He intended to offer condolences for someone who hadn't died?
If you're going to explain away a mistake with a lie, don't make it as bone headed as the original mistake.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
He intended to offer condolences for someone who hadn't died?
If you're going to explain away a mistake with a lie, don't make it as bone headed as the original mistake.
Wrong decision to impose a three line whip, he'd have been criticised for a lack of leadership but he should have stated Labours stance but allowed those in remain constituencies to vote against and warned those in leave constituencies thinking of voting against.
Bradshaw chatting shite as usual though, we're supposed to be an opposition so must oppose according to him, perhaps he should consider his voting record before making such statements.
Bradshaw chatting shite as usual though, we're supposed to be an opposition so must oppose according to him, perhaps he should consider his voting record before making such statements.
He didn't actually say that did he?
The great abstainers continuing to rewrite history.
He didn't actually say that did he?
The great abstainers continuing to rewrite history.
He did which i find perplexing. His area voted remain so he could have easily just provided that as reason but as always he likes a headline.
THis is an actually fairly smart sentiment, and I agree with him on the principle of voting for A50 and then on trying to challenge the govt agenda. The whip though, was a clusterfeck.
"Three to one" is kinda cringey when you're talking about a three line whip. Bit of "8 million people voted for socialism" style spin.
I don't agree on the A50 vote myself. However once Labour let anything other than a blind sprint for A50 be considered "undemocratic" (which is nonsense) and also since he failed to articulate a alternative version of Brexit, he ended up with no good options. It was rock and a hard place stuff for sure, but Corbyns poor handling of the post Brexit period gave us those poor options.
I haven't heard a single coherent statement or point of view from Corbyn on Brexit. Have I missed anything, does he have a relevant opinion that I've missed?
I genuinely don't think he understands the intricacies of the debate, or where the Brexit argument is weakest. He's comfortable rallying against the stupid 'tax haven' claim but apart from that he doesn't have a clue.
I genuinely don't think he understands the intricacies of the debate, or where the Brexit argument is weakest. He's comfortable rallying against the stupid 'tax haven' claim but apart from that he doesn't have a clue.
His handling of the pre Brexit period was even worse. He's been an absolute disaster for Labour and (as the leader of the main opposition party) the country as a whole. Just an awful appointment.
Its not cringey at all, its making the point Labour overwhelmingly voted to trigger. The realities are that anything else would have been seen as undemocratic and unfavourable. Even the Blairites are mostly on board with his approach because they recognise their constituencies demanded so.
I'd love to know what you think he/Stamer should have done. They've had nothing to argue against other than a mantra of Brexit means Brexit so all calls for single market access etc were hollow. They fought for a whitepaper and for a vote and thats what they got, now they can rally against the terms, this was never about Article 50 itself.
I'd like to see the statistics on this. How many Labour MPs voted against their constituencies last night?
7 from Labour. Which shows most of the rebels were really just doing what they had to do rather than a hardline stance on the issue.
I hope to see those who have resigned back in the shadow cabinet. The whips have been trying to make clear that they understand some couldn't vote against their constituency. No reason for them to be sacked.
Mostly because they're the ones rebelling I'd argue!
I expected that number to be higher, but it shows the stupidity of the three line whip. It's once again made the story about Labour when it needn't be. If Corbyn had simply allowed a free vote it could have been framed as 'allowing MPs to represent their constituencies' and representing the 48% as well as the 52%. It might not have played well with rabid Brexiteer's, but they already don't think Labour's heart is in it.
It's just once again entrenching the idea that Remainers don't think Labour represents them and Leavers don't think they represent them either.
Last edited:
What is it people have against Corbyn? What am I missing?
Incompetence.
Just like every other politician then?
Nah, he's especially so.
I do like his politics, to an extent, think he's been dealt a difficult hand both in terms of Brexit and a lack of support in the media and in his own party (summed up by Labour's laughable coup in the name of competency fronted up by two people equally as incompetent as Corbyn), but he just simply hasn't been able to grow into the role as many (including me) hoped, and is in fact actively getting worse the more he is put under pressure.
Yeah i agree with that and ive made more or less the exact post previously.
Pure speculation but i think Corbyn is under stricter guidance from the Blairites these days. I think his first call would have been a free vote but he'll have been informed of the need to avoid Labour being seen as traitors. I was expecting more to abstain but i guess they're all scared of losing their seat.
Labour party linked to increase in anti-Semitic incidents, according to charity report
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ording/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I don't think there have been any coherent alternatives to the Government's plan advanced by any of the opposing parties or rebellious Tories. It doesn't get reported so heavily, but the SNP has looked particularly daft at times too.
In related matters, i was reading yesterday that Clive Lewis has threatened to quit if Labour's amendments do not pass. He is another name which has been linked with leadership aspirations in the past.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ording/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I don't think there have been any coherent alternatives to the Government's plan advanced by any of the opposing parties or rebellious Tories. It doesn't get reported so heavily, but the SNP has looked particularly daft at times too.
In related matters, i was reading yesterday that Clive Lewis has threatened to quit if Labour's amendments do not pass. He is another name which has been linked with leadership aspirations in the past.
> implying that the Government's plan is coherent.
In terms of what choices he had during the week of the vote, he had two choices, both of them bad. However his lack of decent choices came as a result of months of poor leadership and worse communication.
The unhappiness around A50 comes from two issues and how they relate. The first thing to acknowledge is that triggering A50 gives a huge amount of power to Theresa May. With A50 being irreversible & time fixed it means that any deal she can come up with, we have to take, basically. There’s no meaningful vote at the end, unless a choice between Theresa May’s deal and crashing out on WTO terms can be considered meaningful. With no opportunity to change our minds during or at the end of the process, voting now for A50 is giving May the proverbial blank cheque. Likewise, if May says she needs secondary legislation in order to meet the terms of the trade deal, what choice does Labour have but to support it, even if they don't like it? Force the UK out of the EU with no trade deal at all? Expect Labour to be put on the rack again and again over the next two years.
The other issue is that Labour’s position since Brexit has been so muddled and confused that they’ve failed to become the champion of soft Brexit in the minds of Remainers. That’s partly an actual lack of a position, with leading figures all contradicting each other over the last few months. But its partly about poor communication, a continual achilles heel for Corbyn. This graph from YouGov's polls a couple of weeks ago says it all. The lack of clarity means that people who were unhappy with the Brexit vote see nothing they can relate to in Labour’s position. Worse, they then see Labour hand Theresa May the votes she needs to get A50 through easily, and feel betrayed, knowing the power it gives her.
However with the right wing media portraying any questioning of the Brexit process as antidemocratic, Labour have been extremely meek in how they've challenged the Government, for fear of being tarred with that brush.
What Labour should have done in my view is fairly straightforward. Take a clear soft Brexit position based around continued membership of the single market, in the sense that the EFTA countries are members, probably using Norway as a model that the public would understand. Make membership of the single market the red line. That would honour the referendum result, but also allow other things to happen.
Firstly, they would have appealed to those people who voted Remain, who also accept the outcome of the referendum but don’t want a hard Brexit. It would also appeal to those people who voted Leave but think that leaving the customs union and single market entirely would be bad for the economy. That’s a solid group of voters. Once May came out gunning for hard Brexit, that group would only have got bigger.
The other thing is that taking a clear Leave position would have nullified many of the moans of the right wing press. As I said, triggering A50 gives May a huge amount of power. Whichever way you voted, it suits almost no-one to give May such a blank cheque. Labour should have been exerting every possible pressure to stop A50 being triggered until we know an awful lot more than we do know, including being prepared to block it. They didn’t whip for A50 because they think the process is fair and robust, they whipped because they were worried about being considered anti-democratic, nothing more.
Once voting for A50 became a binary choice between giving May a free run at Brexit or denying the outcome of the referendum altogether, they had no good choices. But that situation could have been avoided.
Last edited:
A reminder for those who think getting rid of Corbyn is the answer.
Such a pointless party.
Such a pointless party.
Last edited:
Disaproving of Israeli War Crimes ≠ Anti Semitism
After reading through all the so called claims of anti semitism I found one genuine one, by a 16yo who would go onto be a counciler in a few years. I have more questions over her qualifications for the position.
The immigration mugs are stacked in the dishwasher and Angela Eagle is ready to pop down the shops to grab the Finish Powerball Tabs the second he stands down.
As much as I've grown tired of Corbyn I do think there's a danger we're forgetting how largely useless most of the party has been in recent years. There's a reason Corbyn won, after all.
Still, there's possibly a case to be made that even a relatively shite but united Labour party would mount a reasonable challenge against May's Tories. Not that the potential inception of Labour would have any real vision, mind, but still, maybe enough support to put more pressure on an unchallenged government.
Couldn't get the article associated with the tweet but Corbyn is/was always obviously BREXIT for various old school Labour reasoning.
Perhaps, but certainly not for anything to do with immigration. He's about as pro-immigration as you can get.
Please let this imbecile be the next to challenge Corbyn. Please, please, please.
Clive Lewis resigning today is fairly grim for Corbyn considering he was seen as one of his allies. Can't see Jeremy sticking it out for much longer unless he truly, truly wants to ruin the party.
Can he arrange a Broken Skull Challenge or Ninja Warrior UK special, with the Labour leadership on the line, before he stands down? WrestleMania is just around the corner too.
Tbh I reckon total wipeout would probably be the most realistic game-show for Labour at the moment.
Let's say that Corbyn does choose to step down if there is yet another leadership bid, does McDonnell run for the left of the party in his stead? And while Lewis might suit some of the moderates, the old guard from Miliband's time aren't going to let the opportunity just pass them by.
I wouldn't be shocked if McDonnell ran, but it'd surely spell the end of the current Labour party. Corbyn's obviously a highly unpopular leader but at least comes across as a decent enough guy; McDonnell's been a lot more confrontational, and open in some of his...eh, dodgier views. Corbyn's been able to form some semblance of a shadow cabinet, even if it has evaporated into actual, literal shadows over time, but McDonnell would probably have...eh, Abbott and Corbyn, and maybe one or two more. It'd probably prompt a full-on split.
If McDonnell doesn't stand and Lewis is seen as next in line, then Lewis vs a more centrist type figure is quite possible probably.
Two of my options end with the losers getting Stone Cold Stunners though.
Politicians in a major Western country would never receive a Stone Cold Stunner, don't be ridiculous.
Clive Lewis is also seen as a potential future leader... and one school of thought is that labours future is appealing to the 48% who voted remain...it's hard to take the politics out of politics!
Ha i second that. One of the most vile big mouthed Labour MPs out there, can't stand her
I don't think the resignation itself will harm him too much. Whipping the vote will probably damage his favourability though as he'll have lost support from his base. Its a plus for Labour i think so he's fallen on his sword in a sense.
McDonnell can't get enough nominations, so it won't be him unless there's a rule change.
She told the BBC she had "a lot of misgivings about the idea of a Tory Brexit" and predicted the UK would "come to regret it", but added: "I'm a loyal member of the shadow cabinet and I'm loyal to Jeremy Corbyn."
Diane Abbot ladies and Gentlemen.
Diane Abbot ladies and Gentlemen.
Cowardly to be honest, she should have voted the way her constituency wanted. She represents them before Corbyn.
I'd love to know the inner workings behind all this. Corbyn was pressed to do the whip in my opinion by the right of the party, they knew who would be likely to resign. Actually perhaps im giving them too much credit for being forward thinking.