Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[moof]

I would prefer somebody with socialist tendencies, personally 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, moof said:

I would prefer somebody with socialist tendencies, personally 

Starmer doesn't have socialist tendencies? 

[Bobby Hundreds]

If Ed Milliband was labelled as Red Ed and the idea of the SNP being in a coalition brought anger and outrage to the media whilst the Tories can break the law, close down parliament and go into a coalition with the DUP and that's all fine. What real chance does any Labour leader have unless they suck Murdoch's dick whilst taking it up the arse from Lord Rothmere.

[Mudface]

Just now, Bobby Hundreds said:

If Ed Milliband was labelled as Red Ed and the idea of the SNP being in a coalition brought anger and outrage to the media whilst the Tories can break the law, close down parliament and go into a coalition with the DUP and that's all fine. What real chance does any Labour leader have unless they suck Murdoch's dick whilst taking it up the arse from Lord Rothmere.

If a Labour government had produced the utter chaos of the last few years, we'd never hear the last of it. Christ, the Winter of Discontent 40 years ago is still cited as reason not to vote Labour.

[Denny Crane]

Couple of points about Starmer, considering he had an extensive legal background the role he does requires a person to be lawyerly and technical. You would expect him to shine especially as Brexit is ever present. May appointed David Davies as his opposite number. You often hear people moan about Corbyn appointing Abbott but never any acknowledgement he appointed Starmer. 

 

Anybody who runs on a platform to the left of New Labour will be savaged. I would assume Keir Starmer career as a public prosecutor will be taken apart should he ever drift from a  position the likes of Murdoch, Blair and Mandelson dislike. I know a fair few who wouldn't vote for a man who has accepted a knighthood as well. Anyway Labour are (wrongly) obsessed about choosing a women and I would assume as he has only been an MP since 2015 unless Corbyn stays until 2022 the odds are stacked against Starmer. 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

49 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

I would assume Keir Starmer career as a public prosecutor will be taken apart

I'd like to see them try that. From everything I've read and heard, it's pretty much untouchable. He basically went straight from Labour Young Socialists to locking up terrorists and being a human rights lawyer in a way that earned him a Knighthood. He's not a career politician, he's not a closet Tory (and some on the left will almost make out as if he's a right wing POS... just because, you know, reasons), he's named fucking Keir, but it's still not good enough for a big group of Labour members (again, I absolutely support their right to chose whomever they like, just as I have the right not to like it). 

 

I bet it's somebody like Long-Bailey. After all, she has a vagina. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, the members aren't going to vote for Starmer.

Then I guess the important question becomes... who would they vote for?

[Anubis]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I bet it's somebody like Long-Bailey. After all, she has a vagina. 

Just the sort of thing a Peterson-inspired rape denier would say.....

 

 

 

*runs for the door*

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Then I guess the important question becomes... who would they vote for?

Someone that is unquestionably a socialist.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Anubis said:

Just the sort of thing a Peterson-inspired rape denier would say.....

 

 

 

*runs for the door*

[Jairzinho]

The obsession with it being a woman is simply because the parties have spunked their pants about their tokenism or because they think it will get more votes?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Someone that is unquestionably a socialist.

What is it about Starmer that doesn't fit the bill? Leaving aside the fact he was a member of Young Labour Socialists and is named after Keir Hardie, which are just indicators rather than actual proof, what is there to dislike about him. I dunno, I don't get it really. There seems to be adequate overlap between him and Corbyn on many issues. 

 

Honestly, it kind of feels like Labour members don't actually have much of an interest in becoming a party of government. It frustrates me because... Tories. 

[ZonkoVille77]

Starmer has a lot about him to like. I'd have no complaints if he was Labour leader. 

[Jairzinho]

13 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

What is it about Starmer that doesn't fit the bill? Leaving aside the fact he was a member of Young Labour Socialists and is named after Keir Hardie, which are just indicators rather than actual proof, what is there to dislike about him. I dunno, I don't get it really. There seems to be adequate overlap between him and Corbyn on many issues. 

 

Honestly, it kind of feels like Labour members don't actually have much of an interest in becoming a party of government. It frustrates me because... Tories. 

 

I think he's probably an actual social democrat, rather than some of the pretend ones in the party. I don't think he supports neoliberalism, but I don't think he supports the democratisation of the workplace either. Which is fine. 

 

However, some of his voting record on nuclear weapons, investigations in to the Iraq war, etc, and especially the fact he was in that majority of Labour MPs that abstained on the welfare bill, lead to him probably not being a popular choice with the membership. You can criticise the membership for that view, accuse of them ideological purity, etc, but I do think that it is the case that he wouldn't be voted in as leader. 

[Jairzinho]

I'm actually fairly ambivalent about him. Clive Lewis would be my choice, for various reasons, but I'm quite happy Starmer has a prominent role in the party. 

 

I've mentioned it before, several times probably, but the paucity of choice is due to Blair and Mandelson gutting the party. It is missing an entire generation of socialists. They're either wet behind the ears or nearly 70 and with all the baggage of someone that was a socialist in the 80s.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

14 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

I think he's probably an actual social democrat, rather than some of the pretend ones in the party. I don't think he supports neoliberalism, but I don't think he supports the democratisation of the workplace either. Which is fine. 

 

However, some of his voting record on nuclear weapons, investigations in to the Iraq war, etc, and especially the fact he was in that majority of Labour MPs that abstained on the welfare bill, lead to him probably not being a popular choice with the membership. You can criticise the membership for that view, accuse of them ideological purity, etc, but I do think that it is the case that he wouldn't be voted in as leader. 

I also think he won't get voted in as leader. That said, as I've mentioned on here before, I agree with his stance on renewing trident, although I accept that this might well be a deal breaker for some and accept that it's a valid reason for somebody who is total against us having nuclear weapons (even in a nuclear armed world) would not want to vote for him. 

 

On investigations into Iraq, he voted one time on an 'investigation into contrasts between public statements and private policy' which was a 69 to 438 vote. Almost all Labour voted the same way. Neither Corbyn nor Lewis voted for it. If that is a reason... it's probably not a great one. As for welfare, his record it really good on that from memory (I actually looked it up the other day). Not sure about the abstaining on the welfare bill, I'd have to look it up. 

 

I dunno, I just think Labour will end up with somebody who sure as fuck isn't going to win anything and the end result will be more Tory rule. Sadface, etc. 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

I also think he won't get voted in as leader. That said, as I've mentioned on here before, I agree with his stance on renewing trident, although I accept that this might well be a deal breaker for some and accept that it's a valid reason for somebody who is total against us having nuclear weapons (even in a nuclear armed world) would not want to vote for him. 

 

On investigations into Iraq, he voted one time on an 'investigation into contrasts between public statements and private policy' which was a 69 to 438 vote. Almost all Labour voted the same way. Neither Corbyn nor Lewis voted for it. If that is a reason... it's probably not a great one. As for welfare, his record it really good on that from memory (I actually looked it up the other day). Not sure about the abstaining on the welfare bill, I'd have to look it up. 

 

Only about a fifth of MPs voted against the welfare bill. He wasn't part of that group. He abstained.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Only about a fifth of MPs voted against the welfare bill. He wasn't part of that group. He abstained.

That's the 2016 one where Harriet Harmon required Labour MPs to abstain instead of vote against it, right? Welfare reform act. Probably not his or Labour's finest hour. 

 

EDIT: Looking at Clive Lewis on that, he has had some important absences too. Not on that, but on others.

[sir roger]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I also think he won't get voted in as leader. That said, as I've mentioned on here before, I agree with his stance on renewing trident, although I accept that this might well be a deal breaker for some and accept that it's a valid reason for somebody who is total against us having nuclear weapons (even in a nuclear armed world) would not want to vote for him. 

 

On investigations into Iraq, he voted one time on an 'investigation into contrasts between public statements and private policy' which was a 69 to 438 vote. Almost all Labour voted the same way. Neither Corbyn nor Lewis voted for it. If that is a reason... it's probably not a great one. As for welfare, his record it really good on that from memory (I actually looked it up the other day). Not sure about the abstaining on the welfare bill, I'd have to look it up. 

I would have thought the main austerity votes were before his time as an mp so I don't think that would be a main factor. The main worry for me ( and a lot of us in the cult ) is that after being given a shadow cabinet place by Corbyn after barely being in Parliament a year or two , he repaid that by playing his part in the chicken coup , resigning from the cabinet  and backing Owen Smith as leader. That suggests to me that he would drag the party back towards the centre quite sharply in office. I wouldn't vote for him on that basis but I accept that there is an argument that it might be worth getting an imperfect guy as long as he can guarantee to shift the Tories.

[Scooby Dudek]

I get why people are talking about who should/will replace JC but the reality is we will going into the next general election as JC as leader unless something dramatic happens, IMO. At the moment it is a waste of time and energy speculating. 

 

If a 2nd referendum motion passes, it will be interesting to see how the Tories play the next election. THat is the only possible way we don't have an election before Christmas.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I get why people are talking about who should/will replace JC but the reality is we will going into the next general election as JC as leader unless something dramatic happens, IMO. At the moment it is a waste of time and energy speculating. 

Totally accept that he will be - rightly, as the members have backed him - leader into the next GE. I think the discussion is worth having if you don't think he's likely to be able to win a majority. I mean, surely to God if he can't get into power he would step down, so that leaves the option that he might not be there in a relatively short amount of time. I get that it's not much more than speculation but it's kinda what this format is for. Plus, it gets our mind off of you know what against you know who. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I would have thought the main austerity votes were before his time as an mp so I don't think that would be a main factor. The main worry for me ( and a lot of us in the cult ) is that after being given a shadow cabinet place by Corbyn after barely being in Parliament a year or two , he repaid that by playing his part in the chicken coup , resigning from the cabinet  and backing Owen Smith as leader. That suggests to me that he would drag the party back towards the centre quite sharply in office. I wouldn't vote for him on that basis but I accept that there is an argument that it might be worth getting an imperfect guy as long as he can guarantee to shift the Tories.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point Sir Rog. Valid reason why somebody in aforementioned cult would reject him. I'm sure to him it's a bit different - he probably thought somebody could do a better job and make Labour more electable. 

[Denny Crane]

53 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I'd like to see them try that. From everything I've read and heard, it's pretty much untouchable. 

 

 

Being a former head of the CPS for around five years means Starmer has more baggage than 95% of MPs. Considering one of the unintended consequences of Brexit has been the implied politicisation of those making choices at the elite level he would defo come under attack. Every case under his watch will be forensically examined. 

 

 

 

[Denny Crane]

10 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I get why people are talking about who should/will replace JC but the reality is we will going into the next general election as JC as leader unless something dramatic happens, IMO. At the moment it is a waste of time and energy speculating. 

 

If a 2nd referendum motion passes, it will be interesting to see how the Tories play the next election. THat is the only possible way we don't have an election before Christmas.

 

Been thinking that if their is an election Labour should take the risk and get Corbyn talking about his Eurosceptic past and how him and Labour's position on Europe changed over time. Let's be honest no leaver wants to be lectured by rampant Pro- Europeans. I actually think having somebody at the helm who knows that Europe is flawed and has been tagged as not wanking over the EU is an asset at the moment. Might as well take all the free publicity the Lib Dems have aimed at Corbyn and use it as a positive.

[sir roger]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, I think that's a fair point Sir Rog. Valid reason why somebody in aforementioned cult would reject him. I'm sure to him it's a bit different - he probably thought somebody could do a better job and make Labour more electable. 

I accept that is an argument that could be had , but Corbyn had been in position for nine months at that point and it suggests Keir was already firmly aligned with the right / centre and had no intention of giving Corbyn any chance of becoming a decent leader.