Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I wasn't.

It certainly seemed like it from your previous two posts. Unless there's no sarcasm in there at all and I've read it as if there was a fucking load. 

[Duff Man]

Just now, Numero said:

It certainly seemed like it from your previous two posts. Unless there's no sarcasm in there at all and I've read it as if there was a fucking load. 

There's huge amounts of sarcasm in both posts, but neither are intended to mock Brown, or even Blair. The one you picked up on does, however, mock the idea Labour were the same proposition under Brown as they were under Corbyn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

There's huge amounts of sarcasm in both posts, but neither are intended to mock Brown, or even Blair. The one you picked up on does, however, mock the idea Labour were the same proposition under Brown as they were under Corbyn.

In which case, I apologise for my misreading it as a slight on Brown. I agree that they were not the same proposition. That said, Brown wasn't the leader - though he was undoubtedly important - when doing most of his actual work in government. He got a lot of good things done for people. That, to me at least, is far more valuable than words in a manifesto. 

[Strontium]

In other news, Labour has apologised and paid damages for defaming antisemitism whistleblowers and John Ware.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

 

Quote

Labour has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to seven former employees who sued the party in an anti-Semitism row.

The party has issued an unreserved apology in the High Court for making "false and defamatory" comments about seven whistleblowers who spoke out in a BBC Panorama programme last year.

The individuals had criticised the then leadership's handling of complaints.

Labour said they were wrongly accused of "bad faith" and caused "distress, embarrassment and hurt" by the party.

In the July 2019 programme, entitled Is Labour Anti-Semitic?, a number of former party officials alleged that senior figures close to the leadership at the time had interfered in the process of dealing with anti-Semitism complaints.

They also claimed they had faced a huge increase in complaints since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

In response, a party spokesman denounced them as "disaffected former staff" who had "personal and political axes" to grind. They were also accused of trying to undermine Mr Corbyn.

'Valuable contribution'

Seven of the whistleblowers - Kat Buckingham, Michael Creighton, Samuel Matthews, Dan Hogan, Louise Withers Green, Benjamin Westerman and Martha Robinson - took legal action and asked the Labour Party formally to apologise in court.

In a statement read out in the High Court, Labour said it unreservedly apologised and was determined to root out anti-Semitism in the party and the wider Labour movement.

"Before the broadcast of the programme, the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these whistleblowers," the party said.

"We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff. We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the party.

"We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication. We have agreed to pay them damages."

'Long overdue'

Labour has also agreed to pay damages to the presenter of the programme, BBC journalist John Ware.

It said Mr Ware, an award-winning investigative reporter who has worked for the BBC for more than 30 years, was subject to "false and defamatory" comments before the programme was aired which had now been withdrawn.

The BBC welcomed what it said was the party's "long-overdue" apology for what were "painful and damaging personal attacks" on the integrity and character of those involved in the programme.

It said Mr Ware was a "reporter with an extraordinary record of excellence at Panorama for investigative journalism in the public interest".

"The BBC will always support fair and impartial reporting, exposing wrongdoing and holding power to account," the corporation said.

"The Panorama programme did precisely that, but was subject to an extraordinary and vitriolic attack by the Labour Party."

The BBC said it "applauded the strength" of the whistleblowers and was "pleased it has been recognised in court that these extremely serious and damaging allegations against them were false".

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

I still haven't seen that documentary. 

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

In other news, Labour has apologised and paid damages for defaming antisemitism whistleblowers and John Ware.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

 

And rightly so too. 

 

I wonder if those who falsely accused people of anti-semitism will also be properly held to account? Genuine question, I know they got punished but did the Jewish Chronicle have to pay out for false allegations (essentially making things up) ? 

[Gnasher]

26 minutes ago, Numero said:

I still haven't seen that documentary. 

You're one of the lucky ones.

[Duff Man]

5 minutes ago, Numero said:

In which case, I apologise for my misreading it as a slight on Brown. I agree that they were not the same proposition. That said, Brown wasn't the leader - though he was undoubtedly important - when doing most of his actual work in government. He got a lot of good things done for people. That, to me at least, is far more valuable than words in a manifesto. 

No, but he was when Labour first lost after Blair. Again, I wasn't mocking the Brown/Blair governments or their achievements, I was mocking the idea that the reason Labour have lost four successive elections is because on each occasion they were too left wing, and that they instead should have simply redone New Labour and romped home to victory. It's nonsense on just about every level.

[Gnasher]

19 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

They've been too busy repeating what Michael Foot did 40 years ago. It was such a rip-roaring success back then, after all.

Foot had a healthy poll lead throughout 1981 and early 82. The tories were slumped on 27%. and were considered the most unpopular government in history. Then of course the Falklands happened around spring 82 and jingoism saw the tories shoot to over 50%. 

It's obvious looking at the figures that the Falklands war had an effect.

 

Surprised no one on here pulled Stronts  on his post but considering the Labour party of that time planned to take us out of Europe whilst Thatcher didnt, maybe not so surprising after all. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-falklands-gamble

[Gnasher]

22 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

No, but he was when Labour first lost after Blair. Again, I wasn't mocking the Brown/Blair governments or their achievements, I was mocking the idea that the reason Labour have lost four successive elections is because on each occasion they were too left wing, and that they instead should have simply redone New Labour and romped home to victory. It's nonsense on just about every level.

It is and it's a nonsense you are seeing pushed in all quarters of the media and internet, its happening on here.

[Numero Veinticinco]

28 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

No, but he was when Labour first lost after Blair. Again, I wasn't mocking the Brown/Blair governments or their achievements, I was mocking the idea that the reason Labour have lost four successive elections is because on each occasion they were too left wing, and that they instead should have simply redone New Labour and romped home to victory. It's nonsense on just about every level.

It was a mixture of extreme lack of credibility, poor leadership, internal issues, and external circumstances, depending on which era we are talking about. I'm sure there are other things in there too. Brown didn't lose because he was too right wing - I mean, that really would mean that I need to shut up shop and take my ball home and all the other things - he lost for other reasons.  I agree with you on the 'lost because left' stuff, it's nonsense (though, there is a limit to what can be put forward and still expect to win an election), but so are claims that the falling figured are just a representation of 'they're like the Tories so we won't vote for them' and then pretending it was Corbyn's left wing agenda that halted the slide. It's all partisan nonsense that neglects to real and important factors. I maintain, as I have done for years and years and years - before Corbyn - that we on the left are our own worst enemies and it plays right into the hands of the Tories. 

[Mudface]

23 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

No, but he was when Labour first lost after Blair. Again, I wasn't mocking the Brown/Blair governments or their achievements, I was mocking the idea that the reason Labour have lost four successive elections is because on each occasion they were too left wing, and that they instead should have simply redone New Labour and romped home to victory. It's nonsense on just about every level.

2010- credit crunch aftermath and government fatigue, people wanted a change, although not enough to put the Tories directly in power.

 

2015- insipid response from Miliband to austerity, collapse in Scotland, Lib Dem collapse.

 

2017- decent push, highest number of votes since 1997, but fell short. Should have been a springboard to winning the next election.

 

2019- unrealistic manifesto, Brexit, anti-Semitism, Lib Dems opportunistically pushing for a GE when Johnson was on the ropes instead of keeping him there.

[Duff Man]

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

Yep, I forgot to add it's not really a left right thing. People generally liked the 2017 manifesto, the 2019 one was half baked with too many surprises. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Yes, there are lots of reasons. That's exactly the point.

I don't really know who you're arguing against then, because who is suggesting just going back to being Blairite? Who is your sarcasm aimed it? 

[Duff Man]

1 minute ago, Numero said:

I don't really know who you're arguing against then, because who is suggesting just going back to being Blairite? Who is your sarcasm aimed it? 

Dude, it's right there on the page you picked my initial quote up from.

[Duff Man]

9 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Yep, I forgot to add it's not really a left right thing. People generally liked the 2017 manifesto, the 2019 one was half baked with too many surprises. 

Disagree, it very much is, imo. And your analysis that the 2019 manifesto was "half-baked" and the 2017 not so is contradicted by 160 economists and academics.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Dude, it's right there on the page you picked my initial quote up from.

You didn't quote anyone. Can you help me out?

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

In other news, Labour has apologised and paid damages for defaming antisemitism whistleblowers and John Ware.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

 

Labours legal advice was that they would win the case , but Starmer has decided to just put it behind the party and hope it's worth the money. Only time will tell.

 

On a personal note , the thought that my subs are going to these shower of cunts fair sticks in my craw and if I ever find myself with poor Sam Matthew's on the Labour HQ ledge with him wondering whether to jump , I'll certainly help him.

[Duff Man]

3 minutes ago, Numero said:

You didn't quote anyone. Can you help me out?

Just read the page, mate. We're both expending too much energy on this.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I've read every word. You could just name them? Or not, whatever.

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Labours legal advice was that they would win the case , but Starmer has decided to just put it behind the party and hope it's worth the money. Only time will tell.

 

On a personal note , the thought that my subs are going to these shower of cunts fair sticks in my craw and if I ever find myself with poor Sam Matthew's on the Labour HQ ledge with him wondering whether to jump , I'll certainly help him.

If a lawyer tells you that you would win a case, it’s time to change the lawyer.  

[Duff Man]

Just now, Numero said:

I've read every word. You could just name them? Or not, whatever.

If your interpretation is that nobody was suggesting a return to the approach that won those 3 elections, then we differ, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

[sir roger]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

If a lawyer tells you that you would win a case, it’s time to change the lawyer.  

Ha ha , Get the point.

 

I think in this case Labour had plenty of evidence that some of the HQ people deliberately sat on a/s cases , sent emails and whatsapps clearly showing their dislike of the Corbyn officials and destroyed files relating to disciplinary cases on 2017 election night to cause delays.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

If your interpretation is that nobody was suggesting a return to the approach that won those 3 elections, then we differ, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

I just want to know exactly who you were referring to, mate. Don't know why you're being evasive. I responded like I did because it seemed completely out of place, so there's a disconnect here somewhere. I'm not trying to be a cunt (although, ya know, I don't need to try; it comes naturally), and I'm not trying to trip you up. You might be talking about Stronts, you might be talking about me, I don't know. Neither of us want that, Stronts because it wouldn't be good for his party, and me because it's not the right approach for the future.