I signed up on the party website, but heard nothing, then got an email from my union so I signed up through that as well. I'm in, but I don't know which one succeeded. Maybe both I suppose. Downside is, as Penna said, the spam, plus I uncharacteristically put down my real phone number. I hate phone calls.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Their campaigns have been the footballing equivalent of going for a 0-0 draw and hoping you win on penalties.
Not rejected but haven't got my ballot yet. I'm getting spammed by Andy Burnham emails though.
Got any examples of him chatting to Unionist paramilitaries, or Israeli hardliners?
Two groups who represent(ed) the status quo. There was no need to extend an olive branch, they owned the olive trees.
So a leader should talk to both sides, but not to the side you think have an advantage, just the other side. But both sides. But only one side.
He wasn't a leader, was he? He was a backbencher who spoke to sides who had been isolated from the political mainstream in the attempt to promote peace. I don't see what you're trying to get at.
To be honest, the whole process has been bone headed from the outset. The reality is that they should have thought about these things in advance and made a decision up front, not do it on the hop as they go along, which was bound to lead to inconsistencies.
To be fair the problem is quite difficult to solve. I saw someone on Facebook who had been a Lib Dem Councillor for a term, lost his seat in 2013, voted Green in the last election but now has successfully signed up to vote for Corbyn. Not even as a member, just as a registered supporter. Should that person have the same say as someone who has been a Labour member and voter for a long time?
There's two ways of looking at it. On the one hand, if Labour is the foremost political vehicle for anyone left of centre and beyond, then simply being left leaning is enough to qualify you to be involved, regardless of previous voting or campaigning.
On the other hand, if you've been speaking & voting against Labour for a decade, is it fair then that you have the same say in deciding the leader as those who have stuck with the party through this very tough last 7 years?
Dunno. I don't think there's a right answer here. You can't have a situation of perpetual stasis, as the same people vote for the same leaders, which attracts the same people to vote for the same leaders again, ad nauseam.
On the other hand I think there has to be some level of commitment there from the people who elect the leader. Half the people voting in this election aren't currently full members and have regularly voted against the party. That feels somehow dissatisfactory too.
Rupert Murdoch has backed Corbyn.
*cries*
*cries*
That's one way to halt his momentum
I agree that there's probably not a completely satisfactory answer but I disagree that someone who has stuck with the party deserves more of a say than anyone else who's paid their dues. In my conscious lifetime I've never seen a Labour leader or serious leadership candidate who has sincerely wanted to represent me or my community until now so I understand why a lot of people jumped ship. I don't begrudge anyone who didn't want to support the party during the New Labour years, I certainly wouldn't have been comfortable paying my membership fee to fund Blair's sofa cabinet. Welcoming back people who the party has previously lost can only be a good thing and is vital if the party is to recover the kind of membership it had in 1997.
Anyway, I don't for a second think that the 'purges' (for lack of a more neutral term) are anything to do with it being fair for people who have stuck with the part. It's a pretty clear political move from a faction within the party who doesn't want to lose it's influence.
I think the best solution all round, rather than have the supporter system, would have been to put forward a one-off reduced rate year's membership (with the requirement to opt-out in order to discontinue membership after that year). It would be cheap enough so as to encourage people to sign up and once people had paid their dues they'd be more likely to stick around and give their input regardless of whether their preferred candidate won or not.
Last edited:
Not that I particularly care either way, but isn't there a huge danger that if the Tories think Corbyn will be a liability, their supporters will all try to sign up and vote for him? Whats the process by which they vet people?
Its obviously not perfect, so they are opening themselves up to a potentially pretty large issue.
Its obviously not perfect, so they are opening themselves up to a potentially pretty large issue.
Very few would try such and the minority that would are being banned from voting (along with people who probably shouldn't be but that's another issue).
Corbyn to apologise for Iraq war on behalf of the Labour party if he becomes leader. Very good move, it will differentiate him from the other 3. He can do it with a clear conscience as he voted against the war.
Tbf, his M.O (in the UK at least) has always been to support whomever looks like winning. He's the wartime Italy of media magnates. Or Il Douche.
Last edited:
He shouldn't believe that this has gone away either. If Corbyn supposes for one minute that he's been a victim of intense media scrutiny thus far, just wait till he's elected leader.
Were a comparable figure like Farage to be embroiled in such a controversy, the "I forgot" explanation would be treated with the scepticism it deserved.
So far as the IRA goes it is Corbyn's propensity to focus the majority of criticism at Britain (whilst claiming to be impartial): if i recall his recent interview on Radio Ulster correctly, he felt the need to highlight British wrongdoing specifically but not that of others. Likewise with Russia and Crimea, where he emphasised Western provocation for Putin's actions.
Last edited:
It'll please Diane Abbott at any rate. The point of it aside from that I'm not overly sure.
Meanwhile, a good piece on facts about 2015 and what would be needed in 2020
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/08/20/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-2/
We are definitely all going to die.
The whole #LabourPurge thing seems to have been gaining a lot of traction, been trending on Twitter for most of today.
It feels like the result is going to be hugely controversial and disputed whatever happens. If Corbyn wins, lots of people within Labour will probably claim that it's illegitimate due to Tories and other non-Labour people managing to obtain memberships and voting for him. If Corbyn doesn't win, then a lot of his supporters will probably claim that the Labour party have tried to ensure he didn't by excluding certain people from joining the party.
I think the problem is that it's difficult to tell who should be regarded as legit and who shouldn't. If someone joins having campaigned for, say, the Greens, then they should arguably be excluded since they have a vested interest in another party. But at the same time, you can see why they'd be returning to Labour, and they've got a point: they've got a genuine socialist candidate who seems to adhere more to the roots of the party in its early days. Still, it's a difficult one. It'll be very messy either way.
It feels like the result is going to be hugely controversial and disputed whatever happens. If Corbyn wins, lots of people within Labour will probably claim that it's illegitimate due to Tories and other non-Labour people managing to obtain memberships and voting for him. If Corbyn doesn't win, then a lot of his supporters will probably claim that the Labour party have tried to ensure he didn't by excluding certain people from joining the party.
I think the problem is that it's difficult to tell who should be regarded as legit and who shouldn't. If someone joins having campaigned for, say, the Greens, then they should arguably be excluded since they have a vested interest in another party. But at the same time, you can see why they'd be returning to Labour, and they've got a point: they've got a genuine socialist candidate who seems to adhere more to the roots of the party in its early days. Still, it's a difficult one. It'll be very messy either way.
I joined up as a member rather than a supporter (I was a member years ago). I got my voting papers and have voted online - I've not had any vetting calls.
I've also had some emails from the local party inviting me to their meetings. All quite friendly.
I've also had some emails from the local party inviting me to their meetings. All quite friendly.
Which is very likely to bring this up again:
Oh they will be, and then one day you'll have them at your door asking for more money. Such has been my experience at any rate, albeit during two very short-lived spells of political party membership (not the Labour Party mind you).
Last edited:
Diplomacy by those who held power (actual leaders, not terrorists and backbenchers) and worked for a sustained period of time in secret and in public to reach a solution. The peace process was driven by meetings Republicans, Unionists, and the British Government. It could not have been attained by his publicity sessions with Gerry Adams and the IRA bombers because, as he is wont, he made no apparent effort to engage other sides. He still fails to condemn what the IRA did yet has always been a vocal critic of the offenses committed by the British government and Unionists. If he had held meetings or events for dialogue between the two sides, he might have contributed to the peace process. Instead, he held events for his preferred side in the conflict only.
Jeremy Corbyn 'to apologise over Iraq war' if he becomes leader, as he compares Isil attacks to America's actions
Leadership front-runner plans to issue a public apology on behalf of Labour over the Iraq War - and also suggests there should be “political compromise” with Isil
By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
20 Aug 2015
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested there should be a “political compromise” with Isil and compared their atrocities to America’s actions in Iraq.
During an interview in 2014, the Islington North MP said the Islamist extremists had “some quite appalling” things but compared their attacks to what American troops did Fallujah, an Iraqi city.
In a separate development, Mr Corbyn revealed he would issue a public apology on behalf of Labour over the Iraq War if he becomes leader - a move repeatedly resisted by Tony Blair.
"It is past time that Labour apologised to the British people for taking them into the Iraq War on the basis of deception and to the Iraqi people for the suffering we have helped cause. Under our Labour, we will make this apology,” he told the Guardian.
Commenting on Isil’s advancement across Iraq last year and how the crisis could be ended, he suggested a “political solution” was needed.
The remarks were published a week after David Cameron warned Isil was “planning to attack” Britain and suggested the group had become the biggest threat the country was facing.
It emerged as Mr Corbyn came under fresh pressure over his links to extremists and anti-Semites while a backbencher.
The Telegraph has learnt Mr Corbyn repeatedly lobbied the government to overturn a ban on an extremist preacher who suggested Jews were responsible for 9/11 from entering Britain.
There were also reports an aide to Jeremy Corbyn is a radical anti-war activist who dubbed the 7/7 bombings revenge for the Iraq war.
Mr Corbryn gave an interview to Russia Today last year discussing Isil’s advancement across Iraq and how the authorities could wrestle back control from the extremists.
He said there needed to be “acceptance and understanding” about why Iraqis in the north of the country had “apparently been prepared to accept the Isil forces”.
Mr Corbyn continued: “Yes, they are brutal. Yes, some of what they have done is quite appalling. Likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling.
“But there has to be seen to be an acceptance of a much wider view of the world than is apparent at the present time by the [Nouri] Malaki government.”
He later added: “I think there has to be a political solution. All wars have to end in some kind of political compromise. Why not start with a political compromise now rather than fuelling the war by putting more weapons, more arms and more money into the conflict.”
The comments, which were uploaded to YouTube on June 25 2014, appear to show Mr Corbyn calling for negotiations with Isil:
Just a week earlier the Prime Minister had been warning Isil wanted to launch attacks on British soil, telling Parliament the terrorist insurgence in Iraq could "come back and hit us at home".
John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former political adviser, criticised Mr Corbyn’s comments, telling Channel 4: “Wars are horrible, wars should be avoided. But the United States and IS are not the same.”
In a separate development, it has emerged Mr Corbyn repeatedly pressurised the government over its decision to ban a hate preacher from entering Britain
The Labour leadership frontrunner repeatedly questioned cabinet ministers about why Raed Salah had been barred from entering the country and subsequently arrested in 2011.
Mr Corbyn made a total of five interventions in the House of Commons in Mr Salah’s defence at the time – despite another MP warning he had a “history of virulent anti-Semitism”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Iraq-and-calls-for-political-compromise.html
Leadership front-runner plans to issue a public apology on behalf of Labour over the Iraq War - and also suggests there should be “political compromise” with Isil
By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
20 Aug 2015
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested there should be a “political compromise” with Isil and compared their atrocities to America’s actions in Iraq.
During an interview in 2014, the Islington North MP said the Islamist extremists had “some quite appalling” things but compared their attacks to what American troops did Fallujah, an Iraqi city.
In a separate development, Mr Corbyn revealed he would issue a public apology on behalf of Labour over the Iraq War if he becomes leader - a move repeatedly resisted by Tony Blair.
"It is past time that Labour apologised to the British people for taking them into the Iraq War on the basis of deception and to the Iraqi people for the suffering we have helped cause. Under our Labour, we will make this apology,” he told the Guardian.
Commenting on Isil’s advancement across Iraq last year and how the crisis could be ended, he suggested a “political solution” was needed.
The remarks were published a week after David Cameron warned Isil was “planning to attack” Britain and suggested the group had become the biggest threat the country was facing.
It emerged as Mr Corbyn came under fresh pressure over his links to extremists and anti-Semites while a backbencher.
The Telegraph has learnt Mr Corbyn repeatedly lobbied the government to overturn a ban on an extremist preacher who suggested Jews were responsible for 9/11 from entering Britain.
There were also reports an aide to Jeremy Corbyn is a radical anti-war activist who dubbed the 7/7 bombings revenge for the Iraq war.
Mr Corbryn gave an interview to Russia Today last year discussing Isil’s advancement across Iraq and how the authorities could wrestle back control from the extremists.
He said there needed to be “acceptance and understanding” about why Iraqis in the north of the country had “apparently been prepared to accept the Isil forces”.
Mr Corbyn continued: “Yes, they are brutal. Yes, some of what they have done is quite appalling. Likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling.
“But there has to be seen to be an acceptance of a much wider view of the world than is apparent at the present time by the [Nouri] Malaki government.”
He later added: “I think there has to be a political solution. All wars have to end in some kind of political compromise. Why not start with a political compromise now rather than fuelling the war by putting more weapons, more arms and more money into the conflict.”
The comments, which were uploaded to YouTube on June 25 2014, appear to show Mr Corbyn calling for negotiations with Isil:
Just a week earlier the Prime Minister had been warning Isil wanted to launch attacks on British soil, telling Parliament the terrorist insurgence in Iraq could "come back and hit us at home".
John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former political adviser, criticised Mr Corbyn’s comments, telling Channel 4: “Wars are horrible, wars should be avoided. But the United States and IS are not the same.”
In a separate development, it has emerged Mr Corbyn repeatedly pressurised the government over its decision to ban a hate preacher from entering Britain
The Labour leadership frontrunner repeatedly questioned cabinet ministers about why Raed Salah had been barred from entering the country and subsequently arrested in 2011.
Mr Corbyn made a total of five interventions in the House of Commons in Mr Salah’s defence at the time – despite another MP warning he had a “history of virulent anti-Semitism”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Iraq-and-calls-for-political-compromise.html
Last edited:
Anyone should be able to vote who would actually vote for that candidate in a general election: life long Labour supporters or people who weren't before but would be if what they are voting for came to pass. That's the only thing that should really matter, but obviously it's impossible to enforce, and even if you could, voters shouldn't be held to it as they would have the right to change their mind, for example if they didn't like a stance the new leader took.
Basically it's going to be a mess either way. It's ridiculous Labour have allowed themselves to get into this position.
Basically it's going to be a mess either way. It's ridiculous Labour have allowed themselves to get into this position.
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the #ToriesForCorbyn. I had a look at this hashtag briefly and there were a few Tory supporters signing up to vote for Corbyn. No idea how many have actually done this but it's problematic should there be a decent amount of people who have done so.
This has to be the most blatantly obvious smear campaign I can recall (for a long time at least), I hope it's not effective.
On another note, the Labour party are an utter shambles -- this purge is a complete joke.
On another note, the Labour party are an utter shambles -- this purge is a complete joke.
Exactly. This has given Labour cover to exclude voters, when in all probability the problem is actually quite small, compared to the number of people who would vote for Corbyn in a general election. Though that is a hunch, I have no way of knowing if that's actually true.
Apparently Yvette Cooper's biggest donation has come from an ex-Tory. Oh dear.
I have still not had my ballot - have I been purged?
Which of these "smears" in particular do you believe to of little interest to the electorate?
You and me both.
He's not a rousing speaker is he.
I don't believe them to be of little interest to the electorate, I question the propagandistic nature in which they are conveyed by Britain's press establishment. The charges of anti-Semitism have no basis in reality, yet are spun in such a way as to smear by juxtaposition and false association.The narrative is one of condemnation, yet what is being condemned? People other than Corbyn, mostly -- some of whom Corbyn has met for a few minutes once in his entire lifetime. Yet it is Corbyn's name which is associated in the press with the condemnation of people with whom Corbyn is in actuality not associated.
It's a very common propaganda/advertising technique. Why do companies withdraw sponsorships from various people who encounter controversial personal problems? Because they fully comprehend the effect of negative/positive association.
Hopefully just typical incompetence in sending them out then
Not really, no. He's at best a slightly above average speaker. Which is a vast improvement on Ed!
He's being far too conciliatory about Isis tbh. I don't necessarily disagree with him that diplomacy is a better option than bombing but saying "some" of what they've done is appalling doesn't sit right with even myself. It's not surprising he's using language markedly different from the clichéd posturing of Westminster I suppose. definitely think he could tone it down without compromising his principles.
I get why his comments about IS aren't popular but they're not as wild as they're being spun. You have to take these comments in the wider context of the last 30 years in the Middle East. Military solutions have consistently proven ineffective, the invasion of Iraq created the conditions in which IS have risen in the same way that arming the Mudjahadeen led to the rise of the Taliban and 9/11 and arming Saddam Hussein led to ethnic cleansing of the Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait.
We shouldn't get into this mindset that IS is a homogeneous entity, much of its 'membership' consists of opportunistic rebel groups who've tacked onto IS in order to pursue their own agendas and, like the Taliban 10 years ago, many of its footsoldiers will be motivated by economic factors as much as by ideology. Whilst it may go against our natural, 'kill 'em all' response, attempting some sort of diplomatic solution isn't a ridiculous idea. Whilst he's often portrayed as an idealist, on this issue Corbyn actually has a far more pragmatic approach that do his detractors to the right.
We shouldn't get into this mindset that IS is a homogeneous entity, much of its 'membership' consists of opportunistic rebel groups who've tacked onto IS in order to pursue their own agendas and, like the Taliban 10 years ago, many of its footsoldiers will be motivated by economic factors as much as by ideology. Whilst it may go against our natural, 'kill 'em all' response, attempting some sort of diplomatic solution isn't a ridiculous idea. Whilst he's often portrayed as an idealist, on this issue Corbyn actually has a far more pragmatic approach that do his detractors to the right.
Cameron seems to have woken up to Corbyn.Saying that he could undermine Britains security.
He has dug the holes for himself.
Perhaps the hard left haven't realised that most of the country don't spend their evenings whipping themselves over Britains imperial past. A great deal of people in England are patriotic and Corbyn's rehetoric on these matters is going to go down like a ton of bricks with a very lot of people.
Of course the opposition will jump on it. It isn't smear if he says stupid things. His comments on ISIS are a particular horror show against the backdrop of the hostage execution images that have saturated our media in recent times.
If it is true that he has shared platforms with extremists in the past the best you can say about him is that he is naive, which is probably the case, but who elects a naive man to run a G7 nation? He lost his temper with an interviewer on the matter the other day and denied the event ever happened. Only for his team to confirm it shortly after.
The spotlight is being shone on him for the first time and he already looks way out of his depth.