Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 1044 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sugar Ape

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

212 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Numero said:

I had to stop after they started talking about supporting the government over COVID. 

Yeah I thought it strange. It dosnt make clear what part of the govermment covid response they're opposing, at first o thought they were denying the virus altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Yeah I thought it strange. It dosnt make clear what part of the govermment covid response they're opposing, at first o thought they were denying the virus altogether.

I mean, the idea that at a time when people are dying in the thousands upon thousands, Labour should oppose the measures needed to save the lives and the livelihoods of the people of the country, including bakers, just ‘because’ is fuckin’ hideous. I wonder how a speech from Starmer saying how he’s whipping the Labour Party into voting against a lockdown, against urgent financial measures for working people, against PPE to hospitals, etc would go down with the bakers union. These people are fundamental broken when it comes to talking about politics. Labour had been talking for weeks and weeks about the need for a circuit breaker, during half term, when the daily deaths were at 11, should they have opposed the lockdown just because it came later than they wanted? It’s childish bollocks and whoever wrote that criticism should be ducking ashamed. But there’s no shame from these lot. They’re not lefties, they’re antis. They’re just anti anything those outside their tribe says, even if they’d support it if their tribe had offered it. 
 

It’s the same with that Skwakbox blog post about withdrawing the whip. It’s written by the same guy that advocated Corbyn removing the whip from others in a unilateral decision. It’s tribalism not accuracy. The shame is, several  members on here are caught up in it. They get swept along by a blogger or a tweeter without ever stopping to think. They’re actually just being used by these people to further their own political biases. It’s shite. 

 

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. It’s actually frustrating to be called out for remaining neutral on a subject until you have more information. I genuinely don’t know if Starmer broke the rules, but because I’m not taking the pro-Corbyn version of the two blog posts written by a cock-eyed tribalist as pure fact, I’m somehow a ‘starmerista’. If Starmer broke the rules, he should face the consequences. I just have no idea if he did, and considering the fact that he is a world class barrister (a fact I’m also supposed to pretend isn’t true, just because it’s seen as a positive) who reached the pinnacle of the legal profession, and the other guy is a blogger who wrote its fine in one breath and horrific in the other, I’m just going to wait and see. To most people that would be reasonable, unbiased, logical, and fair minded. To Corbyn fans, it’s biased. It’s biased not to be biased. It’s unfair to be accurate and factual. It’s Trumpian nonsense. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 
 

It could be that Starmer just went out on a limb, went power crazy, and broke a load of rules. I’d think it’s unlikely, but it could happen. If so, of course that needs to be dealt with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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/

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I don't believe Corbyn would take it to court, either way.


His solicitors are already involved.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.


Suppose it depends how deep the scars are.

 

I hope not as well, as it’ll do nobody any favours.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • I’m in complete agreement. I also think that the manager knows his hands are tied when it comes to solving the problem. Why? He can’t spend - not only to cover injuries, but to look to the future. Well, here’s a question for everyone: who is Henderson’s understudy? Who was bought to replace him in the near future?   Since the Burnley defeat I’ve thought about Henderson quite bit. Even Gerrard said about him "Teams can't function at Liverpool's level without a cog like Jordan Henderson."   The more I think about it, the more I believe that Henderson is the key to it all.
      9 years at Liverpool, Captain since 2015 - written off before the arrival of manager Rogers, and even Rogers told him ‘there’s a place at Fulham if you want it’ Hated by fans and given flak for so long, he has become the linchpin of our driving midfield, and now, having taken us to 3 European Cup finals, with 1 win and our first Premier League title in 30 yrs, not only has he had a number of injuries, but he’s been forced of late to play out of his key position.   Given his importance, and the history of his rise to prominence - 9 years of it -  it’s unforgivable that we have not been nurturing his replacement for our near term future. Unless ofc, we have?   If I’m wrong, and we’ve already acquired his probable replacement, then who is it? Is it Fabinho? If so, Fab should be in midfield and nowhere else regardless of CB injuries. Who else could it be? I have no idea? Minimino? Jones? 
        Either our players fit the system, or the system adapts to new players, either way, Hendo is not going to be playing long term after a 9 yr career already, with injuries and a permanent disability ( plantar fasciitis? )   Does Klopp’s brief include a second generation team rising out of the ashes of the last 3 seasons? Questions questions.    
    • Rumour abounds that his Mum’s died. Hope its not true.
    • If Hendo plays (midfield thank you very much) then we’ll win. If he doesn’t, we’ll lose. Its that straightforward.
    • Bit closer home to the wirral, maybe he and stevie G could car share?
    • I heard that too but didn't want to put it on here without confirmation. Absolutely terrible if correct, and may explain his touchiness recently 
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • top casino sites
  • new UK casino
×