Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 1045 - 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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


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

Surely the Labour and Tory party rules are different ? 

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on what or who governs the rules on the whip. I guess we'll find out over the next few days and weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Numero said:

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. 

The very first thing I said was that I don't gave a copy of the mp handbook so have no idea if the rules quoted are correct , but that it is presented as facts and am interested in it being for once something that can be proven either way. Along with my oft quoted belief that Corbyn was a very weak leader,  I'm not sure how that makes me a tribalist.

 

You, however , with your dreary 10000 word essays which no matter how many twists and turns always end up Starmer's forensic arse are turning into a parody account.

 

I think its probably for best that we ignore each other going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

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 :

 

 

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

Reading that article in full is a bit of a head fuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sir roger said:

The very first thing I said was that I don't gave a copy of the mp handbook so have no idea if the rules quoted are correct , but that it is presented as facts and am interested in it being for once something that can be proven either way. Along with my oft quoted belief that Corbyn was a very weak leader,  I'm not sure how that makes me a tribalist.

 

You, however , with your dreary 10000 word essays which no matter how many twists and turns always end up Starmer's forensic arse are turning into a parody account.

 

I think its probably for best that we ignore each other going forward.

You are more than free to ignore me. What you’ve said there is made up. I’ve called for Starmer to be thrown out of the party and for him to be disciplined over the last couple of days. Of course, the stipulation is that he has actually done something wrong. If that’s me up I his arse, you’d shit your pants if I started actually being biased. Sorry my ‘I want proof’ stance has pissed you off so much. I wish you’d answered the actual question. 
 

You know where the ignore button is. Use it quickly, you’re in danger of reading something that corrupts your chosen view. Best stick to Skwakbox and Rachel Swindon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

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.

 

 

I hear you mate but for me that’s just a case of people using the term incorrectly as opposed to there being a fundamental problem with the labelling itself, if that makes any sense.

 

I consider myself to be on the left generally but there are certain things where I’m probably in the middle.

 

One thing I would say is that a lot of people on the left talk a lot about Socialism without actually understanding what it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

Numero is very argumentative on a lot of threads recently for a non-tribalist . 

You’re really can be very snide. You love to slink in for a dig without actually saying anything of your own. It’s not the first time either. Why not just show exactly where I’ve been tribal, if that’s what you think. It should be easy to quote my tribal posts and pull me for that hypocrisy. Bang, done.  That’d be me fucked. Of course, it’s much easier to make a sly comment than just give an example when an example doesn’t exist. 
 

I do often argue against logical fallacy and factual inaccuracies; I have to cop to that. I’ll address the person directly though, instead of sly comments. I’ll admit if I don’t know something, as I have done on this thread, but I’ll argue back when my lack of willingness to believe a money-begging blogger or tweeter looking to post whatever it takes - even when they are the complete opposites of each other - to take advantage of people for financial gain gets called tribalism. It’s not tribalism, it’s good sense. It’s actually impartiality, which is disgusting to a tribalist. 
 

I’m now being criticised for making long posts, as if detail is the enemy. As if context is the enemy. It’s ridiculous, but I guess that’s what you get from those who are used to getting their information 140 characters at a time or from a blog post here or there. It’s not an echo chamber on here, so put me on ignore or accept it.

 

This ‘lots of threads’. How many is that? Ten? Twenty? Thirty? Two? It’s the Starmer and Corbyn threads, isn’t it? If it’s not just those two threads, what else am I being tribal about? It’s because I’m not towing the party line of the majority of Corbynites on here so I’m now somehow a tribalist because I’m not in a tribe. Good stuff. I actually posted some things about Starmer’s career that are factual, rather than made up insinuations, so I’m a tribalist. Good stuff. 
 

Whatever you do, reply with a sneering, dismissive post and not something with some substance. Don’t go changing the habit of a lifetime on my account. May I suggest ‘haha, get a life’ or ‘haha go outside’ or ‘haha you live in a basement’. Anything but good old fashioned substance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

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.

 

 

I think the terms are fine but people simply have left and right wing economic and social views. 

 

A lot of "traditional" labour support have left wing economic views but centre right social views. It's why lots of people didn't take to Corbyn because he clearly has left wing views for both.  The Liberal Democrats are the opposite. The current Tory party has right wing economic and social views. David Cameron had right wing economic views but didn't give a fuck about social views, etc, etc.

 

The BBC's defence against criticism is always "Well, we're attacked by the left and the right so we must spot on". Whilst the truth is that their political and economic output is largely centre left/left social stuff that annoys the fuck out of loads of people (not playing songs with certain lyrics, gender stuff, etc) and propping up the right wing economics of the government of the last decade. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

I think the terms are fine but people simply have left and right wing economic and social views. 

 

A lot of "traditional" labour support have left wing economic views but centre right social views. It's why lots of people didn't take to Corbyn because he clearly has left wing views for both.  The Liberal Democrats are the opposite. The current Tory party has right wing economic and social views. David Cameron had right wing economic views but didn't give a fuck about social views, etc, etc.

 

The BBC's defence against criticism is always "Well, we're attacked by the left and the right so we must spot on". Whilst the truth is that their political and economic output is largely centre left/left social stuff that annoys the fuck out of loads of people (not playing songs with certain lyrics, gender stuff, etc) and propping up the right wing economics of the government of the last decade. 

Yep. Or pretty much yep. I'm depressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

So Corbyn had showed a massive improvement and was shouldered aside by that Tory lawyer fuck. If it'd stayed on the same trajectory, he would have been polling better than Starmer by now.

 

Edit: Just noticed, who's this Davey fella?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn isn't the leader any more

 

 I would be wondering how it is possible for the main opposition leader to lose 5% of his popularity ( and 10% since June ) in a period where the most inefficient government we have ever seen has been complicit in the deaths of over 50000 citizens. Even fucking Ed Davey has increased his popularity over the past 4 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mudface said:

So Corbyn had showed a massive improvement and was shouldered aside by that Tory lawyer fuck. If it'd stayed on the same trajectory, he would have been polling better than Starmer by now.

 

Edit: Just noticed, who's this Davey fella?

See above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

That’s the second time you’ve used this joke. It’s half as funny now.  

Well for a miserable cunt like you that must make it hysterical. 

Share this post


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

Well for a miserable cunt like you that must make it hysterical. 

Christ man, give up.  You are plain hopeless at this.  

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

×