaggerated. That's simply a lie. And, he's fully entitled to say if he doesn't agree with certain claims being levelled against him. 

 

It's now being reported that the whip withdrawal may be for 3 months, but could be shorter and will be reviewed. I think somebody might have realised that they've acted too hastily and, possibly, unlawfully too. 

[Scooby Dudek]

8 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

He does not say the findings themselves are exaggerated though . It is false . 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Numero said:

What? Is that something in response to what I've written, surely it isn't? I know full well you can read. 

 

1 hour ago, Numero said:

Her error there is the word ‘all’. He didn’t suggest it was ‘all’ exaggerated. She’s being hyperbolic at a time she should have been accurate. He certainly suggested a lot of the report’s findings were exaggerated, though. When you come out, say that the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated, it’s one thing; when you back it up with statements about not accepting the harassment findings, the political interference findings, and saying that he wasn’t part of the problem, you certainly open yourself up to people saying you’re just not taking it seriously enough, and it has rubbed off on his fans too. You see it on twitter and you even see it on this thread.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

 

 

 

Sorry, not seeing it. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

He didn't say that the report was exaggerated. That's simply a lie.

It might be a lie if somebody actually said it. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

It's now being reported that the whip withdrawal may be for 3 months, but could be shorter and will be reviewed. I think somebody might have realised that they've acted too hastily and, possibly, unlawfully too. 

Which law? You're getting this shit from whatever that cunt's name is on Twitter who just now tweeted some stuff about Corbyn receiving letters from Corbyn's legal team. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

In those videos, Corbyn doesn't deny that there was political interference. He says that HE didn't interfere. Not that there was no political interference in the complaints process. These are two entirely separate things. More mistruths and spinning his words. 

 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, Numero said:

Which law? 

Look up the meaning of unlawful. 

 

You don't have to break a statutory or common law of the land to have acted unlawfully. You can act unlawfully by breaking rules. I didn't once claim he'd acted illegally. 

 

Is this the bit where I put the condescending comments about intellectual rigour and that? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

In those videos, Corbyn doesn't deny that there was political interference. He says that HE didn't interfere. Not that there was no political interference in the complaints process. These are two entirely separate things. More mistruths and spinning his words. 

HE WAS ACCUSED OF INTERFERING AND NAMED AS SUCH. I mean, for fuck sakes, he says - and I quote - 'I don't accept that we were harassing people'. So how can that possibly not a suggestion that he thinks the finding that they unlawfully harassed people is an exaggeration. If it wasn't an exaggeration, and he doesn't accept the finding, what the fuck was it? 

 

Fucking hell. I do miss the days when you could count on people to be able to read English and have basic comprehension skills. There does seem to be a trend with Corbynites that they're mostly fucking idiots. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

6 minutes ago, Numero said:

Which law? You're getting this shit from whatever that cunt's name is on Twitter who just now tweeted some stuff about Corbyn receiving letters from Corbyn's legal team. 

No I'm not, you weapon. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Look up the meaning of unlawful. 

 

You don't have to break a statutory or common law of the land to have acted unlawfully. You can act unlawfully by breaking rules. I didn't once claim he'd acted illegally. 

 

Is this the bit where I put the condescending comments about intellectual rigour and that? 

Erm, you are incredibly dense. What law - a system of rules - did he break. Which rule did he break. You have absolutely no intellectual rigour. None. You can put whatever comment in you want, but it doesn't mean it has any basis in fact.