Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 1061 - 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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

2CA95568-1283-4B48-93C6-B7DAC744DDB1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kepler-186 said:

 

2CA95568-1283-4B48-93C6-B7DAC744DDB1.gif

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

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.

 

I think that's the point though. The scale of the victory and the subsequent victory's were in part due to Muroch's support. If Corbyn and Labour had started to surge ahead in the polls on the back of the 2017 election and May had refused to stand down, do you honestly think Corbyn and Murdoch would have teamed up in the same way? 

 

If Blair had stopped these cunts holding so much power and influence over the electorate there might have been less of a pro Brexit campaign years down the line and Boris Johnson wouldn't have risen to power etc. Blair took the easy route to victory and we are still feeling the consequences of it now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could also be argued, I certainly would, that the break between the traditional working class and Labour was accelerated under Blair and his government. 

Whilst it is all well and good talking about the things they did, if people on the coal face are not feeling it then it is irrelevant. 

 

A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, felt that despite 13 years of Labour in power not much had changed for them on a day to day basis. I was still getting this on the doorstep in 2019. Vote Labour because we will help, look what the Tories have done over the last 9 years. Labour did nothing in power so may as well give the Tories a go (red wall constituencies'). 

Same with Brexit vote, people who have nothing being called out about free movement and holidays. Again their life had not improved in 20 odd years, so the easy blame was immigrants. 

No houses being build, housing shortage is because of immigrants. 

Wages stagnated, cheap labour coming in. 

 

Labour had been in power and peoples wages stagnated, maybe if they had stronger unions it could have helped, but obviously we couldn't/wouldn't overturn the anti union laws that had been brought in. 

 

Labour wanted to create a nation of home owners, so why would Labour build social housing ? 

 

Under Blair Labour was no longer seen as the pro union, pro working class party. I understand this is an over simplified post but Labour gave the impression of turning its back/taking for granted its core support, and shock horror its core support turned to something different. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

It could also be argued, I certainly would, that the break between the traditional working class and Labour was accelerated under Blair and his government. 

Whilst it is all well and good talking about the things they did, if people on the coal face are not feeling it then it is irrelevant. 

 

A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, felt that despite 13 years of Labour in power not much had changed for them on a day to day basis. I was still getting this on the doorstep in 2019. Vote Labour because we will help, look what the Tories have done over the last 9 years. Labour did nothing in power so may as well give the Tories a go (red wall constituencies'). 

Same with Brexit vote, people who have nothing being called out about free movement and holidays. Again their life had not improved in 20 odd years, so the easy blame was immigrants. 

No houses being build, housing shortage is because of immigrants. 

Wages stagnated, cheap labour coming in. 

 

Labour had been in power and peoples wages stagnated, maybe if they had stronger unions it could have helped, but obviously we couldn't/wouldn't overturn the anti union laws that had been brought in. 

 

Labour wanted to create a nation of home owners, so why would Labour build social housing ? 

 

Under Blair Labour was no longer seen as the pro union, pro working class party. I understand this is an over simplified post but Labour gave the impression of turning its back/taking for granted its core support, and shock horror its core support turned to something different. 

 

Was life really that bad for the working class under Blair though, sure start centres, minimum wage, new deal, record funding to the NHS? I think local government and schools were pretty well funded too, certainly in comparison to what followed under Cameron and these cunts, who many working class are now voting for. 

Share this post


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

It could also be argued, I certainly would, that the break between the traditional working class and Labour was accelerated under Blair and his government. 

Whilst it is all well and good talking about the things they did, if people on the coal face are not feeling it then it is irrelevant. 

 

A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, felt that despite 13 years of Labour in power not much had changed for them on a day to day basis. I was still getting this on the doorstep in 2019. Vote Labour because we will help, look what the Tories have done over the last 9 years. Labour did nothing in power so may as well give the Tories a go (red wall constituencies'). 

Same with Brexit vote, people who have nothing being called out about free movement and holidays. Again their life had not improved in 20 odd years, so the easy blame was immigrants. 

No houses being build, housing shortage is because of immigrants. 

Wages stagnated, cheap labour coming in. 

 

 

Agreed.

The 3.8 million people that voted UKIP in 2015 were mainly ex Labour voters. The rise of the SNP in Scotland is partly down to the perception that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. 

 

I saw a really good interview with somebody from Hartlepool where he said that Labour had taken them for granted for decades and they believe that's why they don't get the funding or attention of other places, so they need to become a marginal/swing seat in order to push political parties in to actually giving a fuck about them.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Numero said:

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 

That's not a view I've ever subscribed to.  (Sometimes it's best to ignore Rico.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

Was life really that bad for the working class under Blair though, sure start centres, minimum wage, new deal, record funding to the NHS? I think local government and schools were pretty well funded too, certainly in comparison to what followed under Cameron and these cunts, who many working class are now voting for. 

Even the worst Labour Government would be better than a Tory Government.  I'm no fan of New Labour, but I'd also add the Good Friday Agreement, the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act to their list of significant achievements.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some twat from Labour Against Antisemitism tweeting anti-Semitic shite.  But it's aimed at the bloke who stepped down from the leadership over a year ago, so it's fine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/05/2021 at 01:51, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Even the worst Labour Government would be better than a Tory Government.  I'm no fan of New Labour, but I'd also add the Good Friday Agreement, the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act to their list of significant achievements.

Erm....

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

×