United Kingdom 2

1052 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

Ken, you mistakenly slur everyone a “Blairite” who questions Corbyn’s disasterous leadership

i came to oppose Blair mostly over Iraq and his law and order agenda. These things obscure some very tangible economic advances fir the working and middle classes such as a marked reduction in child poverty. 

His record on this front compares favourably with the Conservatives who followed. It will doubtless be looked at more postively after a few years of Boris Johnson , cemented in power by Labour’s current woeful leader.

Corbyn’s problems with the voters are not rooted so much in his ideology but in his perceived lack of competence, his inarticulateness, his incoherence over Europe and, yes, his coddling of anti-Semites.

surely Labour’s left could come up with a more appealing leader than him, someone whise approval rating us not so abysmal.

 

contrarianna

nicky wrote:

....ken, even assuming that Corbyn is not to blame for his toxic unpopularity, sure you have to concede he should step down for the good of his party.

Pray tell, what "good" and what "party" in your phrase "the good of the party" are you talking about--the retrenchment of the Blairist, neoliberal, torture supporting, warmongering, education and NHS destroying creation re-branded as "Labour"?

Thatcher's self-proclaimed "greatist acheivement" was Blair's New Labour. 

If the connected Labour right succeeds in their years long attempts to undermine and purge the progressive Corbyn, the only "good" would be for Thatcher's version of THAT party to disappear.

The establishment New Labour's war crimes has a new saviour in the execrable government of BoJo:

Boris Johnson’s Fake Radicalism :    2 Aug, 2019, Craig Murray

....It may seem strange that Johnson’s very first executive decision on coming in to 10 Downing Street was to cancel the long delayed judicial inquiry into UK involvement in torture and extraordinary rendition. On the face of it, there were political attractions for Johnson in pursuing the issue. The policy of complicity in torture had been established by Tony Blair and Jack Straw, with as ever the active collaboration of Alastair Campbell. A judicial inquiry would hold them to account, and given they are not only New Labour but a leading Remainer posse, you would think Johnson would have pushed forward with the chance to expose them. Plus he likes to pose as something of a social liberal himself. So why was Johnson’s urgent priority to cancel the torture inquiry?

The answer is that scores of very senior civil servants were deeply implicated in British collusion in extraordinary rendition. Those directly guilty of complicity in torture include Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir John Scarlett, Sir William Ehrman, Lord Peter Ricketts and Sir Stephen Wright. It was Johnson’s fellow old Etonian, Sir William Ehrman, who chaired the series of meetings in the FCO on the implementation of the policy of getting intelligence through torture....

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/boris-johnsons-fake-radi...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

Ken, you mistakenly slur everyone a “Blairite” who questions Corbyn’s disasterous leadership

i came to oppose Blair mostly over Iraq and his law and order agenda. These things obscure some very tangible economic advances fir the working and middle classes such as a marked reduction in child poverty. 

His record on this front compares favourably with the Conservatives who followed. It will doubtless be looked at more postively after a few years of Boris Johnson , cemented in power by Labour’s current woeful leader.

Corbyn’s problems with the voters are not rooted so much in his ideology but in his perceived lack of competence, his inarticulateness, his incoherence over Europe and, yes, his coddling of anti-Semites.

surely Labour’s left could come up with a more appealing leader than him, someone whise approval rating us not so abysmal.

 

In what way has Corbyn been "inarticulate"?  The man is considered one of the most eloquent speakers in UK politics.

If he's "perceived" as incompetent-the man hasn't actually made any real mistakes as leader in terms of actual job performance-its because the PLP-and yes, we can assume everybody in the PLP that's been part of the relentless anti-Corbyn hate campaign is a Blairite or Blue Labour, because no actual socialist would do that to the first socialist who's held the leadership since Michael Foot-Kinnock was clearly not a socialist, because an actual socialist would not devote most of his time as leader to driving socialists out of the party or to accusing all left-wing activists of Trotskyism-and no actual socialist would want Corbyn replaced by a "moderate" as leader.

Corbyn's unpopularity, if he is unpopular, is do to the unjustified vilification the PLP has visited on him.  If they'd accepted him and worked with him to achieve the goal most of the PLP clearly doesn't care about, the goal of defeating the Tories and wiping out their barbaric legacy, Labour under Corbyn would have a solid lead in the polls.

That's what the PLP would have done if it cared about "the good of the party".

And as you've been repeatedly reminded, he's had to take a compromise position on the EU to hold his party together-a fact which means that those who care about "the good of the party" have no justification for the arrogant push for Corbyn to make Labour go all-out Remain.   He has now pledge a second referendum on any EU proposal-why isn't that enough?-and when he never deserved the blame for the Leave victory in the first referendum, given that it was impossible for the Remain position to have prevailed when most of the Remain leadership refused to address the damage EU policies have done to the North and Northeast of England while also refusing to commit to any fight to remove the compulsory austerity policies the EU imposes on its member states.  I defy you, nicky, to present any argument Corbyn could have made in the referendum-he made more speeches on behalf of Remain than any other Labour politician, he clearly did and said everything he COULD have done or said on behalf of Remain, and he clearly did nothing to undermine or sabotage the Remain campaign in any form at all-that could have singlehanded changed the outcome  The fact that neither you nor anyone else has been able to present any argument that Corbyn and only Corbyn might have made that would have turned a Leave win to a Remain win is an admission that he didn't cause the Leave victory at all.

And has repeatedly been proved, Corbyn hasn't been soft on antisemitism, and Labour is not infested with antisemitism.  The stats demonstrated that any rise in antisemitism in the UK is on the Right and the Far Right.  What is he supposed to do...instantly expel anybody Margaret Hodge wants instantly expelled?  Are you seriously going to argue that we should take accusations of antisemitism among Corbyn supporters made by Corbyn's right wing opponents at face value?  Are you seriously arguing that the the party should have adopted the IHRA "examples" which would have banned all public criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians?  It was Corbyn's refusal to abandon the Palestinian people that started the antisemitism slur, and the sickening thing is that if he had agreed to those "examples" and pledged Labour to unquestioning support of everything Netanyahu does while also abandoning socialism and going back to the Third Way, Corbyn could probably have quoted Mein Kampf in party political broadcasts and never been accused of antisemitism again.  

Doesn't the hypocrisy on that sicken you, nicky?  It would sicken any decent human being.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Given the damage they have done by refusing to stop trying to force out their party's leader for four straight years, given that they have spent those four years trying to make sure that Labour did as badly as possible each year's local elections and at the EU election, given that they didn't even stop demanding his resignation DURING THE 2017 ELECTION CAMPAIGN, even though they knew that it's not possible to change leaders once an election has been called and that nobody they'd have preferred to him as leader would ever have been credible with the party's rank-and-file, would you not agree that the anti-Corbyn sectors of the PLP should either voluntarily submit themselves to Open Selection or should simply stand down when the election is called "for the good of the party"?

 

NDPP

WATCH: "Kate Hoey MP says the stitch-up to appoint the new EU chiefs has shown everyone just how undemocratic the EU really is. The parliament is little more than a fig leaf."

https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/1156891484240666624

JKR

Boris Johnson’s appointment only by Conservative members to lead the UK seems like much more of a stitch-up.

NorthReport

In a few short time, the average Brit will realize how terribly f***** they are but by then of course it will too late

‘Something resembling hell’: How does the rest of the world view the UK?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/04/how-does-the-rest-of-the-world-currently-view-the-uk-brexit-boris-johnson

nicky

Alan Johnson has some interesting insight on Corbyn in today’s Guardian:

What did you think of Alastair Campbell’s comments last week that the Labour party is in danger of being destroyed as a “serious political force”?
Yeah, we’re heading for disaster and everybody knows that. The simple problem we’ve got is that Jeremy Corbyn is not a leader. He’s never going to be a leader, never wanted to be a leader, is totally uncomfortable in the role as leader. And on Europe he’s a total disaster. So I think Alastair Campbell’s right.

Who would do a better job as Labour leader?
Practically anyone, actually. Because Jeremy is not just pious and sanctimonious, he’s useless at leading, which is why he has people around him to do his shoelaces up, pull his strings. And we’ve got such good women in particular on our benches, whether it’s Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, Lisa Nandy or Stella Creasy. There’s a whole list of them that would do a much better job.

 

 

josh

Was that interview from 2 plus years ago?

nicky

No

its in todays Guardian

josh

Almost word for word what was written in early 2017.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm pretty sure all of those women still defend the Iraq War and abstained on the Tory benefit cuts in 2015.  Yvette Cooper is also the spouse of Ed Balls, the dismissive right-wing jerk who founded Blue Labour, and has been an anti-Corbyn plotter from the start.   It can't be anti-sexist to move Labour back to the right, nicky.

contrarianna

josh wrote:

Was that interview from 2 plus years ago?


Nevermind, it's easy to mix up the time lines of Nicky and his favorite Corbyn abusers:

For example:
"For the Good of the Party" (and think of the children!)

Here's Nicky in August 2016, before the 2017 General Election and Corbyn/Labour's gain of 36 seats:

Mon, 2016-08-08 15:51

NICKY:
18% approval ratings. 80% of his colleagues voting non-confidence. A sure Conservative landslide looming.

Any responsible leader would step aside for the good of the party.

Instead Corbyn seems intent on dragging his party with him into some Gotterdammerung [my German isn't that good; does that mean 36 more seats?]to satisfy some bizarre political deathwish.

I grieve over the agony of a great historic party that deserves so much better than Corbyn.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5119241#comment-5119241

Grieving Nicky noted, then flash forward years to  Nicky's "the good of the party" now, only the relentless smears get shuffled:

NICKY"
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17810758.labour-less-popular-brexit-pa...

Corbyn leading Labour to FIFTH place in Scotland with 11%.

ken, even assuming that Corbyn is not to blame for his toxic unpopularity, sure you have to concede he should step down for the good of his party.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5611616#comment-5611616O

One might almost admire his embarrassment-free chutzpuh.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky probably just posts what Tom Watson and Margaret Hodge instruct him to post.  He is always totally in sync with the Blairite/Blue Labour "line".

nicky

Here is the link Josh.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/03/alan-johnson-interview-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-elvis-costello

dated Aug 3. Johnson also comments on Alaister Campbell’s expulsion so it is obviously recent

NDPP

Corbyn's Capitulation: Lessons For the Left From UK Labour's 'Anti-Semitism' Crisis [2018]

https://zcomm.org/zblogs/corbyns-capitulation-lessons-for-the-left-from-...

"...Perhaps Corbyn will, in spite of his abject surrender on this issue, still make it into power but he will not  bring any big change to the UK's blood-soaked foreign policy unless Labour's rank and file members can salvage something from this fiasco. Unfortunately, that will be difficult to do when a leader falters as badly as Corbyn has."

nicky
nicky

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/nicola-sturgeon-if-we-crash-out-with-no-deal-corbyn-will-be-almost-as-responsible-as-may-or-johnson

“I have fought two general elections now as SNP leader, and, in both of them, I have been pretty candid. We would always want to be part of a progressive alternative to a Tory government. That remains the case. That said, I’m no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think his lack of leadership on Brexit in particular … well, if we do crash out without a deal, he will bear almost as much responsibility as Theresa May or Boris Johnson. I can’t see the SNP going into formal coalition with Labour.”

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's enough that he's committed to a second referendum now.  He can't go all-out Remain without splitting the party.  There's no good reason for anybody to push him to go all-out Remain.  

NDPP

WATCH: Labour Liars

https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1158342679756976130

"Every Labour MP was elected on Labour's promises to deliver Brexit. But now these Labour promises are being broken."

 

Democratic Emergency

https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/1158301634386169856

"There certainly is a democratic emergency - parliament, the press and media are trying to sabotage the largest democratic vote in our history."

 

WATCH: "Kate Hoey MP says Labour needs to realise the danger posed by the Brexit party, our voters no longer 'have nowhere else to go."

https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/1158318720193835010

Aristotleded24

Wow, it has nearly been three years since Trump was elected President, and many on the left have still failed to learn anything.

Has anybody ever wondered why the right-wing in Britain is so worked up about Brexit? It's because that's the only thing they have going for them right now. Sure, a majority of people may be telling pollsters that they want to Remain. I'm sure that there were times over the last 42 years when a majority of Quebeckers would have told pollsters that they favoured sovereignty. However, the PQ's insistence on continuing to hold a referendum until people voted yes so turned people off the PQ that a majority of elected MNAs in Quebec have been right-leaning since 2003. This despite the fact that most people agree with pretty much the rest of the PQ's public policy agenda. Same with Brexit. There was an actual vote. The options were Remain or Brexit. People voted for Brexit. The right-wing channelled people's frustrations with the Establishment in order to vote for Brexit, and now some on the left want to stop it. How do you think people will react? It just validates what the right-wing is saying that the Establishment doesn't care what regular people think, so you'd better come along with us. Meanwhile, this has also breathed new life into the Liberal Democrats, because not doing Brexit and remaining is now all they have going for them. You have a situation where the Brexit and Remain vote is divided between 2 parties each, and Corbyn is taking it on the chin from people at both ends of the Brexit-Remain spectrum. I don't see any electoral outcome other than the election of a majority of MPs who favour a hard Brexit. There will be no second referendum in this scenario. Just Brexit, along with the chaos and all the other economic, social and environmental policies you can expect from a right-wing government. To put it sussinctly, people in the Remain camp who are doing everything to stop Brexit above all else are creating the conditions for exactly what they don't want, which is a hard Brexit.

You want to stop Brexit? Then stop talking about it and instead talk about a public policy program that addresses the challenges the UK currently faces. That's the one thing the Brexit parties can't win on. Neither can the Liberal Democrats.

NorthReport
NDPP

Except the kind of public policy program required to address the challenges the UK currently faces, as enumerated in the UK Labour manifesto could not be implemented under the neoliberalist EU regime. That's the problem and the necessity of a clean Brexit to enable it's possibility. Neither Corbyn nor BoJo nor Farage at the end of the day, have any intention of implementing it, in my view. That's not the way the present power-relations to which they are all subservient go.  Hence the 'soft-brexit' bullshit and other mendacities of the bourgeois parliamentary parties pretending to 'honour the people's wishes,' while selling them out to keep them in EU neoliberal servitude and austerity.

Tony Benn (Labour)  on the EU Empire

https://youtu.be/nWnpbEMMsNw

"Comrades, we've got a very important argument. Just like the Chartists or the Suffragettes, it's about Democracy. And democracy will be fatally damaged in Britain and in Europe if we go along with a system that has no firm democratic basis..."

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

Nothing outside of at least preserving all existing social benefits can be of any benefit, if nationalization and the preservation of the NHS as free at the point of service are abandoned.  There can't be a Labour austerity, especially if it is caused by an agreement to keep taxes on the rich artificially low.

This is the ultimate and inevitable conclusion of neoliberal "centrist" capitalist party politics: the idea that what's really important is the brand of conservatism, not the ideology. Blair is to be praised for winning three back-to-back conservative majorities under the Labour brand, because Labour are compassionate conservatives, while the Tories are only espousing the same ideas because they're evil. Bush started wars because he's a warmonger, while Hillary started wars because she's a thoughtful stateswoman living realistically in a difficult world. Harper liked pipelines because he was controlled by Albertan oil barons, while Trudeau builds pipelines because it's important to balance economic growth with environmental concern.

And hey: lots of people buy the argument. Many of them write op-eds in which they pat themselves on the back for being the sensible ones who can see the real truth of the divine mandate of conservatism with left-wing branding. Then they castigate left-wingers for staying home instead of voting Red Tory.

The establishment panic over Corbyn's leadership of Labour has been informative. They have the Kissinger-esque perspective that "We can't let a party go left-wing just because of the irresponsibility of its members." The mere possibility of real change being on the ballot is so terrifying that they need to threaten a military coup. Every time the latest smear fails to stick, what returns is concern trolling for the health of the brand.

Cco, don't you see that you have it all wrong? The first rule of progressive politics is to filter everything through a lens of conservative bad, liberal good. It is important to ignore facts that challenge this narrative, such as the Liberal government cutting health care funding in the 1990s and the fact that it was Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who apologized for the treatment of First Nations peoples. Don't forget that us progressives are more educated and better people, so if you don't vote progressive you are stupid. Never mind meeting voters where they are and attempting to convince them (something right-wingers are very good at). That just panders to right-wing thinking. It is also important to remember that voters are fixed on a left-right axis, you can tilt your platform to get support, but voters on the right are so far removed from us that there is no point in even trying. Let's disregard the fact that many Tory voters in Britain favour nationalizing railways, that there was an anti-Hillary Sanders-Trump swing vote in 2016, or the fact that so many Conservative seats in Western Canada were once firmly in the NDP camp. The professional class is our new voting base. Workers who have gone over to the conservatives are a dwindling portion of the population. They just need to get education and upgrading, then they will have professional jobs and be like us. We know what these voters need better than they do, we don't have to listen to them. We have the winning strategy!

What, we just lost another election? Stuipd voters! Don't you know that you just voted against your self-interests?

NDPP

UK Bolsters Trans Atlantic Ties As Brexit Looms

https://youtu.be/Qc2ZkzRuSYc

"The newly appointed UK Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab is on a North American tour. 'Canada is also being wooed powerfully by the British government..."

 

"Delighted to welcome my new UK counterpart Dominic Raab to Toronto for his first bilateral visit since being appointed! We discussed our shared commitment to the rules-based international order, democracy and human rights."

https://twitter.com/cafreeland/status/1158809588650708992

NDPP

"Sec Pompeo remarks with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab. We support the UK's soverign choice, however Brexit ultimately shakes out. The US will be at the doorstep - pen in hand - ready to sign on to a new free trade agreement at the earliest possible time."

https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1159150203280060416

 

"We are not just allies...we are cousins...we are family!' Chrystia Freeland after meeting Dominic Raab in Toronto today to discuss Canada-UK bilateral relations and international priority issues."

https://twitter.com/JaniceCharette/status/1158764873532223488

Dear Dominic: Ask Chrystia Freeland how to 'negotiate' a trade deal.  With both CETA and CUSMA under her belt and with Larry Summers as her 'guru' she has lots of experience in neoliberal corporate surrender arrangements.

NDPP

Canada's Brexit Talks With the UK: There Are None

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-brexit-talks-with-the-u-...

"...In the event of a no-deal Brexit, Britain will offer radically reduced tariffs to all comers. Canadian officials, reasonably decided there's no need to offer concessions in return for what would be essentially automatic access to the UK market. It has been fascinating to watch Freeland in recent months, as she becomes ever fonder of picking her silences and keeps finding new silences worth picking..."                                   

nicky
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The most recent polls show a referendum would be inconclusive:  40% would vote Remain, 38% would vote Leave, everybody else would be on the fence.  Therefore, it does not go without saying that a second referendum would keep the UK in the EU.

 

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

The most recent polls show a referendum would be inconclusive:  40% would vote Remain, 38% would vote Leave, everybody else would be on the fence.  Therefore, it does not go without saying that a second referendum would keep the UK in the EU.

It looks like no matter what happens most UK’ers will be opposed to what eventually happens. Moreover, even if there is a “no-deal” Brexit forced down the throats of UK’ers, further unending torturous negotiations over Brexit between the UK and EU will still have to go on for years and years. UK’ers never voted for this mess. At this point I think the best solution would be to establish a Citizens’ Assembly to sort out this mess as an election or referendum would likely not alleviate this sad situation.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The most recent polls show a referendum would be inconclusive:  40% would vote Remain, 38% would vote Leave, everybody else would be on the fence.  Therefore, it does not go without saying that a second referendum would keep the UK in the EU.

It looks like no matter what happens most UK’ers will be opposed to what eventually happens. Moreover, even if there is a “no-deal” Brexit forced down the throats of UK’ers, further unending torturous negotiations over Brexit between the UK and EU will still have to go on for years and years. UK’ers never voted for this mess. At this point I think the best solution would be to establish a Citizens’ Assembly to sort out this mess as an election or referendum would likely not alleviate this sad situation.

That's a brilliant idea...especially if it leads to the UK finally getting what it has never, ever had-a written constitution-written with all the people of the UK getting a real say in the writing, and when necessary RE-writing, of that document.

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
That's a brilliant idea...especially if it leads to the UK finally getting what it has never, ever had-a written constitution-written with all the people of the UK getting a real say in the writing, and when necessary RE-writing, of that document.

Assuming the UK is still around. I think it's more likely that the Scots and Northern Irish will take the future into their own hands before the English come to their senses.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The most recent polls show a referendum would be inconclusive:  40% would vote Remain, 38% would vote Leave, everybody else would be on the fence.  Therefore, it does not go without saying that a second referendum would keep the UK in the EU.

It looks like no matter what happens most UK’ers will be opposed to what eventually happens. Moreover, even if there is a “no-deal” Brexit forced down the throats of UK’ers, further unending torturous negotiations over Brexit between the UK and EU will still have to go on for years and years. UK’ers never voted for this mess. At this point I think the best solution would be to establish a Citizens’ Assembly to sort out this mess as an election or referendum would likely not alleviate this sad situation.

That's a brilliant idea...especially if it leads to the UK finally getting what it has never, ever had-a written constitution-written with all the people of the UK getting a real say in the writing, and when necessary RE-writing, of that document.

Over the years I've heard UK'ers of different political stripes support this idea.

NorthReport
NorthReport
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Which means the anti-Corbyn conspiracy within Labour needs to STOP, if the anti-Corbynites actually want to see the Tories voted out of power.

NorthReport

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

That IS the real world, North.  With an election probably imminent, there's no justification to keep trying to remove Corbyn and replace him with a "moderate"(i.e., a Tory-in-all-but-name).  Labour could never unite around a leader imposed by the PLP who still defended the Iraq War, or who went along with the unforgiveable idea of having the PLP start abstaining on cuts in benefits-there's no difference between abstaining on cuts and voting FOR the cuts, and every Labour MP who was fine with abstaining had clearly decided that the party needed to abandon the poor once and for all-who believes that all sitting Labour MPs should be able to count on automatic re-selection until they actually lose the seat they hold-or who accepts the idea that keeping taxes low on the rich is more important than fighting poverty or saving the NHS.  

And there is no reason for anybody in the party insisting on trying to force Labour to have a leader that has all of those horrible flaws.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And there is no good reason to keep hounding Corbyn to go all-out Remain when it's enough that he's backing a second referendum on whatever Parliament decides on the EU.

JKR

Why is it now wrong to oppose Corbyn if it once was ok to oppose Mulcair? Was it wrong to oppose Blair? 

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
With an election probably imminent, there's no justification to keep trying to remove Corbyn and replace him with a "moderate"(i.e., a Tory-in-all-but-name).  Labour could never unite around a leader imposed by the PLP who still defended the Iraq War, or who went along with the unforgiveable idea of having the PLP start abstaining on cuts in benefits-there's no difference between abstaining on cuts and voting FOR the cuts, and every Labour MP who was fine with abstaining had clearly decided that the party needed to abandon the poor once and for all-who believes that all sitting Labour MPs should be able to count on automatic re-selection until they actually lose the seat they hold-or who accepts the idea that keeping taxes low on the rich is more important than fighting poverty or saving the NHS.  

And there is no reason for anybody in the party insisting on trying to force Labour to have a leader that has all of those horrible flaws.

The other problem is that leadership races can be horribly divisive and messy. No leader who has been under the constant attacks that Crobyn has been under would have survived as leader as long as he had if he didn't have actual real support within the party. Let's say Corbyn is forced out. Do you really think that the Corbynites are going to feel great about Labour after that, especially if it results in the selection of a leader opposed to what Corbyn stood for?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Why is it now wrong to oppose Corbyn if it once was ok to oppose Mulcair? Was it wrong to oppose Blair?

Principled opposition is one thing. Corbyn's opponents have taken it even further and tried to undermine him from the start without ever having accepted the results in the first place or given him a chance. It is especially ironic that his opponents claim that "he can't win an election" when he was already tested in an election, and ended up turning what should have been a super-majority for the Tories into a hung parliament.

Even if you have a bad leader, sometimes the best thing to do is put on a smile, hold your fire, and wait until after the election in order to deal with any leadership issues that you have.

nicky

Britain faces a tragedy that Corbyn is abetting through his  ego and stubbornness.

The country is now about 55% for Remain. It thinks Corbyn is an unacceptable leader by  margin approaching 4 to one.

Corbyn's waffling and ambiguity on Remain ( and other shortcomings) make him unacceptable to a huge majority of the public.

Polls show Labour would win the election with virtually any other leader (the public wisely ignoring the baseless assertions of Ken and other Corbynistas that despite all the evidence Corbyn shd Remain leader.) Yet Corbyn clings to the leadership and gives Johnson his best hope of winning the election and delivering a No Deal Brexit against the great majority of public opinion.

All of the above is coming on like a freight train. In enabling it Corbyn will cripple the Labour Party and go down in infamy as its worst leader ever.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Actually, nicky, the most recent poll had it 40% Remain, 38% Leave, with the rest undecided.  Corbyn has now come out for a second referendum and it's enough that he's done that.

There was never any valid reason for anybody in the party to use either the EU issue or the antisemitism slur to try and bring Corbyn down.  Everyone knew he couldn't unilaterally commit the party to an all out Remain position-Labour policy can ONLY be changed at the party conference and the party conference wasn't for months-and everybody knew that the party was and is badly divided on Remain.  

The second referendum commitment is all Corbyn or any other possible Labour leader can do on the EU issue.

And it goes without saying that 1) There is no greater incidence of antisemitism-of hatred of Jewish people-among Corbyn supporters than among anyone else in the party-and the rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK has been linked almost exclusively to the far right; and 2) There was never any justification to try to force the party to officially label any form of criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism, since Israel is simply a country and is not synonymous with Jews as a group or Judaism as a set of religious and cultural traditions-Observant Jewish people worship G-d, NOT Israel; non-observant Jewish people focus on keeping their cultural, intellectual, and philosophical identities clear and alive, they do not, as a group, put defense of Israeli security policies above all other concerns in the universe.  And even for those feelin a connection to "the Land of Israel", the connection is to the ancient land, not to the illegal West Bank settlements or to what the IDF does to Palestinian teenagers.

The IHRA "examples" include things which clearly make ANY public criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians, and thus any solidarity or empathy with ordinary Palestinian people, impossible.  Obviously, Corbyn has been fighting ACTUAL antisemitism-which means hatred of Jews and does not have any valid connection to criticism of the Israeli government-all his life.  Obviously the Left-the part of the political spectrum which warned about Hitler while conservative and "moderate" governments were praising him on "anticommunist" grounds and were maintaining and increasing trade with his regime-has always been against antisemitism.  Obviously, those who identify as non-Zionists and anti-Zionists on the Left are always opposed to antisemitism.

It was despicable to ever use that issue, an issue on which Corbyn is blameless, to slander the man and vilify his supporters.

And since Labour can't win an election without the votes of his supporters, the anti-Corbynites have to take the major share of the blame if they don't turn up to the polls-as we both know they won't if Labour ends up with a "moderate"(i.e., a reactionary) as leader.

Nothing would be going better for the party, for example, if Owen Smith, the Pfizer lobbyist who never had any crowds turn out for him anywhere during his leadership campaign, had somehow won and moved the party back to Blair's sort of policies, as he would have done.   

If you can't get crowds, you can't an election.  If nobody cheers for you, nobody votes for you.

 

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Polls show Labour would win the election with virtually any other leader (the public wisely ignoring the baseless assertions of Ken and other Corbynistas that despite all the evidence Corbyn shd Remain leader.) Yet Corbyn clings to the leadership and gives Johnson his best hope of winning the election and delivering a No Deal Brexit against the great majority of public opinion.

In 2003, polls showed that Paul Martin would lead the Liberals to a majority government with major breakthroughs for the Liberals in Quebec and Alberta.

NDPP
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Pages