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

Fecks knows how this shakes out. If I had to bet, Tom Watson's in charge within a few days.
 
Lucy Powell has resigned as shadow education secretary.
 
Kerry McCarthy, the shadow environment secretary, has also resigned.
 
They can all resign for all i care. The only ones that matter are the Labour members.If they vote for a change then that's the only voice i'll listen to.
 
Theory - Burnham sees this as his chance to win the leadership. Get some Brownie points off Corbyn supporters by refusing to take part, "reluctantly" step in afterwards to "heal the party".
 
Ubik said:
Theory - Burnham sees this as his chance to win the leadership. Get some Brownie points off Corbyn supporters by refusing to take part, "reluctantly" step in afterwards to "heal the party".
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think he reckons this one is not going to succeed and doesn't want to be associated with it myself.
 
Shamwow said:
Maybe. I think he reckons this one is not going to succeed and doesn't want to be associated with it myself.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. Decent odds he'd be right about that as well.

Seema Malhotra now gone as well. Surprised by Kerry McCarthy.
 
I think it's the right thing to do. He's failed disastrously since being elected, and we're about to enter one of the most important years in the country's modern history. There's nothing we've seen since his election that suggests Corbyn is capable of using his position to improve the lives of those Labour is supposed to protect.
 
Are Momentum as powerful as they were six months ago? Would they be able to block a challenge?
 


Chuka Umunna is showing the problem with how this is being done in one tweet.

If the anti-Corbyn MPs want to get rid of Corbyn because they don't think he's going to lead them to victory, then they should make sure that that side of their politics up to scratch too in relation to winning over their own membership. This kind of statement is not going to win over the Corbyn supporters in the membership to his side of the argument, because with the known sequence of events it's clear that Corbyn had no choice and has been forced into this move. Therefore such a statement looks like an opportunistic snipe at the man.

They are making a gamble with the Labour party on the level of what Cameron did with the EU and this country. If another leadership election happens with Corbyn in the running and he wins then the party will be irreparably damaged. I say this as a Corbyn supporter.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Are Momentum as powerful as they were six months ago? Would they be able to block a challenge?
Click to expand...
Untested at this point. They could certainly mobilise a lot of people very quickly that refuse to see any fault with Corbyn, but it seems clear to me that enthusiasm is waning greatly. It's a truism but everything depends on the makeup Labour selectorate by election time, and the alternative candidate(s). Who would Corbyn waverers consider, and who would they be implacably be opposed to?
 
Ubik said:
Theory - Burnham sees this as his chance to win the leadership. Get some Brownie points off Corbyn supporters by refusing to take part, "reluctantly" step in afterwards to "heal the party".
Click to expand...
He was planning on running for Mayor of Greater Manchester too anyway so even if he doesn't get leadership he probably sees this as best way to appeal himself to voters for when he goes for Mayor. Most of the constituencies in Greater Manchester voted for Leave though but he should still get it.
 
Sweet Square said:
Another one gone - Seema Malhotra


Good read but they(PLP)can't really think that's going to work. Close to political suicide, especially considering they've already admitted there no who could replace Corbyn.
Click to expand...

They are just saying that to attempt to make it seem like their candidate isn't too heavily associated with the coup.
 
Seems we've a got fight on our hands - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/labour-mutineers-betraying-national-interest

Those Labour MPs plunging their party into an unwanted crisis are betraying not only the party itself but also our national interest at one of the most critical moments any of us can recall.

The Tories are reaping what they have sown and are going to be consumed with divisions for the rest of the year and beyond.

The other EU states are pushing for the British government to give effect toThursday’s vote to leave as rapidly as possible. Great decisions need to be made by a government that is effectively paralysed.

Surely Labour’s priorities are first of all to ensure that Brexit is not at the expense of working people, that employment rights are secured and jobs protected. We need to fight might and main against those Conservatives who see Brexit as a mandate to introduce a free-market utopia at the expense of working people. We also have a responsibility to speak out against racism and offer reassurance and support to people of all races and nations living in Britain today.

And we need a clear Labour perspective for life outside the EU in the years ahead, looking to the opportunities as well as the very real threats, including the opportunity for a more interventionist state acting to prevent jobs losses, acting to use public investment to shape the economy of the future and prevent jobs losses, like those looming over Tata Steel.

Instead, Hilary Benn and others have decided this is the moment to let the Tories off the hook, turn Labour inwards and try to set aside the overwhelming result of a party leadership election held less than 10 months ago.

It seems clear that this coup would have been launched irrespective of the referendum result. Anyone who thinks remain would have won the vote if Jeremy Corbyn had told traditional Labour areas that all was well with the EU and with globalisation is living in a dream world. It is easier to do that from an oligarch’s yacht or a bank boardroom than it is in our de-industrialised cities and towns.

In fact, Corbyn was honest and straightforward about a complex question. There is no more sense in blaming him than there is in blaming Margaret Hodge for the fact that her constituency was one of the very few in London to vote to leave the EU.

And while I would agree that Labour needs a very different message concerning the free movement of labour, criticising Corbyn for this comes ill from those who have always argued that Tony Blair’s open door policy was a progressive one.

Unite has been warning about working-class alienation from politics all this century. There was the plummeting turnout in 2001 general election, the further Labour core vote losses in 2005 and 2010, followed by the growth of Ukip. How many canaries did this coalmine need?

Corbyn is a brave and principled man, better placed to address this crisis in Labour’s heartlands than any of his critics. Of course he needs to broaden his message so Labour can reach out with a radical message of change for all working people, including those “left behind”. But does anyone belief that refried “new Labour” will work better?

I would like to see all Labour MPs playing a full and constructive part in this urgent work of communication. However, if people want to resign, so be it. Labour has plenty of talent to bring forward, women and men committed to the sort of alternative the party voted for last year. The truth is that some of those trumpeting their resignations owe their stature to being in the shadow cabinet, not the other way around.

A new leadership election is divisive and unnecessary. But if enough MPs want one, then bring it on. I am sure that Corbyn will secure a fresh mandate. But let me make two things clear.

First, if anyone is undemocratic enough to think that there can be a new leadership election with the existing leader kept off the ballot, then they are setting the Labour party on course for a split.

And second, Unite has hitherto opposed any plans to change the party rules governing mandatory re-selection of Labour MPs. That, too, we have looked on as a divisive distraction.

But those MPs who have missed no opportunity to tweet and brief against the party’s elected leader over the last 10 months will find that their disloyalty finds no favour with party members and will make this an increasingly difficult line to hold.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:


Chuka Umunna is showing the problem with how this is being done in one tweet.

If the anti-Corbyn MPs want to get rid of Corbyn because they don't think he's going to lead them to victory, then they should make sure that that side of their politics up to scratch too in relation to winning over their own membership. This kind of statement is not going to win over the Corbyn supporters in the membership to his side of the argument, because with the known sequence of events it's clear that Corbyn had no choice and has been forced into this move. Therefore such a statement looks like an opportunistic snipe at the man.

They are making a gamble with the Labour party on the level of what Cameron did with the EU and this country. If another leadership election happens with Corbyn in the running and he wins then the party will be irreparably damaged. I say this as a Corbyn supporter.
Click to expand...


Chukka can do one. Benn showed his true colours with the Syria vote.
 
Shamwow said:
They are just saying that to attempt to make it seem like their candidate isn't too heavily associated with the coup.
Click to expand...
But it's going to be pretty oblivious when they put the candidate up, unless their pushing someone who's one for the ''future'' but that has it's own problems. Not that it's really matter as, if Corbyn not on the list the whole party fecked.
 
Sweet Square said:
But it's going to be pretty oblivious when they put the candidate up, unless their pushing someone who's one for the ''future'' but that has it's own problems. Not that it's really matter as, if Corbyn not on the list the whole party fecked.
Click to expand...
It's an odd situation - it's completely undeniable at this point that Corbyn has no control over the party he leads in parliament. For any other major political party leader in history that is an unsustainable position to be in. It brought Thatcher down. It brought Blair down. It would've brought Brown down if it had got to that stage, but they managed to nip it in the bud (it looks like Corbyn tried to do this with Benn but failed, because Brown at least had a wide support base and highly competent aides).

I'd agree that if Corbyn is blocked from the ballot, it's not good, and I say that as someone who thinks he's an utter disaster. I think the strategy is instead to get him to resign due to his position being untenable.

EDIT - This from Zoe Williams makes me think he really can't survive - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...my-corbyn-labour-remain-election?CMP=soc_3156 - one of the few in the press that would defend him at all times.
 
If they force a leadership contest, Corybn would win again. Unions have already come out and backed him. These Labour MPs are playing a very stupid game.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I don't think that is the plan.
Click to expand...

Either way the MPs are basically screwing themselves over, because if they're depriving the membership of voting for Corbyn, they'll go elsewhere.

The Lib Dems and Greens probably licking their lips at the moment.

Heck if the SNP put forward candidates in England I'd vote for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.