Once Corbyn is out of the picture for a few months we'll either be seeing Smith quietly tone down his policies or else similar tactics used against Smith as were used against Corbyn, I'm fairly certain of that.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Once Corbyn is out of the picture for a few months we'll either be seeing Smith quietly tone down his policies or else similar tactics used against Smith as were used against Corbyn, I'm fairly certain of that.
Where did i say that? I was refering to the decline Ubik posted.
Bored of these childish responses to be honest. It is quite clear to anyone that a political party and its leader publically arguing amongst itself will suffer in any such polls. Carry on absolving the PLP of any blame though, everything's great in Labour land.
I'm not, they've been dreadful over the last few years, Ed's leadership just as much. Everything is pretty fecking far from great in Labour land, as we all know.
What I reject is putting no blame on Corbyn for how the situation has changed in the last 12 months, and I only see the situation worsening if he stays in charge. This mess is partly because of his politics, his personality and personal history, his team's failures of leadership and with the media... but also long term changes in the demographics of Labour's core voters, the rise of social media, the fact that austerity wasn't challenged enough by Ed's opposition, some terrible management and infighting within the party since 2006(/before), a potential lack of exceptional candidates within the PLP, the growth of UKIP, the failings of the party to communicate people's concerns with immigration, the Brexit vote, the narrative that Labour had ruined the country's economy, Ed's Labour's opposition to Rupert Murdoch...
But I'm only seeing a point in discussing Corbyn here, his leadership in the party since last September, and what his continued leadership would do to us going forward. I don't see an argument that Corbyn taking the party through a general election is good for the Labour movement, or the country. It sounds disastrous.
It's definitely true that the current divisions are hurting the poll ratings, the public aren't going to be impressed with a leader that can't win over the vast majority of their MPs.
But this is why it's usually a given that you resign after losing a no confidence vote (even narrowly). IDS was defeated in the Tory no confidence motion 90-75, but the Tories are smart enough at deposing useless leaders to ensure that it's written into the rules that you have to step down after losing one.
I can only assume those voting again for Corbyn think that the dissenting MPs are going to fall back in line straight after this leadership election, otherwise they're voting directly for the continuation of such a hugely damaging split. Which seems a little optimistic, but there you go.
But this is why it's usually a given that you resign after losing a no confidence vote (even narrowly). IDS was defeated in the Tory no confidence motion 90-75, but the Tories are smart enough at deposing useless leaders to ensure that it's written into the rules that you have to step down after losing one.
I can only assume those voting again for Corbyn think that the dissenting MPs are going to fall back in line straight after this leadership election, otherwise they're voting directly for the continuation of such a hugely damaging split. Which seems a little optimistic, but there you go.
If Corbyn wins the majority of MP's leave before momentum tries to deselect them and the party splits - if corbyn looses then momentum and some of the unions split off any form a new party
either way the split is inevitable so the whole vote thing is just a waste of time - we should simply get on with it
The report, in case you didn't bother to read it, is highly critical of the portrayal of Jeremy Corbyn in the mainstream media. It's no surprise, therefore, that the people behind Corbyn chose to use facebook to broadcast his live launch, and for spreading his message. I would expect the mainstream media, including a journo for the spectator, to be aware of it. It pulls no punches, labelling elements of the mainstream media as "attack dogs", rather than the "watch dogs" we would prefer them to be. This is a report by the LSE, a respected academic institution, btw. The journo in question sought to discredit social media, when the LSE exposed the treatment by mainstream media as woeful. It certainly seems to me that she is perpetuating the anti-Corbyn bias. An "attck dog" as described in the LSE report. Feminine of dog is bitch. If that's an "over the top personal attack" in your opinion then there really is no hope for a rational conversation.
It's "free speech". Would you ban it?
I have no time for Smith .But i do think this did not need to be defended .With Lisa Nandy running around the studios having to defend the comments.
I read the report. Emotive stuff. Says nothing useful though. The press are mainly negative in their coverage of Corbyn. Who'd have thunk it?!? The reason this coverage is so negative is because they don't think he's an inspirational or effective party leader. The type of person who will lead Labour to victory in the next general election. All the more so when you consider his cack-handed handling of Brexit. For once, the right wing and left wing press are more or less 100% in agreement on this. As are the majority of the labour MP's!
Bleating about media bias in this context is spectacularly missing the point.
The Spectator piece contrasts his popularity on social media with his lack of popularity outside that context. With an attempt to explain why this discrepancy might exist. That's pretty much it. If you think that justifies calling the journalist who wrote it an "attack bitch" then fair enough but it comes across as more of the knee-jerk aggression and hostility that puts so many people off Corbyn and his Momentum posse.
It's not that he gets painted in a negative light, it's that he gets misrepresented so often.
I also think your characterisation of Corbyn supporters and particularly Momentum shows just how much the misrepresentation has worked.
There seem to be quite a few Corbyn supporters on here. A serious question to them - can you imagine any realistic scenario where he can win a parliamentary majority so that he can implement any of the ideas that you seem to support? If not (and despite an utterly disastrous few months for the Conservative Party, Labour's poll ratings remain near historically low levels), then what is the point of reelecting Jeremy Corbyn? Isn't it just giving a free run to the Conservative for the next electoral cycle and, more seriously, risking a loss of the post-industrial north (amid the inevitable compromises and resulting bitterness from implementation of Brexit) in the same way that Labour has lost Scotland?
Slightly ironically, the main basis for whatever "misrepresentation" I might have about Corbyn/Momentum is based on tweets/blogs I've read from members of the political party he is currently "leading". I've read very little about him in any of the mainstream media (too busy scouring them for interesting stuff about Donald Trump!)
My answer to your question is yes. A lot changes in a short amount of time. Part of the strategy being used against Corbyn at the moment is to make the situation feel so hopeless that his supporters effectively just give up. That is why MPs aren't too fussed about damaging the party - it helps their cause to do so.
Do you mean Labour MPs? Because they are actively involved in the misrepresentation. They will take the worst 0.01% and make it seem like the majority of the movement is like that. Twitter makes doing so really easy. It's one of the most despicable things that I've seen the Labour MPs do actually - misrepresenting the people that they are supposed to be representing.
Yes. I mean Labour MPs. Just so we're clear, the poor chap is being "misrepresented" by pretty much everyone he works with and the majority of the journalists covering English politics, from both ends of the political spectrum? Bit of a stretch to claim that such a near-unanimous consensus is all just a tissue of lies, surely?
Fair enough. FWIW, I can imagine a scenario where a politician challenging the post-79 status quo could gain traction, I just don't see Corbyn as that man.
Both sides of the press, yes. Not everyone he works with, but a sizeable chunk. There are many, many examples of how he has been misrepresented by many of his colleagues and the press. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that it has been going on.
I'm not sure that rephrasing what eachother says and exaggerating it is a great way to debate though.
I don't think it should be down to one man. A lot needs to change!
Anyway it's certainly a risk but it's never been a case of "guaranteed loss vs guaranteed win"... I'd say it's "probable loss vs probable loss" at the moment.
I'm not really looking for a debate. I got sucked into this thread by posting what was (I thought) an interesting article about the disconnect between Corbyn's perception amongst his fans on social media and by the press/public in general. I've no particular beef with the guy but I do think he doesn't meet the basic requirements of the job he's been given. He's a crap leader. He's demonstrably unable to galvanise his party around him his contribution to the most important campaign he's been involved in thus far (Brexit) was a lacklustre, amateurish shambles.
What I am quite interested in, is the way that social media seems to foster a kind of fanaticism where a movement can build a lot of momentum based around vague, unprovable conspiracy theories, rampant paranoia about lies in the "mainstream media" and undeliverable promises to tear down the status quo. I think there's an element of this in what's going on with Labour right now and a lot of it in Trump's campaign in the US. Something similar is happening in Ireland too. The misrepresentation stuff may have an element of truth but I think it's also linked to the distorted reality that can arise in the sort of online echo chamber previously discussed in this thread.
Labour (whoever wins the leadership election) getting behind a candidate, stopping the shit flinging, and try and out run the stench of incompetence.
I can't think that anybody thinks Corbyn has got a fair crack at it and the narrative of him being a poor leader begun before he even had a chance to demonstrate whether he was or not. Since then Labour MPs telling anybody who will listen that he's a shit house has served to fan the flames.
Labour aren't going to do anything whilst they're squabbling with each other 24/7 and that's on the party as a whole as much as it is him.
It could be that social media is fostering such fanaticism, I'm certain that it makes such fanaticism more visible to you is also a big factor.
Part of the dilemma for Corbyn supporters is that there has undeniably been some sort of plot going on for a while and this reinforces other less realistic beliefs.
Clive Lewis(Labour MP) with a good article in The Guardian about this - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...m=Autofeed&CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Of course it didn't but its what i was saying before any Labour leader will be attacked for this kind of shit its not just Corbyn. Whilst the tories get away with saying all sorts.
Its not all down to Corbyn's poor leadership and his scruffy look.
Well it is unusual for someone to be chosen leader after 30 years on the back benches, many of them spent defying the whip. And it's not hard to fling mud at Corbyn, is it? The unfortunate number of acquaintances with anti-Semitic views, regular appearances on the Russian state propaganda channel...From my point of view, the best outcome would be a Labour leader who takes into account some of the reasons for Corbyn's popularity among members but has more credibility (nationally) than Corbyn and a lot less baggage.
Perhaps not. Yet allowing him to succeed or fail on his own merits would have been a far better outcome for Labour than what they did do which was manage to undermine him so obviously and cackhandidly they bought the whole party down with him.
Did they force him to appoint John McDonnell as shadow chancellor? It was the single most divisive appointment he could've made after he was elected and he knew that. Did it anyway.
That why i would like to see Corbyn continue to take it to the streets. Because he's not going to win parts of the media over.
My memory is sketchy but isn't the answer to that question pretty much yes? At any rate, I recall Labour MPs falling over themselves to dissociate themselves from him and him struggling to fill his cabinet because of it.
But thats my point, allow him to make his mistakes on his own and score his own goals on his own, if thats what he would have done anyway. If in two years time he was looking unelectable despite support from the party then shafting him so people could step in in the name of competence doesn't look like the cold, calculated move it does now. At the very least then, if it had to happen, the kill would have been cleaner and Labour would have been a more effective opposition than they have been.
Instead you've got a divide between people who seem to think Corbyn is responsible for all failings and the PLP blameless and people who seem to think Corbyn is blameless and the PLP responsible for everything and a precedent of flinging shit at each other in the media that is guaranteed to carry on regardless of the outcome of the leadership election. Corbyn might be responsible for his failure to win the party round, but he's not responsible for their behaviour.
Not at all, it was his preferred choice.
What was his alternative? McDonnell is obviously his ally, and was going to get something, but I can't remember a queue of better people turned down. I remember Angela Eagle being mooted, but well, she's Angela Eagle. Anyone else?
McDonnell being his choice was planned in advance, it was always going to happen.
Long enough in advance that the membership knew about it before voting for Corbyn? As I say, I'm hazy.
Angela Eagle, the former economist on the soft left of the party with previous experience in the Treasury. Would've put a woman in one of the four great offices of state, that he already felt able enough to deputise for him at PMQs. Where's the problem? The hate for her is a recent development, pretty sure I never saw anyone refer to her as "Boris in drag" back then, at any rate.
People like Kendall, Umunna, Cooper and Reeves ruled themselves out, but which of those was he likely to put in charge of his economic policy? The only position he really found difficult to fill was Defence, due to Trident.
The 'hate' for her is really just a recognition of her higher profile and the wider publics realisation that she's a bit useless. Some people probably do hate her for challenging Corbyn, but lets not pretend its completely irrational that people could think she's incompetent.
Not sure about that it's something I found out about retrospectively.
Yeah sorry. My kids still don't get my sense of humour.
I don't hate AE. I'm reminded of a scene from Casablanca. "So... what brought you to Casablanca?" "I came to take the waters" "But this is a desert" "I was misinformed"
Just came on to post this as it pretty much sums up where im at (apart from im not sure ill vote Corbyn).
The party is changing and those who perhaps are losing influence because of this need to concede a little. The modernisers within the party need to step up and bring everyone together.
Fair summary of Corbyn as well. He has been unfairly attacked by the media at times and the PLP have been ridiculous but he's learning on the job which isnt ideal as he makes naive mistakes.
Obviously It'd be great if there was a candidate to pull everyone together but i dont think Labour is ready yet.