Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Neil G]

Isn't the issue that Corbyn's policies are, broadly popular, but the man himself just doesn't have the charisma to lead the party or orate to the necessary level?

It's not just his personal attributes that are an issue electorally, some of his policy positions are a liability as well. His economic policies are generally popular, but his views on national security, immigration and patriotism / national identity, which are just as important to winning elections, are deeply unpopular with swing voters.

[Kevin D]

It's not just his personal attributes that are an issue electorally, some of his policy positions are a liability as well. His economic policies are generally popular, but his views on national security, immigration and patriotism / national identity, which are just as important to winning elections, are deeply unpopular with swing voters.

What do you mean by that?

[Barrington Womble]

I think it goes beyond just Corbyn. Because of everything that has happened in the PLP (and perhaps due to the quality over all of labour members), there is absolutely nobody from the labour front bench challenging the tories consistently, when quite frankly there's been open goals since before the brexit vote. Leading is not just about what you do individually, it's about having the ability to take everybody forward with you. While it's not all corbyn's fault, he's been completely unable to carry anybody with him. The very idea we have Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary is an illustration of that and why Corbyn's labour party is failing to provide any credible opposition.

[Jairzinho]

What do you mean by that?

 

He isn't a Royalist. He doesn't hate all of the official "baddies". He once spoke to someone in the IRA a few decades ago. He isn't xenophobic. 

[Jairzinho]

I think it goes beyond just Corbyn. Because of everything that has happened in the PLP (and perhaps due to the quality over all of labour members), there is absolutely nobody from the labour front bench challenging the tories consistently, when quite frankly there's been open goals since before the brexit vote. Leading is not just about what you do individually, it's about having the ability to take everybody forward with you. While it's not all corbyn's fault, he's been completely unable to carry anybody with him. The very idea we have Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary is an illustration of that and why Corbyn's labour party is failing to provide any credible opposition.

 

I've said it before, but the party has been gutted. A decade and a half of Blair/Brown has meant there is a real absence of 45-60 year old, intelligent, knowledgeable, Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist politicians that give a fuck. The PLP is now a dozen or so old Socialists (like Corbyn), fuckloads of identikit centrist/weathervane cunts that do that thumb signal thing, and a few promising new MPs (Clive Lewis, Tulip Siddiq, Kate Osamor, Richard Burgon, etc).

 

So the choice is basically -

 

Old, unprepared, backbencher.

Young, unprepared, new MP.

Complete fucking cunt that would rather spend time briefing against you in the press than fighting Tories. 

[Stickman]

I guess it helps if the country's main broadcaster isn't trying to stich you up all the time

 

BBC Trust To ‘Look Afresh’ At Jeremy Corbyn ‘Shoot-To-Kill’ Inaccuracy Findings In Provisional Report

 

The BBC Trust is to “look afresh” at the findings of a provisional report concluding Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on a shoot-to-kill policy for UK police in the event of a terror attack.

 

 

The “drafted finding”, leaked to The Herald, relates to an interview with the Labour leader in November 2015 shortly after the Paris terror attacks that left 130 people dead.

In the report shown on the News at Six, Kuenssberg said she asked Corbyn if he were Prime Minister, would he be happy for British police to shoot-to-kill in the event of a similar attack on UK soil.

He responded: “I’m not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.”

A complaint was made to the BBC Trust, the governing body of the BBC, alleging the full question shown in a longer version of the interview published on the BBC News website was “substantively different” to that paraphrased in the report

Kuenssberg’s full question was: “But if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”

 

In the provisional report, the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), said: “He [Corbyn] was asked about ‘shoot-to-kill’ and he gave an answer about his views on ‘shoot-to-kill’, but in the News at Six piece it was presented as him not supporting armed engagement in an ongoing hostage situation – a scenario that was not put to him.

“The Committee decided there was a significant difference between what Mr Corbyn said and what the report inferred. This had led to a failure of due accuracy.”

The report concluded there was “no evidence of any intent to deceive or distort”, but the failure to observe “due accuracy had, on this occasion, also resulted in a failure of impartiality”.

The complaint was rejected by BBC Audience Services twice then by BBC Editorial Complaints and also by the Trust Unit.

HuffPostUK revealed the day after the BBC report that Corbyn had been forced to ‘clarify’ his stance on the policy after heavy criticism from Labour MPs. 

 

It has now been appealed to the Trustees and will be published later this month.

The BBC Trust confirmed the report had been leaked but not comment before official publication.

It said the review of the provisional findings is to allow “complainant(s) and the BBC time to comment before an ESC appeal finding is published so that any apparent procedural unfairness or factual error can be brought to the attention of the Committee”.

It added: “This finding isn’t finalised yet and all being well we will be publishing it following the next Editorial Standards Committee meeting some time this month.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “BBC News does not accept the assertions made and the complaint has been rejected on four separate occasions already.

“The Trust has not published a finding regarding this appeal and BBC News has further evidence it is still to present this month before that happens.”

 

The row over Kuenssberg’s coverage of Corbyn sparked a petition calling for her to be sacked from the BBC.

The person who started it was forced to remove it after the issue became toxic.

They said: “When I started my campaign I was trying to raise a serious issue about what I saw as a reporter not being balanced and fair in the way that the news was covered. My petition has since been hijacked by a group of people who absolutely do not share my views.

“I would like to reassure everyone that I am a passionate advocate for equality in all areas, not just gender equality. This petition has precisely zero to do with gender.

“As a result of the sexist trolls who have attempted to derail my petition, I have decided to take it down.”

The latest findings have reignited the row as many Corbyn supporters today again called for her to be fired.

The final report will be published later this month.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-trust-jeremy-corbyn-laura-kuenssberg_uk_586f7cafe4b0a1ff7041bd8f

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

I've said it before, but the party has been gutted. A decade and a half of Blair/Brown has meant there is a real absence of 45-60 year old, intelligent, knowledgeable, Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist politicians that give a fuck. The PLP is now a dozen or so old Socialists (like Corbyn), fuckloads of identikit centrist/weathervane cunts that do that thumb signal thing, and a few promising new MPs (Clive Lewis, Tulip Siddiq, Kate Osamor, Richard Burgon, etc).

 

So the choice is basically -

 

Old, unprepared, backbencher.

Young, unprepared, new MP.

Complete fucking cunt that would rather spend time briefing against you in the press than fighting Tories.

There's no doubt the party is in a mess. I also have no doubt corbyn won't fix it unfortunately.

[Section_31]

There's an Owen Jones article doing the rounds about how Momentum was being hijacked by the Derek Hatton brigade. Seems symbolic of the current plight of the left in my view, the desire for such a movement is there but it's beset by infighting with nobody to really grab it by the scruff of the neck. 

[Denny Crane]

As an observer it looks like the plp have downed tools because they don't like their boss. A message to Corbyn and to the voters who voted him in. Okay you don't appreciate the plp so we will do the bare minimum. That might be ok if you work in McDonalds but there is a shitload of responsibility that comes with being the opposition.

 

If the plp had been as vocal defending the things that matter as much as they had been attacking Corbyn things wouldn't look so dire. Complete dereliction of duty by the plp. Looks like they would rather lose than help Corbyn win. Looks like they would rather see the NHS suffer and people lose their jobs than help Corbyn.

 

Bizarre that Corbyn is getting the blame.

[Strontium]

Taking the superfluous "suddenly" out of this statement how does the performance of the one publicly controlled franchise recently factor into your analysis here? It apparently doesn't?

 

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Nevertheless, I would always be hesitant to draw a conclusion from a single datapoint.

 

You'll of course note I wasn't actually opposing renationalising the railways, just pointing out that folk are dreaming if they think renationalisation is some magic bullet.

 

While having no firm position on railway renationalisation, I obviously remain sceptical about putting billions of pounds of public money into railways that are overwhelmingly used by those of above average wealth. As a general rule I would tend to believe that public money should be spent on improving the lot of the least well off, not subsidising cheap travel for rich commuters.

 

You don't need to be grateful to your grammar school for putting you on one of the helicopters out and leaving everyone else behind; that education can be attained without the need of grammar schools.

 

I don't agree at all. I recall the immense frustration of junior school, as the teachers spent most of their time trying to bring the thickos up to speed and neglected the rest of us. Most of my classmates went onto the local comprehensive, where the experience would doubtlessly have been the same, and my education would have inevitably suffered as a result.

 

When I left primary school a year early at the age of 10 - because, in their words, they had literally run out of things they could teach me - it was a massive relief to attend school with children of commensurate ability (age difference notwithstanding), who actually wanted to learn, and who didn't need to be handheld through stuff they should have learnt when they were five years old.

 

I am a firm believer in providing appropriate education for those who have a special need, and high intelligence should be treated as a special need like any other.

 

It's funny that nobody upon nobody complains about students being separated by ability at the age of 18, so goodness knows what the rationale for opposing it at age 11 is supposed to be.

 

I presume you know this and aren't actually a proponent of grammar schools, just automatically feel you have to oppose Labour policy at every turn in some small way.

 

In your haste to accuse me of ridiculously blind partisanship, it clearly escaped your notice that my own party are also opposed to grammar schools. I wonder how that fits the narrative.

[Boss]

The problem with the left is it's an ideology too deeply rooted in hatred of others and suppression of other groups (the right, big businesses, capitalists, the bourgeoisie). It's virtually incapable of unity and always descends into infighting and ultimately self destruction. I say this as a staunch leftist. But it's as inevitable as day follows night that these things crumble due to certain groups conflating the message, or attaching their own militance to the party. 

 

What the left needs is an Alt Left.

[Hades]

 

I am a firm believer in providing appropriate education for those who have a special need, and high intelligence should be treated as a special need like any other.

 

 

You're an absolute fucking prick and I hate you.

[moof]

You're an absolute fucking prick and I hate you.

He's surely trolling. Surely.

[Hades]

He's surely trolling. Surely.

 

He belongs in a fucking gulag.

[Boss]

 

i agree with Stronts to be honest with you. Why should a student that’s capable of A*- A grades at GCSE and A level sit in a classroom alongside a kid that can barely read Dr Seuss?

[cloggypop]

I'm just delighted to post on the same forum as a former child genius. Hope I'm not holding it back too much.

[Strontium]

i agree with Stronts to be honest with you. Why should a student that’s capable of A*- A grades at GCSE and A level sit in a classroom alongside a kid that can barely read Dr Seuss?

 

Quite. It serves neither student's best interests. Everyone should receive an education that is appropriate to them, because everyone is different

 

No surprise to see the "one size fits all" brigade getting their knickers in a twist over that, but screw those bell ends.

[Jairzinho]

 

i agree with Stronts to be honest with you. Why should a student that’s capable of A*- A grades at GCSE and A level sit in a classroom alongside a kid that can barely read Dr Seuss?

 

 

Er, they aren't.

 

Unless of course you mean that you actually want to make a judgement on an 11 year old child, a judgement that will have a huge bearing on the rest of their life. 

 

There is ample scope at comprehensive schools for the most able to achieve.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Quite. It serves neither student's best interests. Everyone should receive an education that is appropriate to them, because everyone is different

 

No surprise to see the "one size fits all" brigade getting their knickers in a twist over that, but screw those bell ends.

 

So how do you propose that would work then? I hope you factor in the amount of new Schools/Classes which would be needed to achieve your wishes and how it would be paid for. 

[Strontium]

There is ample scope at comprehensive schools for the most able to achieve.

 

That's like saying St*v*n Gerr*rd would have had just as successful a f**tb*ll career at Marine FC.

 

Utter bollocks, in other words.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

The only person talking utter bollocks is you SD. 

[Strontium]

So how do you propose that would work then? I hope you factor in the amount of new Schools/Classes which would be needed to achieve your wishes and how it would be paid for.

 

Why would you need new schools? The number of pupils remains constant, however you stream them.

[moof]

That's like saying St*v*n Gerr*rd would have had just as successful a f**tb*ll career at Marine FC.

 

Utter bollocks, in other words.

Oh dear.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Why would you need new schools? The number of pupils remains constant, however you stream them.

 

Not in how you are proposing education is dealt with. 

[cloggypop]

That's like saying St*v*n Gerr*rd would have had just as successful a f**tb*ll career at Marine FC.

 

Utter bollocks, in other words.

Jason McAteer made it to our first team from Marine.