Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Stickman]

I guess one way of looking at it is if they get a few more say the likes of Austin, Mann, Smeeth and co the Tories wont need the DUP anymore thus saving us a billion quid....

 

So you could in a way say they have put country first

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Five of the Shithouse Seven have put their resignation statements on Twitter. The comments predominantly seem to be from people saying they feel cheated as they voted for Labour, the party, rather than the MP, as an individual. Many calls for by-elections. 

 

C'mon. Let the people have their vote... 

[The Woolster]

On 2/17/2019 at 10:33 AM, AngryofTuebrook said:

Decent summary of why the "Labour is anti-Semitic" bollocks is bollocks. 

 

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/antisemitism-no-justification-for-singling-out-labour/?fbclid=IwAR0nVOOpr0ecJBLC7YOb5s6DsTztBbdwnOovicGKAgV1CNPXqbqJ3_9C4TU

 

 

453 allegations of substance in 10 months, or 0.08% of membership does seem quite low.

 

But 453 allegations compared to 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the whole UK in 2018, well then it seems quite high

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/07/antisemitic-incidents-uk-record-high-third-year-in-row-community-security-trust

 

I have no view on this by the way, but whilst the % was small, 453 'feels' like a high number to me, so thought I would get a comparison. Perhaps my comparison is not like-for-like or valid, but 45 cases a month does not seem like bollocks to me. I am not saying there is a big issue, but I do think there is biased reporting in that article.

[Section_31]

[Mook]

15 minutes ago, The Woolster said:

 

453 allegations of substance in 10 months, or 0.08% of membership does seem quite low.

 

But 453 allegations compared to 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the whole UK in 2018, well then it seems quite high

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/07/antisemitic-incidents-uk-record-high-third-year-in-row-community-security-trust

 

I have no view on this by the way, but whilst the % was small, 453 'feels' like a high number to me, so thought I would get a comparison. Perhaps my comparison is not like-for-like or valid, but 45 cases a month does not seem like bollocks to me. I am not saying there is a big issue, but I do think there is biased reporting in that article.

[skend04]

All this "they stood on a Labour manifesto, they should have a by-election" nonsense is so fucking childish. Corbyn stood on a Blair/Labour manifesto 3 times

and yet continually voted against the party. Shouldn't he have stood down and gone for re-election on his own manifesto too then? Didn't see much of that over the years.

 

The fact is that they don't have to have a by-election as they haven't died nor have they quit the HoC. They've simply seen that in 5 weeks a bloke is leading the party into a disastrous adventure on some gamble that it'll take down the Tories and they want no part of it. 

[Dr Nowt]

They definitely aren't part of a coordinated plot to squeeze Corbyn out, ready to be welcomed back into the party as heroes by a more centrist successor.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

13 minutes ago, skend04 said:

All this "they stood on a Labour manifesto, they should have a by-election" nonsense is so fucking childish. Corbyn stood on a Blair/Labour manifesto 3 times

and yet continually voted against the party. Shouldn't he have stood down and gone for re-election on his own manifesto too then? Didn't see much of that over the years.

 

The fact is that they don't have to have a by-election as they haven't died nor have they quit the HoC. They've simply seen that in 5 weeks a bloke is leading the party into a disastrous adventure on some gamble that it'll take down the Tories and they want no part of it. 

Yeah. 

 

We just must've all missed the bit when Corbyn resigned the party whip. And cost the party 7 seats. And said he was going to stand in Tory/Labour marginal seats to potentially dilute the Labour vote in such constituencies. 

 

[The Woolster]

13 minutes ago, Mook said:

Legend

 

Statto! Statto! Statto!

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

One of the Shithouse Seven, shortly after announcing that they were leaving Labour because of racism, innit... 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

29 minutes ago, Dr Nowt said:

They definitely aren't part of a coordinated plot to squeeze Corbyn out, ready to be welcomed back into the party as heroes by a more centrist successor.

It feel absolutely nothing like an episode of The Thick of It.

[Red Phoenix]

35 minutes ago, skend04 said:

All this "they stood on a Labour manifesto, they should have a by-election" nonsense is so fucking childish. Corbyn stood on a Blair/Labour manifesto 3 times

and yet continually voted against the party. Shouldn't he have stood down and gone for re-election on his own manifesto too then? Didn't see much of that over the years.

 

The fact is that they don't have to have a by-election as they haven't died nor have they quit the HoC. They've simply seen that in 5 weeks a bloke is leading the party into a disastrous adventure on some gamble that it'll take down the Tories and they want no part of it. 

 

Tens of thousands of people voted for them as members of Labour, them leaving should trigger an instant by-election if we're supposed to care about democracy. Corbyn should also have been subject to recall if the people that voted him in weren't happy with his voting. Nobody should be excused.

[Strontium]

28 minutes ago, skend04 said:

All this "they stood on a Labour manifesto, they should have a by-election" nonsense is so fucking childish. Corbyn stood on a Blair/Labour manifesto 3 times and yet continually voted against the party. Shouldn't he have stood down and gone for re-election on his own manifesto too then? Didn't see much of that over the years.

 

Also ignores the fact that individual Labour MPs have no input into the manifesto, which is drawn up by the shadow cabinet and NEC, and the fact that the last manifesto wasn't released until five days after nominations closed, by which time candidates would already have been nominated, with no idea what would actually be in the manifesto.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Ten of thousands of people voted for them as members of Labour, them leaving should trigger an instant by-election if we're supposed to care about democracy. Corbyn should also have been subject to recall if the people that voted him in weren't happy with his voting. Nobody should be excused.

 

Fixed that for you. We elect individual people in this country, not parties. 

[Scooby Dudek]

For years when the Right of the Labour Party Broad Church were in charge and stopping Left leaning candidates from standing, the line ever was "Keep your head down, party unity above all and stay and fight for what you believe in" after all this is democracy in action. Don't rock the boat because ultimately we all want a Labour Government. 

 

After giving more power to the membership, which the PLP voted for because it thought it would strengthen their position by weakening the Loony Left union votes, they have now found out that the majority of the membership are left leaning.  

 

They don't like this new democracy, that doesn't support them, so the bollocks they spouted about not rocking the boat, party unity and having to respect democracy is shown for the bollocks it is. 

 

The right split the party in 1983 and they are doing it again, they are the only side of the party that don't believe in democracy within the Labour Party. When they get called nothing but careerists, they can't complain when they prove that themselves. 

 

What they have done today is increase the prospect of a Tory government and not a left wing Labour government, which I suspect is what they wanted all along. 

 

 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-want-a-left-wing-labour-party-to-win-an-election-10406928.html

Tony Blair has said he would not want a left-wing Labour party to win a general election.

The former prime minister said that even if he thought a left-wing programme was the route to victory, he would not adopt one.

 

[Red Phoenix]

8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

Fixed that for you. We elect individual people in this country, not parties. 

 

Yeah so nobody voted for Labour as opposed to the individual people, who are largely a bunch of self serving corrupt shithouses. I think people voted for Labour and Corbyn way more than they voted for the idiots that have just left the party.

 

Democracy when it suits I suppose. The "individual people" didn't run as independents, they ran as members of Labour. The idiots that have just left don't give a fuck about those that voted them in, who now have no say in the matter. They just care about cash and their own agendas, which if revealed would I'd guess definitely not have got them voted into the positions where they are now.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Five of the Shithouse Seven have put their resignation statements on Twitter. The comments predominantly seem to be from people saying they feel cheated as they voted for Labour, the party, rather than the MP, as an individual. Many calls for by-elections. 

 

C'mon. Let the people have their vote... 

They did have their vote, to be fair. And they voted for that MP. I know it's not fair or right, but the fact is that people vote for MPs. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

In less than a couple of hours we've had one of their MPs referring to black people and those with a "funny tinge" and the approval of Katie Hopkins. 

 

The institutionally racist Independent Group haven't really had a great start... 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

Yeah so nobody voted for Labour

No, that's not what he means. It's just literally true that you vote for a person. The literal process is to vote for a person. Why you voted for that person isn't taken into account. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 minute ago, Hank Moody said:

No, that's not what he means. It's just literally true that you vote for a person. The literal process is to vote for a person. Why you voted for that person isn't taken into account. 

 

Yeah I was saying that I think it's also true that most people voted for Labour or Corbyn. They didn't have a choice in this system to do it any other way. That's why I think it's a sham and there should be by-elections. At the end of the day a by-election is just people having their say after a big change has occured with who they voted for. It shouldn't be seen as a problem and more as what democracy is supposed to be about.

[SasaS]

How many of them are in safe Labour seats?

[Scooby Dudek]

Labour party Members of Parliament until this morning, unable to say they would prefer a Labour Government over a Conservative Government is disgusting. Tells you everything about their mindset. 

 

They must have been devastated in 2017 when Labour increased their vote share to 40%. I would say people vote for the person and party but mainly the party, they stood as representatives of that party not as individuals. 

If they are so principled they should have the courage of their convictions and say you voted for me not the party I represented now do it again.

[Strontium]

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

How many of them are in safe Labour seats?

 

All bar one, I think, but I'd have to check.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

A thread... 

 

 

[Scooby Dudek]

32 minutes ago, SasaS said:

How many of them are in safe Labour seats?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47277281

 

2 over 30000 majority

3 over 20000 majority

1 over 10000 majority

Angela Smith 1,322 majority

 

Angela has just said, she only won the seat because she spent most of the election campaign slagging off Jeremy Corbyn.