Obsessing isn't a proper noun.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Obsessing isn't a proper noun.
Dead right. Doesn't even have a cunning plan.
Tony Robinson there. Fresh from his last input to British politics, marching alongside and then cheering Anna Soubry and Vince Cable to the stage at the 'People's Vote' march. No idea what their voting record on the NHS is, but I can't imagine Tony would be seen dead with people who'd voted to sell it off.
So being seen with Hamas, members of the IRA and antisemites is fine, but share a platform with Vince Cable and you're scum.
Didn't you do this with the antisemtiism march? Suggest everyone taking part was discredited because some Tory MP's also took part?
I can't keep up with the rules in this game of selective guilt by association.
Didn't you do this with the antisemtiism march? Suggest everyone taking part was discredited because some Tory MP's also took part?
I can't keep up with the rules in this game of selective guilt by association.
It's all a cunning blairite plan
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/n...ime-minister-tony-blair-a-picture-id829946198
Oooooooh Jeremy Corbyn etc etc
She's channeling her inner corbynHow pissed does she look? Jesus
Not sure Corbyn supporters should be engaging in 'guilty be association' name calling given how much time they spend absolving Corbyn for appearing alongside people.
Guilt by association is all the rage now, right? Gets you days of BBC News content and everything. Tony's clearly deeply held passion for preserving the NHS led him to berating those two voters of the Health & Social Care Act during his spee...
Only joking, he posed for a selfie with them. Still managed to find time to join in with the songs about Corbyn, I'm sure.
So ridiculous. Insist it's a 'smear' to question who Corbyn associates with then suggest Tony fecking Robinson is somehow tarred because he's previously found himself on the same side as democratically elected British MPs.
Electing to pay tribute to those who've killed British citiizens is one thing, but finding common ground with a Liberal Democrat on something is clearly completely beyond the pale.
Electing to pay tribute to those who've killed British citiizens is one thing, but finding common ground with a Liberal Democrat on something is clearly completely beyond the pale.
I should be fair to Tony, maybe he was just taking a day off from giving a shit about the NHS and it just so happened to coincide with him marching alongside two people who voted for the reforms that are currently help in fecking it. If the march had been the day before he'd have absolutely torn them to shreds over the issue.
Or how about we just have some consistency eh?
Acting like it's all fine and dandy when Corbyn appears with some complete fecking knob head is one thing, but that's your position then. It's incredibly hypocritical to then decide you do care who someone associates with when it's convenient and to try and dismiss criticism because of who the critic associates with.
That's what I am doing, this thread has been what, 4 straight days of Corbyn photos and videos demonstrating what definitely he believes. Suddenly asking the same for other people is beyond the pale.
As for the second paragraph switch it around and it seems to be exactly what you're doing now.
Also, I should have clarified, they didn't just vote for the Health & Social Care Act, they voted for it to pass before the government published the Risk Register on it. That's how dedicated to preserving that piece of legislation they were. You could write a pretty substantial essay on the mental gymnastics required to (a few years later) demand a second referendum because the public didn't know all the facts, but I'm way beyond writing a dissertation for University.
Last edited:
Let's iron out the rules
Guilt by association
Guilt by association
No guilt by association
Once you understand the rules it's quite straightforward, really.
Hmm, or were you trying to dismiss criticism of Corbyn by pointing towards Robinson's involvement with the People's March?
But you're right, I don't actually give the slightest shit about what Tony Robinson thinks about Brexit.
Hey, though, guess what? His point was incredibly obvious and I made the same one yesterday, in a post in this very thread, a full day before he did:
As I, to the best of my knowledge, have never met Vince Cable perhaps we can discuss how tanking our economy is going to help the NHS because I said it?
I'd probably focus on getting rid of people more than willing to feck the NHS, the most vulnerable people in our society and public services long before the referendum was a glint in Cameron's eye as far away from any whiff of power as possible ASAP. Other people, like Tony and Oscie, view the best way of helping the NHS and the other things I listed as cuddling up to those same people and presumably keeping your fingers crossed that they don't immediately go back to voting like they managed during the previous 8-9 years the day after they make Brexit disappear.
But yeah, people who vote for Corbyn we're the cult, people who are more than willing to gloss over years worth of actual life changing (and indeed ending) votes, because the same person thinks Brexit is shit, they're fine. We need more of the latter, so the glory days where the economy and services were only ever purposely fecked by honest British politicians can return.
But yeah, people who vote for Corbyn we're the cult, people who are more than willing to gloss over years worth of actual life changing (and indeed ending) votes, because the same person thinks Brexit is shit, they're fine. We need more of the latter, so the glory days where the economy and services were only ever purposely fecked by honest British politicians can return.
If you're of the view that Brexit is going to be economically disastrous for the UK, then right now from that perspective there isn't a party who isn't willing to feck the NHS, considering an economic downturn in the UK would indirectly affect public services which rely on government money.
The Lib Dems. They're currently led by Vince Cable who loves the NHS, Tony Robinson told me so.
But we didn't get rid of them, and the latter is simply criticising people for taking one of two incredibly shitty options for the NHS, the vulnerable, public services or housing, or anything else.
Given that Corbyn's supposed to be an advocate for the membership setting the party's policy, given that the membership is overwhelmingly pro-Remain, and given that there is now no polling to support the idea that adopting a pro-Remain stance would hurt the party (and, on the contrary some to suggest that it would significantly benefit it), then why on earth are we only being given those two shitty choices?
Why can't we have a Labour party who wants to do what we agree the Labour party should be doing without having to support a party that supports a policy that (even if you're not going to admit it) I feel like deep down you know is going to feck over the people you want the party to help.
I'm no fan of the Lib Dems who're hardly bastions of protecting it themselves. I don't see how it relates to my comment above.
They're the party who are looking to protect the NHS, I was pointing that out in response to you saying there isn't a party who isn't willing to feck it.
The latter is the definition of insanity, according to that quote supposedly by Einstein. It isn't just Soubry and Cable, it spreads to their preferred choice for Labour leader.
I mean there are those polls, that used to be shared in here a lot, showing the Lib Dems and Greens being a minimum of 30 points behind both of the 'incredibly shitty options' so I'm not sure where the idea that there is no polling supporting a pro-Remain stance hurting the party comes from. At the very least, you'd expect that gap to be a bit smaller if Brexit stance was such a vote winner. Even with a bloke who couldn't be arsed to turn up for a vote on the issue in charge of one of them.
Last edited:
That's entirely irrelevant as you well know. We're talking about why the Labour party is supporting a policy directly antithetical to its supposed main goal. We can discuss how the Lib Dems are an incredibly shitty option themselves, or how the Green Party have less than 10% the budget for campaigning than Labour and are hamstrung by FPTP, but I don't really see the current relevance. If Labour were polling lower than the Lib Dems or the Greens then that would be Manchester United levels of chucking away cash for feck all return.
Unless these "voters" are currently voting for/backing absolutely nobody, in which case Brexit stance can't be that important to them, how isn't the party poll relevant? Not even talking to the point of having the Lib Dems as one of the top two, but the gap between the Lib Dems and them is over 3 times their own entire poll score.
Fair enough if you think Labour should go 'feck it, let's have a second vote' but I don't see where these voters are going to come from. Also, where do the Labour voters who back Leave go in this scenario and does that not affect the party's election chances?
If we're talking polling alone, Corbyn should've probably been gone long before the 2017 election.
Polls aren't static. Things change, sometimes surprisingly. A couple of months into 2010, I imagine most people would've found it laughable to suggest that Clegg's Lib Dems would within a couple of years be polling figures not dissimilar to the ones that got them reduced to a handful of MP's in 2015. Similarly suggestions that Labour would be reduced to a sole seat in Scotland in 2015 would've been absurd at some point.
The nature of FPTP and the need for the left to have a solid option they can rally around means Labour are probably fairly safe in their current position for now, especially considering how generally limp the Lib Dems are on just about everything, but I feel like it's incredibly complacent to point at current polling figures and indicate as to how that means everything is all fine and well.
If a hard Brexit/no deal Brexit is implemented, then you can expect Remain-leaning figures (and no doubt even some opportunistic Brexiteers) to use it as a stick to beat Corbyn with for refusing to stand against something likely to damage the very services and institutions he's promised to protect and improve. Whether that'll work or not remains to be seen (he's been more endurable than anyone expected him to be so far) but it's sort of remarkable to see some Labour supporters constantly lamenting the Lib Dems' current polling as a way to discredit them when they've spent a considerable period of Corbyn's tenure defending his own (before the election) abject figures.
It's not about discrediting the Lib Dems, they did that themselves by learning nothing from the coalition years and naming Cable as leader, it's the idea of a change in Brexit stance being the political 'sure thing'. There has been an election and 2 years since the referendum and the party that pretty much exists solely to be anti-Brexit has gone absolutely nowhere. When you're claiming there are a potentially majority securing number of votes out there to be gained simply by coming out against Brexit, you'd expect them to be with that party, surely?
It can't be simultaneously a move that will win over millions of people and such a political afterthought that people aren't willing to publicly back the one party who have already done it.
It can't be simultaneously a move that will win over millions of people and such a political afterthought that people aren't willing to publicly back the one party who have already done it.
Because of the reasons you mentioned. As a party they fecked over a significant number of people willing to vote for them, and were duly punished as a result. The inherent nature of FPTP means they've declined to a point where if you're not a Tory there really isn't a reason to vote for them in most areas, and they tend to be fairly limp and meek anyway which hardly helps to reverse their decline.
I'm not completely convinced coming out against Brexit is naturally advantageous for Labour in every respect, but I'm increasingly convinced it's not as damaging as people would say it is either, especially as the stupidity of the process becomes more and more apparent. And I do think that any action against Brexit isn't being helped by the fact the main opposition party is essentially tacitly backing it, albeit meekly enough to ensure they don't lose their base. And simply saying the majority believe something isn't exactly a good defence of a certain stance if you're aware that stance is daft. If there was a referendum tomorrow on whether or not to implement further austerity in Britain, Labour would rightfully be slaughtered if they chose not to fight against a vote which indicated the approval of the general public. As a left-wing party they'd naturally be expected to stand up for public services and highlighting the damaging impact of cuts. Indeed Corbyn's willingness to do that to a greater degree than previous Labour leaders is partially why his supporters continued to argue he should remain as leader even when it was clear by every metric that he wasn't doing well, and that he wasn't particularly electable.
Brexit is arguably a bit like that - Corbyn can argue all he wants about how to improve the NHS and other crucial services which have been damaged by Tory rule, but a lot of his current rhetoric is ultimately overshadowed by a process he publicly supports which will almost certainly damage the very things he intends to protect. There's probably some political capital in his current position, but I struggle to see how that cynical stance differs from, say, Blair deciding to drag the party to the centre on the basis that the party had been continually losing elections.
As much as I think Labour's position should be "This is evidently a complete fecking mess nobody voted for, at least we need a second referendum" - I do think it's problematic if the party dramatically changes policy just because what's voted on at conference.
I've always believed that policy should be set by the Parliamentary party leadership with consideration to wishes of the party at large. It'd be nice if the two were always in marriage but that's never always going to be the case and at the end of the day the leadership isn't there to be merely a passive mouthpiece/conduit for the wishes and whims of the membership. It's there to put forward a vision for the government of the country and should be considering the whole country whilst doing so not necessarily the tiny, tiny portion of the population who are signed and paid-up members of their own party.
I think it'd also make any leadership look incredible to express one policy for 2 years and suddenly because of a motion at a conference announce they've now got a new policy. Democracy is great but that's just dopey. Also not sure it's a great look for a potential PM in waiting to be seen being told so blatantly what to think. I know it's "democratic", but it looks bad and kowtowing to pressure isn't likely to be one of the qualities people look for in a leader.
It's not just Corbyn it's the whole front bench. As much as I want the party to back a second referendum going from: "It'd cause civil unrest" to "Actually, I now like the idea" on the basis that a motion at conference has passed, might be the right thing to do but it isn't a good look.
I've always believed that policy should be set by the Parliamentary party leadership with consideration to wishes of the party at large. It'd be nice if the two were always in marriage but that's never always going to be the case and at the end of the day the leadership isn't there to be merely a passive mouthpiece/conduit for the wishes and whims of the membership. It's there to put forward a vision for the government of the country and should be considering the whole country whilst doing so not necessarily the tiny, tiny portion of the population who are signed and paid-up members of their own party.
I think it'd also make any leadership look incredible to express one policy for 2 years and suddenly because of a motion at a conference announce they've now got a new policy. Democracy is great but that's just dopey. Also not sure it's a great look for a potential PM in waiting to be seen being told so blatantly what to think. I know it's "democratic", but it looks bad and kowtowing to pressure isn't likely to be one of the qualities people look for in a leader.
It's not just Corbyn it's the whole front bench. As much as I want the party to back a second referendum going from: "It'd cause civil unrest" to "Actually, I now like the idea" on the basis that a motion at conference has passed, might be the right thing to do but it isn't a good look.
...that said I'm not even sure the intention is to get the party to change its policy overnight as everyone knows how problematic and weak that'd make the leadership look. It's likely a move by the moderates/right of the party designed to exploit the chasm between Corbyn's support and Corbyn himself as part of a longer term aim to destabilise and ultimately remove him.
If this sneaky, manipulative, underhand duplicity is the case then that's perfectly okay with me.
If this sneaky, manipulative, underhand duplicity is the case then that's perfectly okay with me.
I don't like the idea. The PLP is supposed to represent their constituents - the country. The membership should be a group of people who broadly share the same aims and and are willing to contribute financially to that. Have a say but I dislike the idea of the membership setting policy as I know there'll be times when leadership necessarily has to diverge from the opinion of the party because the position of the membership on a future issue might be so out of line with what the right thing to do is that a Labour opposition/govt would be right to completely ignore.
Setting up a membership to think that the leadership has an obligation to dance to their tune is highly problematic.
He has pressure from a significant number of MP's and even momentum for a 2nd vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45316697
Will be interesting to see how it plays out at conference
That said I think the government will limp through the brexit process... I also suspect they will ensure we can't just rejoin in the transition period so yeah whatever I think we are leaving and there won't be a 2nd vote
Thanks, for that. You saved me typing out a similarly lengthy post ha.
The only thing I'd add however, is that whether you think leaving the European Union could be a good thing from a left-wing point of view or not – and I take the point that some will make regarding the EU as a neo-liberal enterprise – it is demonstrably clear that opposing this Brexit is clearly the right thing to do at the minute for a left wing party, regardless of their long term commitment to the project. The damage from a Tory led feeding frenzy on the country's institutions and standards should not be allowed to happen.
Which kind of makes the whole debate a bit academic in my mind. If people will defend Corbyn's unpopular policies, like trident for example (which would be an incredibly tough sell to many traditional Labour voters particularly in the NE), as essentially the right thing to do in spite of the public's attitudes one way or another I cannot understand why that shouldn't extend to what is a far more important issue.
Last edited:
Labour not being a pro-European, pro-immigration, pro-freedom of movement party is such a shame. The irony of the accusations that the party lurched to the right in the late 90s/2000s when it advocated all of those things contrasted with the suggestion it's now returning to it's socialist routes by mirroring UKIP on each of those issues. I don't blame Corbyn necessarily for all of that, Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs were an absolute disgrace too. Was that Brown or Milliband? For some reason after Blair left the party saw its purpose to apologise for everything it ever did. Apologise for investing, apologise for being pro-immigrant. It's nuts.
Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.
Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.
Milliband:
It's been said in here a few times, but it's a shame how much Labour's electoral strategy neutered Milliband. Since stepping down as leader he's come across as funny, interesting, and full of ideas; a far cry from the weirdo with the stone tablet we saw when he was in charge.
I like him but he was ill-suited to be leader. Intelligent policy wonk/ideas guy but I'm not sure that the strategy neutered Milliband or whether people just didn't warm to him as a leader. What the public are comfortable with in a backbench MP is different to what they're comfortable with as a PM in waiting. It happens to a lot of politicians once they stop being in the front line, make a few TV appearances, turn up on Strictly Come Dancing and everyone thinks "Actually he's quite alright him".
if only he could have eaten a bacon sandwich properly we probably wouldnt be in the brexit mess we are today
I think he was a victim of the received wisdom of the time which was that UK politics was increasingly importing the US focus on 'personalities' and media savvy which meant that the ideal leader was a slick, generic charisma vacuum who could regurgitate a soundbite, deliver a pre-preparred one-liner and generally look like a leader.
Miliband was never one of those things, and rather than playing to his strengths they tried to ill fittingly force him to become what he was not. It might not have won an election, but it wouldn't have taken a much better showing to hoover up the Lib Dem vote and at least force a hung Parliament again.
You see, I don't get this, your average UKIP/Brexit supporter is far more in common with your average Labour supporter. English, white, hard working, working class.
Where as your average remain leaning Tory voter is more likely to be a middle class, well educated, professional.
The first group thinks the immigrants are stealing their jobs, the second group realise that they couldn't do their jobs without immigrants.
The problem is though that even during the Blair/Brown years, Labour would talk tough on immigration in spite of the fact that they had no intention of addressing the issues facing those who disagreed with it. In other words, they didn't really combat hostility to immigration and let anti-immigrant attitudes fester, creating an environment where it was simultaneously normal to want numbers reduced, but where it also was also normal for the politicians in power to do absolutely nothing to address an issue they talked tough on. Cameron then did the same but took it a step further with his tens of thousands target - the problem, again, was that he had absolutely no intention following up his promises because he knew we couldn't while we remained within the EU. Politicians on all sides haven't really combated anti-immigration views because until Brexit they believed they could essentially talk a good game without having to do anything.