Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The idea that those beastly Lefties created a culture of toxic bullying is laughably arse-about-face. Corbyn and his supporters used to get worse grief from Labour MPs than Starmer got from those cunts outside Parliament the other day.

This post screams of tribalism to me. Which MPs gave Corbyn worse grief than talks of nooses and hangings? 

 

God, how the Labour party needs to split. I hope it just gets on with it. 

[Bruce Spanner]

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

She isn't the story, but she is responsible for her own words. I was responding to those words. Coyle telling somebody to fuck off over Brexit doesn't preclude him from pointing out the toxic, bullying behaviour within the party over the longer term. They are quite different things. 

Yeah, I think they'll get the 54. 180 is a stretch, but I guess that depends on the shenaniganry of those wanting to get their guy into power. I suspect the Rishi Sunak team are out in force at the moment trying to get support, offering the right people the right promises. It's not completely outside the realms of possibility this one, I reckon. 

 

Can't remember who said it yesterday but Sunak spiking the NHS waiting list money was delibrate 'Why waste money on a policy of a lame duck?'.

 

Makes sense, but they have been doing the Laurel and Hardy odd couple dance for the past week or so and doing joint articles, meet and greats and speeches etc. so who knows?

 

I think Sunak has looked at the odds and realised he ain't as popular as he thought and he'll be even moreso if he's the face of the summer of discontent.

 

We might be stuck with the usless cunt for a while yet as there's no clear path out for anyone.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Can't remember who said it yesterday but Sunak spiking the NHS waiting list money was delibrate 'Why waste money on a policy of a lame duck?'.

 

Makes sense, but they have been doing the Laurel and Hardy odd couple dance for the past week or so and doing joint articles, meet and greats and speeches etc.

 

I think Sunak has looked at the odds and realised he ain't as popular as he thought and he'll be even moreso if he's the face of the summer of discontent.

 

We might be stuck with the usless cunt for a while yet as there's no clear path out for anyone.

I guess we're going to find out, mate. They're all a much of a muchness to me anyway. I'm not sure what's the best thing for the long term prospect of a Labour government. It might well be better to have Johnson being Johnson for the remainder of the term. 

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I guess we're going to find out, mate. They're all a much of a muchness to me anyway. I'm not sure what's the best thing for the long term prospect of a Labour government. It might well be better to have Johnson being Johnson for the remainder of the term. 

 

I don't think morally 'we' can support that.

 

He's a stain on this nation and doing irreprable damage to the levels of trust, engagement etc of people whilst pushing through authoritarian policies his demented backers demand.

 

He needs to be gone ASAP and take this circus with him and let us try and rebuild after this horror show.

 

Who next, I really don't care, they'll be blue blood tories, but at least you have an ideology to rally against and not the lies, fantasy and dishonesty of this charlatan and his backers.

[Gnasher]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

She isn't the story, but she is responsible for her own words. I was responding to those words. Coyle telling somebody to fuck off over Brexit doesn't preclude him from pointing out the toxic, bullying behaviour within the party over the longer term. They are quite different things. 

 

Are they? Is not screaming at a junior aid (plus others who had to intervene on the aids behalf) and this so called bullying behaviour really that far apart? 

 

The cunts got form, he got himself banned from all the house of commons bars on day fuvking one and got himself splashed all over the papers, you'd think he'd then show a modicum of self awareness to keep his mouth shut on bullying/Corbyn however difficult it seems to be for him.

 

All that Labour aid did was express an opinion.

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, I think they'll get the 54. 180 is a stretch, but I guess that depends on the shenaniganry of those wanting to get their guy into power. I suspect the Rishi Sunak team are out in force at the moment trying to get support, offering the right people the right promises. It's not completely outside the realms of possibility this one, I reckon. 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I don't think morally 'we' can support that.

 

He's a stain and this nation and doing irreprable damage to the levels of trust, engagement etc of people whilst pushing through authoritarian policies his demented backers demand.

 

He needs to be gone ASAP and take this circus with him and let us try and rebuild after this horror show.

 

Who next, I really don't care, they'll be blue blood tories, but at least you have an ideology to rally against and not the lies, fantasy and dishonesty of this charlatan and his backers.

The problem is that it isn't in 'our' hands. We don't have to support it, I certainly don't as I think he needs to be shot into the sun ASAP, but we are in the unenviable position of sit back and wait. As a mere spectator, I can only hope for whatever leads to the most expedient route to a Labour (or, more accurately, a non-Tory) government. That's what I see as doing the least damage over the long term. For the short-term, I guess it could be argued - based on percentage of damage - that changing to Sunak might be less damaging than just waiting for a Labour government, but I'm not really convinced things will be anything bar marginally different with a less irritating front man. At best it's marginal, and might lead to yet more Tory governments. Not something I can morally support either. 

[Section_31]

5 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I don't think morally 'we' can support that.

 

He's a stain and this nation and doing irreprable damage to the levels of trust, engagement etc of people whilst pushing through authoritarian policies his demented backers demand.

 

He needs to be gone ASAP and take this circus with him and let us try and rebuild after this horror show.

 

Who next, I really don't care, they'll be blue blood tories, but at least you have an ideology to rally against and not the lies, fantasy and dishonesty of this charlatan and his backers.

 

That's how I feel, he's a real danger to the country and its institutions and moral fibre. He can't be allowed to be seen to prevail, otherwise it sets a precedent. 

 

Also, from a self preservation point of view, does anyone want this cunt in charge if anything does ever really kick off with Russia?

 

"Like Spartacus on the road to Damascus, sandwiched twixt Xerxes with his Persian hordes, and Gandalf, let us defy the Bolshevik menace with a firm kick to the goolies!" 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

This post screams of tribalism to me. Which MPs gave Corbyn worse grief than talks of nooses and hangings? 

 

God, how the Labour party needs to split. I hope it just gets on with it. 

Not tribalism; just hyperbole. Some of the Labour MPs at the time boasted of the insults they shouted into his face and the lengths they went to "to break him as a man". That's what "toxic bullying" looks like. There was nothing comparable coming from the left. 

 

Other than cementing the Tories in power for ever, what do you think would come from splitting the Labour Party?

[Numero Veinticinco]

18 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Are they? 

Yep, one is shouting at somebody and the other is - according to some - long term toxic bullying. Now, I know you are on the other side of the fence regarding Brexit, but leaving out why he told him to fuck off, I think it's markedly different. If you don't, fair enough. Still, I guess we are in the dark on the exact details of every piece of toxic bullying being referred to, so... I dunno. I think most of these lot are twats. 

[Bruce Spanner]

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

The problem is that it isn't in 'our' hands. We don't have to support it, I certainly don't as I think he needs to be shot into the sun ASAP, but we are in the unenviable position of sit back and wait. As a mere spectator, I can only hope for whatever leads to the most expedient route to a Labour (or, more accurately, a non-Tory) government. That's what I see as doing the least damage over the long term. For the short-term, I guess it could be argued - based on percentage of damage - that changing to Sunak might be less damaging than just waiting for a Labour government, but I'm not really convinced things will be anything bar marginally different with a less irritating front man. At best it's marginal, and might lead to yet more Tory governments. Not something I can morally support either. 

 

We do have some influence, I've written to a fair few Tory MPs claiming to be a constituent and registering my disgust!

 

On the broader point though I agree, we are impotent and mere observers in the slow motion car crash.

[Numero Veinticinco]

 

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not tribalism; just hyperbole.

 

I think both, but we are unlikely to ever agree on that. As I've said many times on here, those 'looking to break' Corbyn should have been put into a wood chipper. It's just that I'm consistent on this. I said it of those undermining Corbyn and I'm saying it about those undermining Starmer. I think this 'yeah but they did' it stuff coming from the Corbynite left, on here and on Twitter, to be quite repugnant. That said, I actually want to get the Tories out as my primary objective, I'm not interested in winning an internal war beyond what's good for the country.

 

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Other than cementing the Tories in power for ever, what do you think would come from splitting the Labour Party?

 

Well, I think the premise of your question is false. The Corbynites having their own party wouldn't cement Tories in power forever. That gives way, way too much validity to those breaking away. Leaving that aside, what do I think would come from splitting the Labour party. Well, a united Labour opposition to the Tories and a Corbynite left wing that would either become the bastion of hope, or fade away into the oblivion like other purely left wing factional parties. I suspect the latter after just one election. SWP, Respect, Workers Party of Great Britain. At this point I'm willing to take the short term hits for the long term benefits. If Labour don't get together as a serious opposition, it's Tories all the way down. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

We do have some influence, I've written to a fair few Tory MPs claiming to be a constituent and registering my disgust!

 

On the broader point though I agree, we are impotent and mere observers in the slow motion car crash.

Are they sternly worded letters? I didn't know we could write sternly worded letters. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

As I've said many times on here, those 'looking to break' Corbyn should have been put into a wood chipper. It's just that I'm consistent on this. I said it of those undermining Corbyn and I'm saying it about those undermining Starmer. 

Well, yeah. You and me both. 

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

 

I think both, but we are unlikely to ever agree on that. As I've said many times on here, those 'looking to break' Corbyn should have been put into a wood chipper. It's just that I'm consistent on this. I said it of those undermining Corbyn and I'm saying it about those undermining Starmer. I think this 'yeah but they did' it stuff coming from the Corbynite left, on here and on Twitter, to be quite repugnant. That said, I actually want to get the Tories out as my primary objective, I'm not interested in winning an internal war beyond what's good for the country.

 

 

Well, I think the premise of your question is false. The Corbynites having their own party wouldn't cement Tories in power forever. That gives way, way too much validity to those breaking away. Leaving that aside, what do I think would come from splitting the Labour party. Well, a united Labour opposition to the Tories and a Corbynite left wing that would either become the bastion of hope, or fade away into the oblivion like other purely left wing factional parties. I suspect the latter after just one election. SWP, Respect, Workers Party of Great Britain. At this point I'm willing to take the short term hits for the long term benefits. If Labour don't get together as a serious opposition, it's Tories all the way down. 

 

I think you may be underestimating the centre left there although it's hard to judge because their hasn't been a precedent for a split involving the left; judging by the quantity that joined the party and subsequently left the party we can safely assume they wouldn't be short of numbers, we can also safely assume the other side of the party would haemorrhage yet more money.

 

We do have a signpost to how a right wing Labour breakaway might go down with the country though because we witnessed it very recently, unfortunately for them it went like this,

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/19/a-year-on-did-change-uk-change-anything

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, I think the premise of your question is false. The Corbynites having their own party wouldn't cement Tories in power forever. That gives way, way too much validity to those breaking away. Leaving that aside, what do I think would come from splitting the Labour party. Well, a united Labour opposition to the Tories and a Corbynite left wing that would either become the bastion of hope, or fade away into the oblivion like other purely left wing factional parties. I suspect the latter after just one election. SWP, Respect, Workers Party of Great Britain. At this point I'm willing to take the short term hits for the long term benefits. If Labour don't get together as a serious opposition, it's Tories all the way down. 

And you think that splitting is the best way for Labour to come together?  Hmm.  I disagree.

 

If Labour were to split, the left-wing faction would inevitably be more significant than the left-wing fringe parties we've seen.  Those parties are for, if you like, the "hard left".  The much more numerous "moderate left" (for example, the hundreds of thousands who joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn's policies) have always had a home in the Labour Party.  Kick them out to form a new party and you're in unchartered territory, where two comparably-sized left-of-centre parties are hobbling each other, leaving the field clear for the Tories.

 

Any Labour leader needs to unite Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. (I deliberately word it that way to show how fucking ridiculous and petty the divisions within Labour are.) Without getting into the pointless game of throwing blame at one side or the other, it's clear that both Corbyn and Starmer, for different reasons, failed to do this. But I refuse to believe that it's an impossible task.

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

And you think that splitting is the best way for Labour to come together?  Hmm.  I disagree.

 

If Labour were to split, the left-wing faction would inevitably be more significant than the left-wing fringe parties we've seen.  Those parties are for, if you like, the "hard left".  The much more numerous "moderate left" (for example, the hundreds of thousands who joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn's policies) have always had a home in the Labour Party.  Kick them out to form a new party and you're in unchartered territory, where two comparably-sized left-of-centre parties are hobbling each other, leaving the field clear for the Tories.

 

Any Labour leader needs to unite Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. (I deliberately word it that way to show how fucking ridiculous and petty the divisions within Labour are.) Without getting into the pointless game of throwing blame at one side or the other, it's clear that both Corbyn and Starmer, for different reasons, failed to do this. But I refuse to believe that it's an impossible task.

I agree with most of that but I think the differences are a good deal wider than the picture you paint there Angry. 

[sir roger]

Whatever the differing views of the right / centre and left of the Labour party , can we stop equating the words and actions of lots of people with senior positions in the party against a communist twitter nonentity and a journalist so insignificant that I keep getting him mixed up with the ice cream guy who challenged Corbyn for the leadership.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

And you think that splitting is the best way for Labour to come together?  Hmm.  I disagree.

 

If Labour were to split, the left-wing faction would inevitably be more significant than the left-wing fringe parties we've seen.  Those parties are for, if you like, the "hard left".  The much more numerous "moderate left" (for example, the hundreds of thousands who joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn's policies) have always had a home in the Labour Party.  Kick them out to form a new party and you're in unchartered territory, where two comparably-sized left-of-centre parties are hobbling each other, leaving the field clear for the Tories.

 

Any Labour leader needs to unite Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. (I deliberately word it that way to show how fucking ridiculous and petty the divisions within Labour are.) Without getting into the pointless game of throwing blame at one side or the other, it's clear that both Corbyn and Starmer, for different reasons, failed to do this. But I refuse to believe that it's an impossible task.

Obviously I see this quite differently. I think the centre left and centre would stay and the Corbynite left would go. The Social Justice party, or whatever it's supposed to be called, would have an initial boost in membership but ultimately win no seats. What I do know is that Corbyn - who, for reasons I just can't work out, is some figurehead of the left despite not actually originating anything or being of any real merit as a politician - was conclusively beaten in the election. That's as leader of Labour. As a fringe party... I just can't see it. Same with Change UK. Same with SDP. A breakaway party will just melt away. If that's what it takes to have a centre left party right than a right wing party, then I'm okay with it.

 

Now, whether or not it's an impossible task... I really don't know. As long as electoral results are secondary to winning 'the heart and soul of the party' internal war, then I just can't see it. I think the left inside Labour have this massive chip on their shoulder over Corbyn, and they ain't letting it go. They're all about point scoring. If they somehow managed to wrestle back leadership to a Democratic Socialist, then the other side will feel justified in being cunts. At times there's bigger difference between the Democratic Socialists and the Social Democrats within the Labour party than between Labour and the Tories. So how the fuck can they exist as one party? 

[Strontium]

I should think both Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer would consider themselves democratic socialists. But since the revolutionary socialists considered Corbyn to be one of them, and the social democrats are equally keen to claim Starmer, I'm not sure the term "democratic socialism" is an especially useful one.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

37 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Obviously I see this quite differently. I think the centre left and centre would stay and the Corbynite left would go. The Social Justice party, or whatever it's supposed to be called, would have an initial boost in membership but ultimately win no seats. What I do know is that Corbyn - who, for reasons I just can't work out, is some figurehead of the left despite not actually originating anything or being of any real merit as a politician - was conclusively beaten in the election. That's as leader of Labour. As a fringe party... I just can't see it. Same with Change UK. Same with SDP. A breakaway party will just melt away. If that's what it takes to have a centre left party right than a right wing party, then I'm okay with it.

 

Now, whether or not it's an impossible task... I really don't know. As long as electoral results are secondary to winning 'the heart and soul of the party' internal war, then I just can't see it. I think the left inside Labour have this massive chip on their shoulder over Corbyn, and they ain't letting it go. They're all about point scoring. If they somehow managed to wrestle back leadership to a Democratic Socialist, then the other side will feel justified in being cunts. At times there's bigger difference between the Democratic Socialists and the Social Democrats within the Labour party than between Labour and the Tories. So how the fuck can they exist as one party? 

I think the members of the "Corbynite left" with the biggest chips on their shoulders have already left (and spend all their energies sniping at Starmer on Twitter).

 

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum are staying in the party and are committed to fighting the Tories. Starmer's job is to keep them all in a "big tent".

[Gnasher]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..if true and Corbyn stands as an independent it will guarantee the next general election will be a circus centered round Islington Nth.

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

21 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..if true and Corbyn stands as an independent it will guarantee the next general election will be a circus centered round Islington Nth.

 

 

 

Anybody got the full article?

[Sugar Ape]

Jeremy Corbyn is on the brink of being deselected by Labour as MP for Islington North as it prepares to replace him with a new candidate.

 

Top party officials have held discussions on how best to remove the former Labour leader from the seat.

 

The Telegraph understands that Mr Corbyn wants the Labour whip restored and to continue as the MP for the seat.

 

He has been an independent MP since Oct 2020 after he said that the scale of complaints of anti-Semitism during his time as leader were “dramatically overstated”.

 

Mr Corbyn has been the constituency’s MP since 1983, and has seen much of the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) remain on the Left of the party since his election as leader over six years ago.

 

Alison McGarry, the chairman of the Islington North CLP, is a member of the Momentum group as well as trade unionist with Unite.

 

His deselection would currently come from his local party voting for a new contest to choose a candidate, which he would have to lose – something that would be unlikely to happen given his popularity in the area.

 

Despite this, a senior party insider told The Sunday Times that they are “determined to bring this to a head. The current position is not sustainable”, while a source close to Sir Keir Starmer said that Mr Corbyn’s time in the party was effectively over.

 

The Telegraph reported last month that Mr Corbyn was considering establishing his own political party after privately accepting that he would not have the whip reinstated.

 

Party insiders were understood earlier this year to be supportive of Mary Creagh, a former Labour MP for Wakefield who lost her seat in 2019, to stand against Mr Corbyn who presided over the election that cost her place in Parliament.

 

It comes as Labour continues to be involved in a public spat with the Unite union, one of its closest allies and biggest donors during Mr Corbyn’s tenure as leader.

 

Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said this week that it would be reviewing £1 million of its remaining funding, which could leave the party bankrupt.

 

A Labour spokesman said: “We have publicly set out the process required for Jeremy Corbyn to come back into the Parliamentary Labour Party. The ball is in his court.”

[Numero Veinticinco]

 

Thus spake Alan Taylor 420. 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Anybody got the full article?

Originally in the Times and its behind a paywall,

 

 

Like Akehurst (spelling?) is trying to explain the process on twitter and its looking like a bowl of foul tasting spaghetti.