Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......

[Black Belt Jones]

Im so uncomfortable with the undermining of the leadership, it just doesn’t sit right . However I can’t help but think he’s been badly advised over the whole thing . How I’d do it differently I’m not sure I could list specifically but I just seems to have been all over the show from the start. We’ve had the denial of it being an issue to ok it’s an issue but not a big one to sorry yeah it’s bad. I can’t help but think an early statement about anti-semitism being unacceptable would have prevented this ridiculous drip drip .once you choose a path though the apologies look poor and I’m not even sure they’re necessary .

I think you can see the political naivety of corbyn and his people in this , It’s what my late father would have described as not knowing if they’re Arthur or Martha .

Mate it doesn't matter who is advising him - if prime Mourinho coached Cuco Martina and Tony Hibbert do they suddenly become football players? Of course not - Corbyn isn't remotely equipped for this role [he actually appears lazy, IMO] and isn't afraid to let anyone know, either, in his own passive-aggressive way. While it is sort of funny for the labour party leader to be so obviously NEA while all the Islington activists run around waving their arms in the air over the latest crise de jour, at heart it would make for a weak and easily manipulated PM.

Ideal world JC steps down a year ago and hands the reins off, mission accomplished, but there's no one to receive them AFAICT - you have a huge vacuum between the auld lefties in their 60s and much younger folk, there's a lack of credibility in the middle. John McDonnell would be a massive step up from Corbyn straight away (articulate, motivated, Machiavelian, Scouse), but he's the same generation and has had health issues [minor heart attack a few years ago].

 

[Black Belt Jones]

There was far more intolerance and abuse under Blair/Brown/Miliband than I have seen under Corbyn.

I see this as an issue of democracy, and adhering to the principles that formed the Labour Party. My belief is that the Labour Party needs to be the driving force behind seeing democracy permeate throughout society.

Part of that is mandatory reselection of candidates, and ensuring that those who feel the need to resign the Labour whip are legally obliged to stand for re-election.

Indeed, we must preserve the purity of the party. Root out the traitors who would impurify and sap our precious bodily fluids.

 

[tsubaki]

Mate it doesn't matter who is advising him - if prime Mourinho coached Cuco Martina and Tony Hibbert do they suddenly become football players? Of course not - Corbyn isn't remotely equipped for this role [he actually appears lazy, IMO] and isn't afraid to let anyone know, either, in his own passive-aggressive way. While it is sort of funny for the labour party leader to be so obviously NEA while all the Islington activists run around waving their arms in the air over the latest crise de jour, at heart it would make for a weak and easily manipulated PM.

Ideal world JC steps down a year ago and hands the reins off, mission accomplished, but there's no one to receive them AFAICT - you have a huge vacuum between the auld lefties in their 60s and much younger folk, there's a lack of credibility in the middle. John McDonnell would be a massive step up from Corbyn straight away (articulate, motivated, Machiavelian, Scouse), but he's the same generation and has had health issues [minor heart attack a few years ago].

I appreciate this is what we’ve all been repeatedly told, but there isn’t that much foundation to it. A weak, easily manipulated person would not have been able to do what Corbyn has against the opposition he has faced. The party is in a better, healthier position than it’s been for twenty years and it is in large part down to him.

He is by no means perfect, but he is far better than anyone else in the PLP (and do you think McDonnell wouldn’t face even worse opposition?).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I appreciate this is what we’ve all been repeatedly told, but there isn’t that much foundation to it. A weak, easily manipulated person would not have been able to do what Corbyn has against the opposition he has faced. The party is in a better, healthier position than it’s been for twenty years and it is in large part down to him.

He is by no means perfect, but he is far better than anyone else in the PLP (and do you think McDonnell wouldn’t face even worse opposition?).

In that time Labour won three general elections on the bounce. All it's achieved under Corbyn is not winning an election against an utterly hopeless Conservative party with a lame duck leader. I get that he's increased Labour party membership and did better than expected in the election, but do wonder if there are correlation/causation issues here. Whilst the new members can probably be attributed to Corbyn, they are nonetheless relatively small in number compared to the proportion of the electorate who vote Labour in an election. Indeed, the total membership represents around 4% of the number of Labour voters, and it's far from clear that people voted Labour because of Corbyn rather than always voting Labour, actively opposing the Tories or one of any number of reasons.

 

[Number_25]

Maybe its too early, or I am still a bit drunk, but that stinks of double standards to me.

Far from it. Mandatory reselection would afford Labour Party members the opportunity to select their parliamentary candidate. This would ensure that we put an end to the parachuting of MPs that have no affinity to the local area, and of whom are only interested in their own career prospects.

 

[Number_25]

In that time Labour won three general elections on the bounce. All it's achieved under Corbyn is not winning an election against an utterly hopeless Conservative party with a lame duck leader. I get that he's increased Labour party membership and did better than expected in the election, but do wonder if there are correlation/causation issues here. Whilst the new members can probably be attributed to Corbyn, they are nonetheless relatively small in number compared to the proportion of the electorate who vote Labour in an election. Indeed, the total membership represents around 4% of the number of Labour voters, and it's far from clear that people voted Labour because of Corbyn rather than always voting Labour, actively opposing the Tories or one of any number of reasons.

Labour were 25% behind in the polls when the general election was called. Theresa May was looking strong as leader, and the media were all too willing to write us off.

In spite of the vitriolic, personalised attacks on the leadership - Labour were able to force a hung parliament.

 

[Number_25]

Indeed, we must preserve the purity of the party. Root out the traitors who would impurify and sap our precious bodily fluids.

I have no issue with people remonstrating over party issues, having done so on a number of times throughout my time as party member - but the way that so many so called Labour Party members are so willing and able to go to the public and downright slander not only the leadership - but 800,000 party members is disgusting.

 

[roydo]

Far from it. Mandatory reselection would afford Labour Party members the opportunity to select their parliamentary candidate. This would ensure that we put an end to the parachuting of MPs that have no affinity to the local area, and of whom are only interested in their own career prospects.

I am not a fan of parachuting in candidates, but I would think the local party members have a better idea who would be a suitable candidate than the wider party. Otherwise, "The Party" would just select candidates that act like sheep.

 

[Number_25]

I am not a fan of parachuting in candidates, but I would think the local party members have a better idea who would be a suitable candidate than the wider party. Otherwise, "The Party" would just select candidates that act like sheep.

This is exactly what the CLPD has been proposing.

I remember when Kim Howells stood down, the candidate that had the popular support within the CLP was nudged aside as to allow Owen Smith (who hadn't lived in the area for over twenty years and had done nothing locally) represent us.

So, we're agreed?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Labour were 25% behind in the polls when the general election was called. Theresa May was looking strong as leader, and the media were all too willing to write us off.

In spite of the vitriolic, personalised attacks on the leadership - Labour were able to force a hung parliament.

You're a man of science. Prove that the improvement in performance at the last election was down to Corbyn.

Far from it. Mandatory reselection would afford Labour Party members the opportunity to select their parliamentary candidate. This would ensure that we put an end to the parachuting of MPs that have no affinity to the local area, and of whom are only interested in their own career prospects.

As I said in an earlier post, the Labour party members make up around 4% of the Labour electorate, yet they are a better choice of who should be a candidate than the electorate who voted them in?

 

[Number_25]

As I said in an earlier post, the Labour party members make up around 4% of the Labour electorate, yet they are a better choice of who should be a candidate than the electorate who voted them in?

For the most part, people vote Labour on the values that it stands for. I'm from an area in which class struggle still suffuses in every-day political discourse, and has been a safe Labour seat since the 1920s. Our MP is not representative of these values, and is widely unpopular - I know this from canvassing the area in 3 general elections.

Despite this, people still vote for the party in vast numbers.

However, when Leighton Andrews came up against the unapologetic socialist in Leanne Wood, we got spanked.

 

[Number_25]

I'm by no means a red-flag waving Corbynite, but prior to him the party was on its last legs - make absolutely zero mistake about it.

 

[tsubaki]

In that time Labour won three general elections on the bounce. All it's achieved under Corbyn is not winning an election against an utterly hopeless Conservative party with a lame duck leader. I get that he's increased Labour party membership and did better than expected in the election, but do wonder if there are correlation/causation issues here. Whilst the new members can probably be attributed to Corbyn, they are nonetheless relatively small in number compared to the proportion of the electorate who vote Labour in an election. Indeed, the total membership represents around 4% of the number of Labour voters, and it's far from clear that people voted Labour because of Corbyn rather than always voting Labour, actively opposing the Tories or one of any number of reasons.

For a start we should look at what Blair did to win those three elections on the bounce. He allied with the worst parts of the media, allowing a whole load of previous scandals to be buried during his time in office (including one close to all our hearts) and generating a whole load of new scandals as they were allowed to corrupt public servants and people in private business.

He signed up to an economic policy that resulted in one of the biggest financial collapses in history. He alienated many of his own voters (Corbyn's vote was higher than Blairs in 2001 and 2005) which resulted in them either not voting or flirting with the BNP and then finding a home in UKIP - which of course resulted eventually in the Brexit vote (as an aside, he was also the first PM in recent political history to promise a referendum on an aspect of our links to Europe). He actively sought to make the party financially dependent on a small number of rich donors, which not only eventually resulted in the party becoming so indebted that they were in the process of selling off their HQ but which also came closer than anything else (including Iraq) to landing him in prison.

He intervened in selections of candidates all the time, even when it was evident to everyone how misguided he was (Livingstone in London to an extent, but Rhodri Morgan definately) and he packed the PLP with people who he thought were great but who have conspicously failed almost every task they have been set since (such as preventing his removal, getting rid of Brown before the 2010 election, putting David Miliband in charge, rebuilding the party between 2010 and 2015, dealing with the behaviour they now blame Corbyn for during that time, winning the 2015 election, winning the 2015 leadership election, opposing Corbyn, getting rid of Corbyn in 2016, getting tid of Corbyn now).

As a strategy it worked fine for a short period of time but it was absolutely toxic to the long term survival of the party; thats why they shed members and voters at a rate that should have been alarming, why they lost Scotland and (most importantly for this debate) why they managed to lose control of a party they ran.

It should also be pointed out that the reason the Conservatives are utterly hopeless with a lame duck leader is because the campaign that Corbyn ran took her majority away.

 

[hullefc]

When are the state controlled BBC going to pull their new hero Frank Fields up for this remark in 1993. When is his new buddy Loise Ellman going to demand he retracts his 'anti semitic' remark?

"He attacked Lord Joseph, one of Margaret Thatcher's favourite ministers, for an ill- advised speech on birth control among the poor, calling him 'a leading member of the Jewish community applying Nazi attitudes towards the poor'. Field's courage and obduracy were both noted". Courage and obduracy were both noted. Indeed.

Frank's so concerned about attitudes towards other that Bishop Peter Selby called him the 'new Enoch Powell'.
"Labour MP Frank Field has been branded a racist and 'the new Enoch Powell' by a Church of England Bishop, because of his explosive views on asylum seekers.
Birkenhead MP Mr Field has called for tight restrictions on the number of refugees from oppression who are allowed to settle in Britain.
But Bishop Peter Selby says the Merseyside MP's views carry the same racist message as that of 60s Tory MP Enoch Powell in his infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech".

If you combine all the anti-Corbyn smears together, they actually add ... up to Frank Fields.

 

[tsubaki]

I am not a fan of parachuting in candidates, but I would think the local party members have a better idea who would be a suitable candidate than the wider party. Otherwise, "The Party" would just select candidates that act like sheep.

I agree entirely, but of course that is why we need fair and proper selection processes. Corbyn could do nothing worse than pushing the likes of Bastani, Jones and some of the hangers-on that infest Twitter on local CLPs.