The New Leader of the Labour Party

[TheHowieLama]

At least he wasn't divisive.

[aRdja]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

At least he wasn't divisive.

If you compare him to Boris or Trump, no.. you’re probably right.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, aRdja said:

If you compare him to Boris or Trump, no.. you’re probably right.

Not sure about BoJo but Trump has the Republican party at every level in lockstep -- he is furthest from what we are calling "divisive" here.

[aRdja]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Not sure about BoJo but Trump has the Republican party at every level in lockstep -- he is furthest from what we are calling "divisive" here.

He’s a a much more divisive figure/politician than Hillary Clinton, I think we all can agree on that... and he’s the president.

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, aRdja said:

He’s a a much more divisive figure/politician than Hillary Clinton, I think we all can agree on that... and he’s the president.

You may have missed the entire point, in this case, of "divisive."

[aRdja]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

You may have missed the entire point, in this case, of "divisive."

Lol, ok champ.

[TheHowieLama]

The funniest part is you have a perfect analogy to Corbyn's "divisiveness" in Bernie Sanders - but you keep mentioning folks who have/had the utmost backing of their party.

 

Champ.

[aRdja]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The funniest part is you have a perfect analogy to Corbyn's "divisiveness" in Bernie Sanders - but you keep mentioning folks who have/had the utmost backing of their party.

 

Champ.

Bernie was never going to win in the US, regardless of his ‘divisiveness’... You guys believe a public health system is communist for one. There were loads of Democrat candidates less divisive than him in who did far worse (Buttigieg, Warren). No offence bud, but your point is trite to the point of it being absolutely meaningless.

[TheHowieLama]

You are comparing, at best, sub-secondary candidates to Bernie Sanders? The fella who had the last primary stolen from him and is the highest profile socialist this country has ever had?

 

Corbyn was fragged by his own, for years. And btw - he was never going to be elected PM either.

Ever.

 

WTF man, it's the internet - you're wrong, move along.

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You are comparing, at best, sub-secondary candidates to Bernie Sanders? The fella who had the last primary stolen from him and is the highest profile socialist this country has ever had?

Yes, and? If anything the fact that he’s “the highest profile socialist” would make him more ‘divisive’ than them, especially in the US.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, aRdja said:

Yes, and? If anything the fact that he’s “the highest profile socialist” would make him more ‘divisive’ than them?

I am not sure why there is a question mark at the end of the second sentence, that is a statement - which I agree with. Or...

 

 

Yes.

That would make him more divisive - in the same way Corbyn was.

 

[aRdja]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

I am not sure why there is a question mark at the end of the second sentence, that is a statement - which I agree with. Or...

 

 

Yes.

That would make him more divisive - in the same way Corbyn was.

 

Good, glad we could put to bed the nonsense.

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, aRdja said:

Corbyn’s biggest mistake was to humour those 2nd referendum supporting fuckwits, thus abandoning his democratic principles. The country voted to leave the EU in the referendum and also confirmed by the european election where a brand new party with no manifesto, other than “clean-break Brexit” walked it. 

I agree.

[Gnasher]

15 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Given Corbyn was a Eurosceptic right up the point he became Labour Leader he would've certainly been on more comfortable ground than arguing for a position he didn't actually believe in. I've no doubt that, had he still been a backbencher in 2016, he would've been sharing platforms with Kate Hoey, Farage and the like.

 

It's sods law, really, that at a time when the political and national debate was becoming consumed by Brexit, Labour (a strong pro-EU party) found itself electing one of the handful of Eurosceptics they had in Parliament.

Good points but if I can just comment on your last paragraph and the quote labour is a strong eu party. It maybe now but it wasnt always the case. Corbyn is well versed in the history of a party where his political heroes were nearly all euro sceptical. 

 

As I mentioned in another thread the founders of the NHS, Atlee Bevan etc were euro sceptical, as were a few years later Foot and Benn.  The pro Europeans were mainly from the right of the party ie Roy Jenkins, Shirley William's etc. who fought to take us into the common market, the left were mainly against us joining.

 

The labour party only became a strong EU supporting party at advent of new labour, a time in the parties history which will sit uneasily with someone like Corbyn, who unfortunately was put in a impossible position on Europe by the right wing of his own party.

[Neil G]

18 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

I don't think it would have made much difference at all. Leave voters were being told every day that even the Tories version of Brexit wasn't a real one. Labour were seen as being in favour of a soft Brexit/not really Brexit anyway. 

 

Maybe they could have hung on to another 10/15 seats, but I actually doubt it. Either way, they couldn't win the election.

Most Leave voters ended up not caring what form Brexit took, they were just sick of it dragging on and wanted it over with. The same applied to a lot of Remain voters as well. This was supported by polling prior to GE2019 and was the reason why “Get Brexit done” was such a successful slogan for the Tories.

 

Of the 17 million plus people who voted Leave, the proportion who got fired up over “not a proper Brexit” because of freedom of movement, EU rules etc was quite small, and most of them would never have voted for Labour under Corbyn anyway, so he could have afforded to alienate them by going for soft Brexit. On the other side, it was shown that lots of Remainers voted for him in 2017 because they were disgusted with the Tories’ anti-EU and anti-Remainer rhetoric (“citizens of nowhere”, “enemies of the people” etc), so a vocal celebration of everything good about our relationship with the EU (free movement, free trade, cooperation in science, medicine, Erasmus etc) and a pledge to maintain all of this post-Brexit could have kept lots more of them onside.

 

There were other things besides Brexit that Corbyn and Labour got wrong between 2017 and 2019 that contributed to their defeat: the response to the Salisbury attacks, the handling of antisemitism (badly done even allowing for the wrecking and exploitation by the centre and the right), the failure to prime the electorate for more radical measures to go in the manifesto, the failure (again) to even try to debunk the “maxed out credit card” myth. All of them combined to take one chunk after another out of Labour’s 2017 support. 

 

Corbyn came within a few thousand votes of having the numbers to lead a coalition government in 2017. I’m not having it that there was never a chance for him to push on from that and get into office if he’d made different decisions.

[Jairzinho]

33 minutes ago, Neil G said:

Most Leave voters ended up not caring what form Brexit took, they were just sick of it dragging on and wanted it over with. The same applied to a lot of Remain voters as well. This was supported by polling prior to GE2019 and was the reason why “Get Brexit done” was such a successful slogan for the Tories.

 

Of the 17 million plus people who voted Leave, the proportion who got fired up over “not a proper Brexit” because of freedom of movement, EU rules etc was quite small, and most of them would never have voted for Labour under Corbyn anyway, so he could have afforded to alienate them by going for soft Brexit. On the other side, it was shown that lots of Remainers voted for him in 2017 because they were disgusted with the Tories’ anti-EU and anti-Remainer rhetoric (“citizens of nowhere”, “enemies of the people” etc), so a vocal celebration of everything good about our relationship with the EU (free movement, free trade, cooperation in science, medicine, Erasmus etc) and a pledge to maintain all of this post-Brexit could have kept lots more of them onside.

 

There were other things besides Brexit that Corbyn and Labour got wrong between 2017 and 2019 that contributed to their defeat: the response to the Salisbury attacks, the handling of antisemitism (badly done even allowing for the wrecking and exploitation by the centre and the right), the failure to prime the electorate for more radical measures to go in the manifesto, the failure (again) to even try to debunk the “maxed out credit card” myth. All of them combined to take one chunk after another out of Labour’s 2017 support. 

 

Corbyn came within a few thousand votes of having the numbers to lead a coalition government in 2017. I’m not having it that there was never a chance for him to push on from that and get into office if he’d made different decisions.

Neil, I agree with all the other errors. Allowing the anti-Semitism story to dominate the press for as long as it did was dreadful. Equally so allowing the conflation of the economics of a country with that of an individual or a business, is something that infuriates me. 

 

I just disagree with you any policy on Brexit would have allowed him to win the 2019 election. A better showing, definitely. But win, no.

 

Doing much better than most anticipated in 2017 was something of a false "win" because really it's around late 2017/early 2018 that ideally he would have stepped aside for a younger, less smearable candidate on the left. The paucity of options for that is another debate (as seen by the ludicrously shit RLB).

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Neil, I agree with all the other errors. Allowing the anti-Semitism story to dominate the press for as long as it did was dreadful. Equally so allowing the conflation of the economics of a country with that of an individual or a business, is something that infuriates me. 

 

I just disagree with you any policy on Brexit would have allowed him to win the 2019 election. A better showing, definitely. But win, no.

 

Doing much better than most anticipated in 2017 was something of a false "win" because really it's around late 2017/early 2018 that ideally he would have stepped aside for a younger, less smearable candidate on the left. The paucity of options for that is another debate (as seen by the ludicrously shit RLB).

Er Corbyn didnt "allow" the anti semitism issue to dominate the press. That was a bogus load of bullshit engineered by his enemies in the friends of Israel lobby who used it to continuously beat him around the head with.

 

There is an enlightening report on the subject out today which I notice has not received a mention in the press.

 

Apologies if I've misread your post.

[Jairzinho]

45 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Er Corbyn didnt "allow" the anti semitism issue to dominate the press. That was a bogus load of bullshit engineered by his enemies in the friends of Israel lobby who used it to continuously beat him around the head with.

 

There is an enlightening report on the subject out today which I notice has not received a mention in the press.

 

Apologies if I've misread your post.

I don't disagree with this, which is why it needed to be tackled head on. He basically did nothing for months. 

 

The end result is that the false idea that he and the Labour Party were/are antisemitic was allowed to be developed. 

 

The moment he left office, as if by magic, the story just disappeared in to thin air. 

[sir roger]

What do you do if 90% of the press are against you,  and anything sensible you say or do is ignored, or worse , twisted into an attack on you. Once Labour HO managed to get rid of McNicol they did more to attack anti-semitism and change the whole disciplinary process in 2/3 years than the party had in the rest of its whole existence. Was any of this reported ?

[Rico1304]

I wonder what Owen Jones thinks? 
 

 

[Jairzinho]

5 minutes ago, sir roger said:

What do you do if 90% of the press are against you,  and anything sensible you say or do is ignored, or worse , twisted into an attack on you. Once Labour HO managed to get rid of McNicol they did more to attack anti-semitism and change the whole disciplinary process in 2/3 years than the party had in the rest of its whole existence. Was any of this reported ?

I think they needed to attack more. They were far too passive and accepting about it all.

 

Point out inconsistencies, lies and hypocrisy.

 

Changing the reality was less important than changing the image. 

 

[JohnnyH]

And absolute cunts like Rachel Riley helped in that. I hope she is dragged through the shit too on this. 
 

I’m not British, so your politics, while somewhat important to me in a historical sense, and with the British border on my island from a current sense, is more of an interested bystander view. But the treatment of a fundamentally decent man in Corbyn to ensure he didn’t get in Number 10 is horrific.  Even for the people that hate him and his party and for the ones who are rampant Tories that are delighted he lost, they should be terrified how the press could smear him to this level and control who runs the country.  They can do it to anyone. Disgusting, and utterly terrifying. 

[Creator Supreme]

1 minute ago, JohnnyH said:

And absolute cunts like Rachel Riley helped in that. I hope she is dragged through the shit too on this. 

I've now developed a form of Coprolalia when it comes to her. Whenever she appears in front of me on TV or in a paper, the word 'cunt' just shoots out of my mouth!

[Rico1304]

Anyone, anyone?

 

 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

I've now developed a form of Coprolalia when it comes to her. Whenever she appears in front of me on TV or in a paper, the word 'cunt' just shoots out of my mouth!

Its more disturbing that Starmer has put two arch liars Jess Phillips and Wes Streeting in the cabinet.