Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Cheesy]

Reading the last couple of pages, the problem with disregarding Corbyn because of his wider popularity/perception, or lack thereof, by the public is that it's been massively distorted by what's happened within the party.

I think any party leader would struggle to build up any sort of popularity if he'd been getting undermined by his party from the word go. It's pretty much impossible to garner wider public approval when the people in your party refuse to support you, and actively go against you. I doubt Blair would've been successful in 97 if the majority of the party had been rebelling against him.

Granted, I think there are certain views of Corbyn's that make him quite untenable (Falklands, Hamas association etc), but you could argue that association with the Saudis and various other shady states is quite dodgy, and that's common practice from our government. Either way, any argument regarding Corbyn's lack of public popularity in spite of the popularity some of his policies may have surely has to take into account the constant backstabbing and undermining that's occurring.

 

[Red Dreams]

Reading the last couple of pages, the problem with disregarding Corbyn because of his wider popularity/perception, or lack thereof, by the public is that it's been massively distorted by what's happened within the party.

I think any party leader would struggle to build up any sort of popularity if he'd been getting undermined by his party from the word go. It's pretty much impossible to garner wider public approval when the people in your party refuse to support you, and actively go against you. I doubt Blair would've been successful in 97 if the majority of the party had been rebelling against him.

Granted, I think there are certain views of Corbyn's that make him quite untenable (Falklands, Hamas association etc), but you could argue that association with the Saudis and various other shady states is quite dodgy, and that's common practice from our government. Either way, any argument regarding Corbyn's lack of public popularity in spite of the popularity some of his policies may have surely has to take into account the constant backstabbing and undermining that's occurring.

good post.

btw I also agree with you about offering voters something to vote for instead of just saying...Vote for Labour to keep the Tories out.

 

[Cheesy]

good post.

btw I also agree with you about offering voters something to vote for instead of just saying...Vote for Labour to keep the Tories out.

It's pretty much a confirmed awful strategy. Labour tried it up here in Scotland in 2015 with their "Vote SNP get Tory" line, essentially that an SNP vote was a wasted one, and was more likely to get the Tories into power than anything else. Voters reached to it terribly. The problem was that Labour weren't offering us any reason to vote for them, just a supposed strategy of voting against the Tories. It didn't work and looked even sillier when it turned out that every single person in Scotland could've voted Labour and we'd still have had a Tory majority.

People don't just want to vote against a party; they want to vote for one, and there's not really any reason to vote for Labour right now, Corbyn or not. I don't know where the party need to go as such...but Smith's vapid, empty style that's beginning to come across is beginning to make that often lazy Blairite tag seem very apt, and I struggle to see him winning many votes from May who seems to be effectively winning much of the centre-ground. She's got the benefit of not being a typically Eton-like Tory as Cameron was, but she isn't quite as brash as Thatcher was. I can't stand her but she's in a good position right now.

Of course, all this could've been avoided if Blair/Brown had implemented PR in the 13 years they were in power, but they were more concerned with undisputed power for their party than they were with denying a future Tory government, even if they try to argue to the contrary. We're still seeing that now to an extent; Labour should've backed PR a long, long time ago.

 

[Untied]

Yes. It's the hard-left being divisive. Things like this have swayed me back to voting Corbyn who I think/admit has done a shit job (whilst being continually undermined). But Smith is shit and his campaign is supported by some Labour Party figures I would deliberately like to spite (and some truly passionate, hard-working, good hearted MPs, which does at least make me pause for thought)

 

[Frosty]

Reading the last couple of pages, the problem with disregarding Corbyn because of his wider popularity/perception, or lack thereof, by the public is that it's been massively distorted by what's happened within the party.

I think any party leader would struggle to build up any sort of popularity if he'd been getting undermined by his party from the word go. It's pretty much impossible to garner wider public approval when the people in your party refuse to support you, and actively go against you. I doubt Blair would've been successful in 97 if the majority of the party had been rebelling against him.

Granted, I think there are certain views of Corbyn's that make him quite untenable (Falklands, Hamas association etc), but you could argue that association with the Saudis and various other shady states is quite dodgy, and that's common practice from our government. Either way, any argument regarding Corbyn's lack of public popularity in spite of the popularity some of his policies may have surely has to take into account the constant backstabbing and undermining that's occurring.

This is the rub now - if Labour goes on under Corbyn to suffer an electoral catastrophe, then it is inevitable that there will be those who blame that on this leadership contest, a 'lack of loyalty' from MPs and a coordinated campaign to destabilise him. The problem with that is there will always be uncertainty there - was it Corbyn's policies that led to disaster or the lack of stability in the Labour Party? Probably a combination of some kind, but I would argue it is the policies that are the bigger contributor. Others could legitimately disagree.

I do cringe (and have cringed) when Corbyn has been attacked by backbenchers since his election. Jamie Reed resigning during his victory speech being an egregious example. Yet there have been many, especially the 'bigger names' (Umunna, Johnson, Miliband, Cooper, Kendall, Burnham, Jarvis, Starmer etc) who kept their mouths shut and didn't speak out (or still haven't) until this Summer and the threat of a snap election.

One of the reasons why I don't agree with the narrative of an orchestrated coup by plotters is the fact that Corbyn's opponents have had no clear plan, no clear plot, and no clear strategy, because they are a group of disparate individuals each approaching Corbyn's leadership in a different manner. As a result, I also think that the 'backstabbing' argument is overplayed.

Despite this, (the unhelpful criticism has existed), Corbyn hasn't helped himself with his appointments and media strategy, as well as outreach to MPs. Now I know he has 'reached out', but when he was elected I thought that he would have to go 'above and beyond' what would have been expected off anyone else to bring MPs into line. Objectively, that isn't fair. But it is politics. And it is, in my view, connected to his voting record:

The total number of votes cast by Jeremy against the whip, from 1983 onwards is 617.

These are made up as follows:

1983: 19 – which made him the 8th most rebellious Labour MP

1987: 36 – 7th most rebellious Labour MP

1992: 72 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

1997: 64 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2001: 148 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2005: 216 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2010: 62 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

Given that, which puts him in the top 10 most rebellious Labour MPs since 1983 (it is even more ridiculous when you consider party policy from 83-87), it was obvious that this would be used against him time and time again, and that he would have to move mountains to bring MPs round. He didn't do this (in fact, could he? Or would it go against his principles and morals, which is what got him elected in the first place? Another conundrum...)

I think that these competing narratives will continue after September if we are not careful (Jeremy the victims vs Labour MPs working with an impossible leader). Once again, I think there will have to be a superhuman effort to avoid civil war in the party, or a full time effort to wrest control over to the Left and risk a split. The status quo (and by that I even mean the time prior to the referendum) is not viable in the long-term.

 

[Cheesy]

@Frosty I think you make some fair points there; namely that Corbyn himself has a lot to blame for, mainly in that he's been very incompetent and has appointed some toxic figures to work alongside him like Abbott and McDonnell.

Plenty of MP's have only turned recently, but I still don't think many of them were ever that supportive. It's been quite clear they were waiting for the right moment at which they could turn on him, and I'm not buying the excuses regarding the EU referendum that were used. Corbyn wasn't the strongest of campaigners, but Labour voters still mostly voted to Remain, and I doubt anyone else would've gotten the figure higher.

The plotting has been disorganised and chaotic, yes, but I think that's a reflection upon the genuinely low standard of the Labour party at the moment. The central figures all either don't want the job or are a bit shit and vapid. And whatever you think of the plotting in itself, the exclusion of certain new party members primarily because they're voting for Corbyn is nothing short of disgrace - the willingness of a party to throw away so many new members and possibly alienate them is embarrassing and baffling. It also displays an unwillingness to listen to what the membership want. Yes, a party has to appeal to the wider electorate, but if you don't have a central base of members; people who are firmly on-board with and can campaign for the party, then what's the point? What are you trying to gain power for? To just oppose the Tories? Because that's a weak, weak approach, and doesn't work for voters. You've got to have something stronger and more convincing, and Smith doesn't offer that.

Which is what brings me to policy. For all of the claims that Corbyn's policies make him unelectable...what's Smith (admittedly manufactured) left-wing pitch offering that's different? He looks similarly weak on defence with his ISIS comments, and doesn't seem to disagree with Corbyn on enough to justify a rebellion against him. I mean...what's the point? So Labour have someone that approves of trident? That approves of the monarchy? Anyone who's on the fence and in the middle ground will probably just vote Tory if that's what concerns them.

And I'll also agree that his number of times going against the whip is a bit silly, and to be honest he'd have been better off joining another party decades ago. Again though, highlights the flaw of having such a wide variety of views in one party, and shows why Labour should've implemented PR.

 

[Frosty]

@Cheesy Smith's campaign has been poor. I agree. Not least because you are right. He has aped Corbyn's policies on all areas bar Trident (which ironically is doing Corbyn's job for him - namely moving the party to the left), as well as making gaffes. Now the errors could be forgiven (every politician makes them - they are human), but the fact that he has been plucked from obscurity rather than being (for example) someone like David Miliband makes me question whether he can be a leader. I picked Miliband for the fact that he was Foreign Secretary, held high office, so can point to some governmental experience.

I also don't think that the EU referendum campaign was a reason. I think that was used as an excuse as the real reason was a fear of an election (but no politician can ever admit that!)

I really cannot see a way out of this without a split. If Watson and McNicol go (which is likely in the medium term), then all bets are off.

I am not sure whether a distinctive centre-left campaign for Smith would have been better. I think that he was expecting Corbyn to resign and the big names enter the race so that he could lose gracefully and get a Shadow Cabinet gig. It is like he is towing to Corbyn as close as possible, in fear of developing a centre-left position which, if defeated handily, would allow 150 MPs to leave the Party in an amicable divorce. Perhaps that would have been better. At the moment, we just have a Mexican standoff again.

 

[Frosty]

I should stay away from this thread until 24 September - thinking about the future of Labour is just depressing me at the moment!

 

[DenisIrwin]

Yes. It's the hard-left being divisive. Things like this have swayed me back to voting Corbyn who I think/admit has done a shit job (whilst being continually undermined). But Smith is shit and his campaign is supported by some Labour Party figures I would deliberately like to spite (and some truly passionate, hard-working, good hearted MPs, which does at least make me pause for thought)

What do you call John McTernan? Maybe a new thread called for there.

 

[Cheesy]

Yes. It's the hard-left being divisive. Things like this have swayed me back to voting Corbyn who I think/admit has done a shit job (whilst being continually undermined). But Smith is shit and his campaign is supported by some Labour Party figures I would deliberately like to spite (and some truly passionate, hard-working, good hearted MPs, which does at least make me pause for thought)

What the feck should Khan's religion have to do with him getting booed? Utter nonsense as usual for McTernan who's searching for any small bit of political capital he can find. Labour need to ditch shite, slimy wankers like him.

 

[Dobba]

What do you call John McTernan? Maybe a new thread called for there.

The man who lost Scotland

And Australia.

And England.

And his marbles.

I'm looking forward to Jess Phillips being labelled racist by the ol' loser for telling Diane Abbott to "feck off". She's been proudly dining out on that story ever since it happened.

This is the second time in the last week or so where people associated with Owen Smith's campaign have thrown the Nazi/fascist label around. I'm sure Ubik will be rushing in shortly to condemn them both.

 

[DenisIrwin]

This is the rub now - if Labour goes on under Corbyn to suffer an electoral catastrophe, then it is inevitable that there will be those who blame that on this leadership contest, a 'lack of loyalty' from MPs and a coordinated campaign to destabilise him. The problem with that is there will always be uncertainty there - was it Corbyn's policies that led to disaster or the lack of stability in the Labour Party? Probably a combination of some kind, but I would argue it is the policies that are the bigger contributor. Others could legitimately disagree.

I do cringe (and have cringed) when Corbyn has been attacked by backbenchers since his election. Jamie Reed resigning during his victory speech being an egregious example. Yet there have been many, especially the 'bigger names' (Umunna, Johnson, Miliband, Cooper, Kendall, Burnham, Jarvis, Starmer etc) who kept their mouths shut and didn't speak out (or still haven't) until this Summer and the threat of a snap election.

One of the reasons why I don't agree with the narrative of an orchestrated coup by plotters is the fact that Corbyn's opponents have had no clear plan, no clear plot, and no clear strategy, because they are a group of disparate individuals each approaching Corbyn's leadership in a different manner. As a result, I also think that the 'backstabbing' argument is overplayed.

Despite this, (the unhelpful criticism has existed), Corbyn hasn't helped himself with his appointments and media strategy, as well as outreach to MPs. Now I know he has 'reached out', but when he was elected I thought that he would have to go 'above and beyond' what would have been expected off anyone else to bring MPs into line. Objectively, that isn't fair. But it is politics. And it is, in my view, connected to his voting record:

The total number of votes cast by Jeremy against the whip, from 1983 onwards is 617.

These are made up as follows:

1983: 19 – which made him the 8th most rebellious Labour MP

1987: 36 – 7th most rebellious Labour MP

1992: 72 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

1997: 64 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2001: 148 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2005: 216 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2010: 62 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

Given that, which puts him in the top 10 most rebellious Labour MPs since 1983 (it is even more ridiculous when you consider party policy from 83-87), it was obvious that this would be used against him time and time again, and that he would have to move mountains to bring MPs round. He didn't do this (in fact, could he? Or would it go against his principles and morals, which is what got him elected in the first place? Another conundrum...)

I think that these competing narratives will continue after September if we are not careful (Jeremy the victims vs Labour MPs working with an impossible leader). Once again, I think there will have to be a superhuman effort to avoid civil war in the party, or a full time effort to wrest control over to the Left and risk a split. The status quo (and by that I even mean the time prior to the referendum) is not viable in the long-term.

The mere numbers for votes against the whip are meaningless really. We need to see what each vote was about. We can see he was arrested by the police. If that's all we have to go on it's easy to condemn him for. Only when you see the reason for him being arrested is it seen as something praiseworthy.

 

[Smores]

The idea that the rebellions and statements are all self motivated seperate events and not organised is ridiculous.

It was widely circulated who was ringing round during the first few days and that they were staggering announcements to get maximum continued coverage. Even the same language has been routinely employed. Now im sure some will have tagged on in either self interest or concern for the party.

I cant decide who im voting, ive gone back and forth too many times. I had settled on Owen Smith just to move the party on (despite my hatred for the schemers) but he hasnt shown much credibility or a credible plan.

 

[Frosty]

Okay, I cannot stay away....

The mere numbers for votes against the whip are meaningless really. We need to see what each vote was about. We can see he was arrested by the police. If that's all we have to go on it's easy to condemn him for. Only when you see the reason for him being arrested is it seen as something praiseworthy.

Whilst you are correct that the reason for the rebellion is important, I think you are underplaying the symbolism of the statistics, especially for MPs and Party Officials.

So, first, the figures.

A full list of Corbyn's votes since 1997 (the start of the digitalisation process) is here: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons

The figures I quoted I got from Philip Cowley who profiled Corbyn for The New Yorker last Summer. His blog (which is excellent) is here: http://revolts.co.uk/?p=932

His take-away on Corbyn from interviewing him is as follows (from July 2015) (http://revolts.co.uk/?p=914):

Have just recorded a radio interview on Jeremy Corbyn’s voting record. It’s fairly easy to sum up: he’s has always been rebellious. In the first parliament that he entered, in 1983, he was the sixth most rebellious Labour MP. From then on, he was always in the top ten, and between 1997 and 2010 he was the most rebellious. Over those 13 years in government, he defied the whip 428 times. In the last five years, he dropped into second place but only just, one vote behind John McDonnell.

I was asked if he’d rebelled against specific leaders or specific policies. In terms of leaders, that’s Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. And over certain issues? I once asked him what issues he would rebel on, and he was very clear that he didn’t rebel willy-nilly, only doing so over issues of war and peace, liberty and social-economic policy. I pointed out that this covered everything the government could possibly do.

Of course, for his admirers, this is evidence of integrity, independence, and ideological purity. His critics, by contrast, will see it as disloyalty, egotism and grandstanding. You pays your money, you takes your choice. It is perhaps worth asking how anyone so happy to defy the whip can expect others to follow it under their leadership – and this was a problem IDS faced after he became Conservative leader in 2001. On the other hand, Neil Kinnock managed to transform from 1970s backbench rebel to a fairly top-down 1980s Labour leader without too much difficulty.

To the symbolism:

Corbyn has rightly got the reputation for voting on conscience, even when it goes against the whip or party policy. The problem with this is that it basically is a free pass to any Labour MP to vote against a Corbyn policy on 'conscience' grounds. Like it or not, they will see a man who has been elected eighttimes to Parliament under the Labour banner, with Labour support and Labour money, vote against the Party when his conscience dictated it.

This is crucial, as it goes to the crux of the deselection/reselection debate bubbling below the surface. There is clamour to deselect MPs who have been disloyal to Corbyn. The obvious response they will give is - why? If the Leader has rebelled against the whip over 600 times, why can't I?

More importantly, Corbyn (like Benn before him) seems to favour a system whereby the MP is answerable to the membership. Therefore, they are not really a representative, exercising their judgment, but a delegate from the local CLP, much like a trade unionist.

Now, given that, there are a few questions that have been posed and need answers by the Leader's Office. Has Corbyn consulted his CLP on every vote he took to get their views? If not, why not? And if he did, how can he be exercising his free conscience if he is answerable to them? If he didn't (which is what I expect), what is the answer to Labour MPs who do not think that he should be held to a different standard than they (why should they be answerable to the CLP for their votes when the Leader is not)?

This is why the symbolism matters. There is no point going over the mistakes of the last 12 months. What has to happen now is a concerted effort from the Leader's Office to ensure that the rebels do not feel free to defy Corbyn on every point.

If there is not such an effort, then there is nothing to stop 150+ MPs, who (if they know they are likely/going to be deselected) will break away (a la 1981), denying all the money and exposure to Labour who will no longer be the Official Opposition. Left-wing politics in the UK cannot afford that, and as unfair as it is to put all this at Corbyn's door, that unfortunately is the nature of leadership - cleaning up other peoples' messes.

The idea that the rebellions and statements are all self motivated seperate events and not organised is ridiculous.

It was widely circulated who was ringing round during the first few days and that they were staggering announcements to get maximum continued coverage. Even the same language has been routinely employed. Now im sure some will have tagged on in either self interest or concern for the party.

I cant decide who im voting, ive gone back and forth too many times. I had settled on Owen Smith just to move the party on (despite my hatred for the schemers) but he hasnt shown much credibility or a credible plan.

On the first point (I think you are referring to me), I just want to clarify that I wasn;t implying that the rebellions were self-motivated separate events. Of course there was some level of organisation. My point was that this wasn't a premeditated coup from all involved as it was not organised in that sense. After Benn's resignation, I think (I agree with Andrew Rawnsley here) that a challenge was cobbled together out of desperation rather than any preconceived plan of what to do. There had to be organisation 'after the fact', as otherwise the timed resignations would not have happened.

Anyway, what is done is done. It is incumbent on Labour to focus on how to bring the party back together now.

 

[Frosty]

What do you call John McTernan? Maybe a new thread called for there.

What the feck should Khan's religion have to do with him getting booed? Utter nonsense as usual for McTernan who's searching for any small bit of political capital he can find. Labour need to ditch shite, slimy wankers like him.

Is McTernan even part of the Labour machine anymore? Genuine question - is he still advising Dugdale?

I found this gem from him too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/05/tax-avoidance-is-an-expression-of-basic-british-freedoms/

 

[lynchie]

https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/abou...r-leaders-claim-of-ram-packed-service-1530005

Such an honest man

 

[Marching]

https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/abou...r-leaders-claim-of-ram-packed-service-1530005

Such an honest man

Shoots himself in the foot again!

CCTV footage taken from the train on August 11 shows Mr Corbyn and his team walked past empty, unreserved seats in coach H before walking through the rest of the train to the far end, where his team sat on the floor and started filming.

The same footage then shows Mr Corbyn returning to coach H and taking a seat there, with the help of the onboard crew, around 45 minutes into the journey and over two hours before the train reached Newcastle. Mr Corbyn’s team carried out their filming around 30 minutes into the journey.

#ConMan

 

[sun_tzu]

Shoots himself in the foot again!

CCTV footage taken from the train on August 11 shows Mr Corbyn and his team walked past empty, unreserved seats in coach H before walking through the rest of the train to the far end, where his team sat on the floor and started filming.

The same footage then shows Mr Corbyn returning to coach H and taking a seat there, with the help of the onboard crew, around 45 minutes into the journey and over two hours before the train reached Newcastle. Mr Corbyn’s team carried out their filming around 30 minutes into the journey.

#ConMan

its clearly a blairite conspiracy - comrade clusterfek is perfect

 

[Smores]

Thats quite funny to be fair

Still the point that his trains are overcrowded still holds true so i dont think Branson's defence really stacks up.

This is where the Guardian gets all confused and attacks Corbyn rather than going after the issue.

 

[Shamwow]

Maybe because he's undermining the issue. Interested to see what his team's response is. If it is exactly as Virgin say then it's pretty bad.

 

[Dobba]

This is where the Guardian gets all confused and attacks Corbyn rather than going after the issue.

Just as long as they don't boo him, they'll be fine.

 

[sun_tzu]

Still the point that his trains are overcrowded still holds true so i dont think Branson's defence really stacks up.

.

Virgin Trains clarifies Labour Leader’s claim of “ram-packed” service
Press Release • Aug 23, 2016 13:40 BST

Virgin Trains clarifies Labour Leader’s claim of “ram-packed” service

• Seats available when Jeremy Corbyn sat on floor in corridor
• Virgin Trains investing in brand new fleet of Azuma trains to provide more capacity

Seats were available on the train in which Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn was filmed sitting on the floor, Virgin Trains has found.

Film footage released to the media showed Mr Corbyn sitting on the floor of a three-hour Virgin Trains service from London to Newcastle claiming it was “ram-packed”.

CCTV footage taken from the train on August 11 shows Mr Corbyn and his team walked past empty, unreserved seats in coach H before walking through the rest of the train to the far end, where his team sat on the floor and started filming.

The same footage then shows Mr Corbyn returning to coach H and taking a seat there, with the help of the onboard crew, around 45 minutes into the journey and over two hours before the train reached Newcastle. Mr Corbyn’s team carried out their filming around 30 minutes into the journey.

There were also additional empty seats on the train (the 11am departure from King’s Cross) which appear from CCTV to have been reserved but not taken, so they were also available for other passengers to sit on.

On his film, whilst sitting on the floor, Mr Corbyn said: “This is a problem that many passengers face every day on the trains, commuters and long distance travellers. Today this train is completely ram-packed. The staff on the train are absolutely brilliant, working really hard to help everybody. The reality is there’s not enough trains, we need more of them.”

A Virgin Trains spokesperson said:

“Our people deliver first-rate customer service day after day and we’d like to thank Jeremy Corbyn for highlighting this with the media. He’s also right to point out the need to introduce more trains on our route – that’s why we’re introducing a brand new fleet of 65 Azuma trains from 2018, which will increase seating capacity out of King’s Cross by 28% at peak times.

“But we have to take issue with the idea that Mr Corbyn wasn’t able to be seated on the service, as this clearly wasn’t the case. We’d encourage Jeremy to book ahead next time he travels with us, both to reserve a seat and to ensure he gets our lowest fares, and we look forward to welcoming him onboard again.

The spokesperson added: “We know that some of our services on our east and west coast franchises are extremely popular, and it can be hard to find a seat. This usually happens in particular circumstances, for example when there’s a big sporting event, or on the first off-peak train out of London. Unfortunately we can’t do anything about cup finals or fares regulation, which could spread demand much more effectively if it was less of a blunt instrument. We have discussed regulation with the Government at various points over the last two decades and we’d be delighted to work with Ministers if they were interested in reviewing the fares structure for long distance services, with the aim of reducing the overcrowding that can sometimes occur.

“We can, however, rely on our fantastic on-board teams to help customers whenever possible and we’re delighted they could help Jeremy in this case. We can also invest in our services - for example, we’ve converted a first class carriage to standard on our 21 nine carriage trains on west coast, providing an extra 5500 standard class seats each day.”

Notes to editors:

Images from the CCTV footage can be downloaded from the "images" section of this website. The images show:

CCTV footage filmed at 11.07am, approximately 7 min after departure from King’s Cross on August 11. It shows Jeremy Corbyn walking past several empty, unreserved seats in Coach H

CCTV footage which shows Mr Corbyn walking past reserved but empty seats at 11.08am in Coach F

CCTV footage shows two images of Mr Corbyn returning to Coach H and sitting down at 11.43am, shortly after being filmed while sat on the floor and more than 2hrs before his final destination, Newcastle

A new kind of politics...

 

[Dobba]

A new kind of politics...

After failing with the accusations of racism and people being likened to Nazi stormtroopers by party donors, we've finally we've found something in this campaign that has overstepped the line for sun_tzu!

 

[sun_tzu]

After failing with the accusations of racism and people being likened to Nazi stormtroopers by party donors, we've finally we've found something in this campaign that has overstepped the line for sun_tzu!

I'm voting for Jezza because I want the party to split - we cant carry on as we are... but honestly what an idiot - how hard is it to turn up to a train that is actually full - pick any rush hour train - piss poor planning again

 

[GloryHunter07]

Thats quite funny to be fair

Still the point that his trains are overcrowded still holds true so i dont think Branson's defence really stacks up.

This is where the Guardian gets all confused and attacks Corbyn rather than going after the issue.

The leader of the Labour party seems to have been caught misleading the public for PR... That is a pretty big issue.

 

[sun_tzu]

The leader of the Labour party seems to have been caught misleading the public for PR... That is a pretty big issue.

if it was one of the centrist mp's there would be a bunch of momentum corbynistas chucking bricks through their windows and saying they are just like tony blair

 

[lynchie]

Thats quite funny to be fair

Still the point that his trains are overcrowded still holds true so i dont think Branson's defence really stacks up.

This is where the Guardian gets all confused and attacks Corbyn rather than going after the issue.

How difficult is it to try and make this point on a train that actually is overcrowded? Or, you know, realise that everyone in the country already knows trains are overcrowded, so we didn't need to see St Jeremy the Martyr sat on the floor to find this out.

Once again, as with the abuse row, he's tried to make it all about himself, and how wonderful and different and saintly he is, compared to those evil other MPs, and he's ballsed it up.

 

[Marching]

Thats quite funny to be fair

Still the point that his trains are overcrowded still holds true so i dont think Branson's defence really stacks up.

This is where the Guardian gets all confused and attacks Corbyn rather than going after the issue.

It's a momental Corbyn OG and he also ignored the fact that.... “Our people deliver first-rate customer service day after day and we’d like to thank Jeremy Corbyn for highlighting this with the media. He’s also right to point out the need to introduce more trains on our route – that’s why we’re introducing a brand new fleet of 65 Azuma trains from 2018, which will increase seating capacity out of King’s Cross by 28% at peak times.

 

[Frosty]

Oh dear....

That train story actually endeared me to Corbyn more when it came out! Please Jeremy, appoint some decent media strategists.

 

[sun_tzu]

Oh dear....

That train story actually endeared me to Corbyn more when it came out! Please Jeremy, appoint some decent media strategists.

what... thats what the blairites would do... sacrilege

 

[Frosty]

what... thats what the blairites would do... sacrilege

I did read a column in the NS the other day where the affliated unions apparently wanted the Leader's Office to be overhauled when Corbyn one (in terms of media strategy and PR). I really hope that happens. Although, having worked for a trade union, it won't be a panacea...

 

[Frosty]

In other news: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-targets-deputy-tom-8685583

I think a split will have to happen. Question - if Labour does split, would the affliated unions split allegiance too?

EDIT: I mean a split will have to happen if Watson and McNicol are removed/resign, as it sounds like they are the reason there hasn't been a single defection yet.

 

[Untied]

Typical Guardian story on Corbyn tbh

 

[Dobba]

In other news: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-targets-deputy-tom-8685583

I think a split will have to happen. Question - if Labour does split, would the affliated unions split allegiance too?

John McTernan wants unions crushed so they'll have to decide whether union votes or the industrial scale incompetence of The Man Who Lost Scotland are more important to them. It may seem like an obvious choice but John has turned publically defending the Iraq war into an art form and they seem pretty big on that.

 

[Marching]

Oh dear....

That train story actually endeared me to Corbyn more when it came out! Please Jeremy, appoint some decent media strategists.

Does he REALLY need someone else to tell him that walking past lots of available seats to find a quiet corner to sit on the floor for a photo opportunity to show how ram packed the train is before returning to his seat isn't his wisest move when it's not actually true and is likely to be pounced upon by Virgin.

 

[sun_tzu]

In other news: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-targets-deputy-tom-8685583

I think a split will have to happen. Question - if Labour does split, would the affliated unions split allegiance too?

It depends if the union sees its self as an ideal driven organisation or if they feel they are best off influencing a centrist (electable?) faction

I suspect initially most unions will stay with Corbyn and a centrist movement could hoover up enough pro european business backers in the short term... and if corbyn suffers the pasting many expect in a general election then perhaps most of the unions will split their donations?

 

[sun_tzu]

Does he REALLY need someone else to tell him that walking past lots of available seats to find a quiet corner to sit on the floor for a photo opportunity to show how ram packed the train is before returning to his seat isn't his wisest move when it's not actually true and is likely to be pounced upon by Virgin.

 

[Frosty]

John McTernan wants unions crushed so they'll have to decide whether union votes or the industrial scale incompetence of The Man Who Lost Scotland are more important to them. It may seem like an obvious choice but John has turned publically defending the Iraq war into an art form and they seem pretty big on that.

I asked earlier (genuinely) about McTernan's current status in the Labour Party apparatus - do you (or does anyone else) know if he has any power? Is he still advising Scottish Labour?

 

[Shamwow]

Some ladies who were apparently on the train coming to his defence.




Interesting to see what comes of this one



Funny how big this story is mind. It was most read story on BBC approximately 3 minutes after being posted.

 

[Untied]

Does he REALLY need someone else to tell him that walking past lots of available seats to find a quiet corner to sit on the floor for a photo opportunity to show how ram packed the train is before returning to his seat isn't his wisest move when it's not actually true and is likely to be pounced upon by Virgin.

I doubt that is quite how it played out. Bags on seats probably (can't see from the CCTV - can't really see how many seats are actually free as well) which you could obviously ask to move, but that wasn't why they were there.

And it's worth remembering Virgin have their own PR agenda. I mean they use their press release to call for fare deregulation.