The Politics Thread

[Captain...]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Oh come on, you are getting worse than the fanboys and nuthuggers here, the bloke totally sold out his principles on the EU referendum, the biggest "outer" in politics and he just decided to claim he was for remain and then drift into the background, as Alf said he was jumping to trigger article 50 the next day, he could barely contain his excitement.

 

Integrity? This is a man who has taken jobs from Iranian state TV, funded by a regime that executes people based on sexuality and wants to wipe every Jew off the planet, he's swanned around the World in 5 star hotels taken from the pockets of the poorest people in South America. He's shared platforms with holocaust deniers, if this in integrity then we have a different definition of the word.

 

Sorry, I can't even take this seriously anymore.

These are not  my opinions on him, these are what people who are voting for him say they are voting for,  and  the likes of Eagles and Smith still don't get it, sneaking around and trying to force him to resign and force  leadership contests are just going to further entrench his supporters. They need to offer a  candidate that can appeal to Corbynistas whilst offering more in terms  of policy.

 

Personally I am very disappointed in how he has performed and in particular his absence from the EU debate.

 

Attacking him because he shared a platform with people to try and find some sort of resolution to the conflict in the middle east and other such claims are disingenuous and have been covered more than once on here and trying to imply he is a holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and hates gays is exactly the politics his election is a reaction to.

 

Attack him for being a shit politician, for being unable to raise his approval levels while the Tories implode, for being absent in the EU campaign, for being unable to control his party (although I don't think he had much of a chance there) for not providing adequate opposition, but as soon as you start with the mud slinging it just undermines any valid point you make.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

This is what I don't understand, Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party by it's members because of what he stands for, if he represents the majority of the Labour members why are the other MPs trying to undermine him at every opportunity? All they are doing is pissing off the majority of the Labour party members. They are so blinded by the fact that Corbyn is wrong and they are right they are failing to see that Labour voters don't want the same New Labour politicians we have had for decades now. Unelectable Ed was a clear example of that. So what can they do?

 

This is my thought too. And why I keep saying if the MPs are not happy they should form or join a new party.

 

Your members want JC.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Captain... said:

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Because the MPs represent their constituents not just Labour party members. You're asking them to support not only what they don't believe in but what'll get them unelected too.

That's blatantly not true. I'd love a political setup where the MP represents his constituents not just his party - in effect every member is an independant - but even you don't think that the tory mps represent their constituents rather than follow the party line - you also now about whips (not those you and singhy use).

 

 

1 hour ago, IrememberBobHazell said:

If Mr Corbyn is re-elected it truly could go nuclear. You can't have a party where you have only 1/5th behind the leader in Parliament, they will either call an uneasy truce or it will be mass defections.

 What also concerns me is the zeal and borderline intimidation that appeals to be associated with this leadership battle. Also what concerns me is Mr Corbyn doesn't play by the rules, the norms of political behaviour do not apply to him and I don't like rogue elements near positions of power. 

 I'm a Tory in a warts and all sense. I want a Conservative government, I want them to be running the country and local councils BUT I know full well they need a decent opposition to keep them honest and neither Mr Corbyn or his challenger can provide that. Even Mr Corbyn lite is promising a $200 billion infrastructure development fund which defies credibility. As my good lady said (and she is by no means true blue)," Do we all get a free unicorn too?"

The rules!!! Ridiculous comment - that's a  problem with the uK system. And being a warts and all Tory you had the greatest rogue element in Thatcher but I'm sure you liked her near positions of power.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Captain... said:

These are not  my opinions on him, these are what people who are voting for him say they are voting for,  and  the likes of Eagles and Smith still don't get it, sneaking around and trying to force him to resign and force  leadership contests are just going to further entrench his supporters. They need to offer a  candidate that can appeal to Corbynistas whilst offering more in terms  of policy.

 

Personally I am very disappointed in how he has performed and in particular his absence from the EU debate.

 

Attacking him because he shared a platform with people to try and find some sort of resolution to the conflict in the middle east and other such claims are disingenuous and have been covered more than once on here and trying to imply he is a holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and hates gays is exactly the politics his election is a reaction to.

 

Attack him for being a shit politician, for being unable to raise his approval levels while the Tories implode, for being absent in the EU campaign, for being unable to control his party (although I don't think he had much of a chance there) for not providing adequate opposition, but as soon as you start with the mud slinging it just undermines any valid point you make.

I think people should be held to account, if you share platforms with holocaust deniers you'll get the quetions you deserve for doing so, of course we've had hundreds of anti-semetic incidents within Labour since his arrival but that might just be a huge coincedence. Some sort of resolution to the conflict in the middle east? I don't think he has actually offered up any solution has he? The rallies he attends aren't some drive for peace, they are usually just pro-Palestine events.

 

6 minutes ago, FIF said:

That's blatantly not true. I'd love a political setup where the MP represents his constituents not just his party - in effect every member is an independant - but even you don't think that the tory mps represent their constituents rather than follow the party line - you also now about whips (not those you and singhy use).

 

 

The rules!!! Ridiculous comment - that's a  problem with the uK system. And being a warts and all Tory you had the greatest rogue element in Thatcher but I'm sure you liked her near positions of power.

Have the last six months just flown over your head?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Have the last six months just flown over your head?

 

You mean how nearly every time Tory MPs tow the line and vote for the party line.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Honestly the only people who will vote for Owen Smith is because they're staunchly anybody but Corbyn, not because of him as a candidate which is a huge problem. It's almost like the centrist revolt actually wants to lose convincingly. I'd be surprised if May doesn't pull the trigger on a general election early , there's no way she can really work with the manifesto with us leaving the EU and she's literally got no tangible opponent.

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, Captain... said:

 

This is what I don't understand, Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party by it's members because of what he stands for, if he represents the majority of the Labour members why are the other MPs trying to undermine him at every opportunity?

 

 

Corbyn won the leadership with 251,000 votes. To win a general election, Labour would need more than 10 million votes. So, for every vote he won as leader, he'd need about 40 votes to win power.

 

Unlike party members, who may never see anyone outside their own social circles, MPs regularly speak to a wide variety of constituents, so they tend to have a good understanding of what is and isn't of importance to constituents. In many cases, their job even depends on it - campaign on the wrong issues and they lose their seats. Dedicated activists who speak to a lot of constituents may have a similar level of understanding....but people who just vote in a leadership election don't.

 

Labour Party members and supporters now disproportionately come from the top socioeconomic groups (75%), are graduates (57%) and come from London & the South (47%).....whereas the people they are mainly meant to represent - and the voters they need to win over or not lose are almost the polar opposite: less well-off, lower prospects, living mainly in the Midlands and North. How much contact do these Corbynistas have with people in northern towns struggling to get by on low pay or zero-hours contracts, maybe grumbling about immigration and the EU? I've seen footage of pro-Corbyn rallies in London, Brighton & Bristol, but not in Rotherham, Nuneaton or Bury. It might do some of these "principled" Corbynistas some good to hop on a train and spend a few days canvassing on estates in Nuneaton, Bury or Rotherham, explaining how "decent" Corbyn is, and how his priorities are free immigration, no nukes and gender pay equality.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/middle-class-university-graduates-will-decide-future-labour-party

 

Of course, if winning power and changing people's life chances is of no interest, then none of this matters. There's no need for compromise, then, is there? I share many of the ideals of the Corbynistas. It's just that I'd prefer my political representatives to compromise to the extent required in order to gain power and implement at least some of the changes and improvements that I'd like to see. I reckon that's infinitely better than sticking rigidly to all your ideal policies and never getting to implement any of them, because you never win enough support to exercise any power.....because the 251,000 love you but you never get close to the 10m+ votes required to gain power.

 

If you're a narcissist, none of that matters: you can feel good about yourself in the knowledge that you never compromised your ideals....even as millions of people in a more vulnerable position suffer the consequences of the Tory government you effectively helped into power. If you're highly educated, from a higher social class and live in the South, you're much less likely to suffer the consequences anyway.

 

I think that Corbyn has some good policies on austerity, public spending, investment, house-building, skills and tax avoidance. But you never hear much about them, because he's such a rubbish communicator about anything other than his own virtue or the vaguest of principles ("decency", "fairness", "equality"). As for his appeals for loyalty and his supposed "principles".... This is a man who has spent decades fighting the leadership of his party and now he's calling for loyalty to the leader?!? This is a man who stresses that the views of party members should take precedence over those of MPs....and yet stands up opposing the replacement of Trident in blatant breach of the policy passed by the party membership last year! As it happens, I tend to agree with him on the issue, but he's a stinking hypocrite who argues against party policy whenever it suits him, but calls for other to be loyal to him and his mandate regardless. I see that under the "new, kinder politics", Angela Eagle has been advised by police not to hold any more open-access surgeries after a man was arrested for threatening to kill her. Not sanctioned by Corbyn, obviously, but there are some pretty abusive, hostile Corbynist memes pinging about Facebook, setting the mood.

 

A "decent" man leading a movement of idealists? No. I'm old enough to have encountered many of these hard left types in action in the 80s (the type leading Momentum): there's nothing decent, democratic or "newer, kinder politics" about them. Many of them are brutal power-grabbers with no respect for the opinions of others. I don't suppose they account for more than about 10% of the Corbynista movement (though they're clearly playing a leadership role). The other 90% are these Facebook/Twitter narcissists who seem to fill the world these days....feeling good about themselves because they've joined all the others demanding perfect idealism via social media and protest meeting....never mind who actually ends up in power. The party should send each of them a mirror so that they can sit at home admiring themselves, chanting "I'm so decent! I'm so pure!"...then all the Corbynistas could meet together at rallies, chanting "We're so decent! We're so pure!" as the Tories rack up large majorities and rip up the lives of those who most need the help of the Labour Party.

[Guest MattP]

You have to admire the way the Corbynista's are getting around the legalities of this...

 

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

You have to admire the way the Corbynista's are getting around the legalities of this...

 

 

I wonder if this "direct socialism" is still available now that there are no votes to be bought? If so, I might ask for £25. I'm feeling a bit skint. 

 

#anewkindofpolitics

[Rincewind]

did  you see where labour (?) MP James  Reed praised May for attacking Corbyn over Trident? Has he forgotten which party he is in?  He is my  sister's MP and he still has not responded to a letter from six years ago. Another example of a self serving career politician. How can you choose between candidates if there is little difference?

 

 

[Captain...]

11 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Corbyn won the leadership with 251,000 votes. To win a general election, Labour would need more than 10 million votes. So, for every vote he won as leader, he'd need about 40 votes to win power.

 

Unlike party members, who may never see anyone outside their own social circles, MPs regularly speak to a wide variety of constituents, so they tend to have a good understanding of what is and isn't of importance to constituents. In many cases, their job even depends on it - campaign on the wrong issues and they lose their seats. Dedicated activists who speak to a lot of constituents may have a similar level of understanding....but people who just vote in a leadership election don't.

 

Labour Party members and supporters now disproportionately come from the top socioeconomic groups (75%), are graduates (57%) and come from London & the South (47%).....whereas the people they are mainly meant to represent - and the voters they need to win over or not lose are almost the polar opposite: less well-off, lower prospects, living mainly in the Midlands and North. How much contact do these Corbynistas have with people in northern towns struggling to get by on low pay or zero-hours contracts, maybe grumbling about immigration and the EU? I've seen footage of pro-Corbyn rallies in London, Brighton & Bristol, but not in Rotherham, Nuneaton or Bury. It might do some of these "principled" Corbynistas some good to hop on a train and spend a few days canvassing on estates in Nuneaton, Bury or Rotherham, explaining how "decent" Corbyn is, and how his priorities are free immigration, no nukes and gender pay equality.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/middle-class-university-graduates-will-decide-future-labour-party

 

Of course, if winning power and changing people's life chances is of no interest, then none of this matters. There's no need for compromise, then, is there? I share many of the ideals of the Corbynistas. It's just that I'd prefer my political representatives to compromise to the extent required in order to gain power and implement at least some of the changes and improvements that I'd like to see. I reckon that's infinitely better than sticking rigidly to all your ideal policies and never getting to implement any of them, because you never win enough support to exercise any power.....because the 251,000 love you but you never get close to the 10m+ votes required to gain power.

 

If you're a narcissist, none of that matters: you can feel good about yourself in the knowledge that you never compromised your ideals....even as millions of people in a more vulnerable position suffer the consequences of the Tory government you effectively helped into power. If you're highly educated, from a higher social class and live in the South, you're much less likely to suffer the consequences anyway.

 

I think that Corbyn has some good policies on austerity, public spending, investment, house-building, skills and tax avoidance. But you never hear much about them, because he's such a rubbish communicator about anything other than his own virtue or the vaguest of principles ("decency", "fairness", "equality"). As for his appeals for loyalty and his supposed "principles".... This is a man who has spent decades fighting the leadership of his party and now he's calling for loyalty to the leader?!? This is a man who stresses that the views of party members should take precedence over those of MPs....and yet stands up opposing the replacement of Trident in blatant breach of the policy passed by the party membership last year! As it happens, I tend to agree with him on the issue, but he's a stinking hypocrite who argues against party policy whenever it suits him, but calls for other to be loyal to him and his mandate regardless. I see that under the "new, kinder politics", Angela Eagle has been advised by police not to hold any more open-access surgeries after a man was arrested for threatening to kill her. Not sanctioned by Corbyn, obviously, but there are some pretty abusive, hostile Corbynist memes pinging about Facebook, setting the mood.

 

A "decent" man leading a movement of idealists? No. I'm old enough to have encountered many of these hard left types in action in the 80s (the type leading Momentum): there's nothing decent, democratic or "newer, kinder politics" about them. Many of them are brutal power-grabbers with no respect for the opinions of others. I don't suppose they account for more than about 10% of the Corbynista movement (though they're clearly playing a leadership role). The other 90% are these Facebook/Twitter narcissists who seem to fill the world these days....feeling good about themselves because they've joined all the others demanding perfect idealism via social media and protest meeting....never mind who actually ends up in power. The party should send each of them a mirror so that they can sit at home admiring themselves, chanting "I'm so decent! I'm so pure!"...then all the Corbynistas could meet together at rallies, chanting "We're so decent! We're so pure!" as the Tories rack up large majorities and rip up the lives of those who most need the help of the Labour Party.

An excellent deconstruction of what is wrong with Corbyn. The issue as I see it is that whilst JC doesn't have enough support to win a general election he still has a huge amount of support and in the unlikely event of a successful coup by Smith he will lose a huge chunk of support within the party and the electorate. Effectively labour are making themselves unelectable by this in fighting. Whilst I can't disagree with any of your criticisms of Corbyn I don't feel like he has had a chance to lead the party and having every step he's taken undermined by his own party. I would like to have seen him have a couple of years leading the party his way with their full support and if he had been unable to improve his popularity ratings then you can have a leadership campaign. If he is going to fail you have to let him fail on his terms and expose him as unelectable to his supporters. Then put up a candidate that appeals to Corbynistas, they have still failed to take on board what makes Corbyn so popular.

[Rincewind]

agreed Captain. I think what makes Corbyn popular is mainly being ignored and what makes him unpopular is being focussed on. The Tories would not mind a Blairite winning. Makes putting through their policies easier with no-body to challenge them.

 

On a lighter note this seems a good idea. (where is the link icon?)

 

http://newsthump.com/2016/07/21/labour-plan-annual-leadership-crisis-after-wildly-successful-25-vote-sale/

 

 

[Darkon84]

My word, @Alf Bentley that's one hell of an incredible post! Bravo, Sir, bravo.

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

did  you see where labour (?) MP James  Reed praised May for attacking Corbyn over Trident? Has he forgotten which party he is in?  He is my  sister's MP and he still has not responded to a letter from six years ago. Another example of a self serving career politician. How can you choose between candidates if there is little difference?

 

 

It's Labour party policy to renew Trident.  I don't see how James Reed MP has forgotten which party he is in.  He's backing party policy.  Or does he now become a closet Tory because he backs a Labour party policy that overlaps with the Tories?

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Rincewind said:

did  you see where labour (?) MP James  Reed praised May for attacking Corbyn over Trident? Has he forgotten which party he is in?  He is my  sister's MP and he still has not responded to a letter from six years ago. Another example of a self serving career politician. How can you choose between candidates if there is little difference?

 

 

How is Jamis Reed in the wrong here? He was simply thanking the Prime Minister for making the case for Trident, something all polictical parties except the SNP and the Greens support.

 

The leader of the Labour party stood up in a national debate and decided to put his own opinion across the despatch box rather than the official position of the party. Even you can't try and defend Corbyn on that one.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

agreed Captain. I think what makes Corbyn popular is mainly being ignored and what makes him unpopular is being focussed on. The Tories would not mind a Blairite winning. Makes putting through their policies easier with no-body to challenge them.

 

 

Come on Ken at least think about what you post before typing it out.

 

The last time Labour went "Blarite" they won three elections and the Tories spent 13 years on the sidelines not being able to put through a single policy, I can promise you that no Tory member or supporter "didn't mind" that.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

An excellent deconstruction of what is wrong with Corbyn. The issue as I see it is that whilst JC doesn't have enough support to win a general election he still has a huge amount of support and in the unlikely event of a successful coup by Smith he will lose a huge chunk of support within the party and the electorate. Effectively labour are making themselves unelectable by this in fighting. Whilst I can't disagree with any of your criticisms of Corbyn I don't feel like he has had a chance to lead the party and having every step he's taken undermined by his own party. I would like to have seen him have a couple of years leading the party his way with their full support and if he had been unable to improve his popularity ratings then you can have a leadership campaign. If he is going to fail you have to let him fail on his terms and expose him as unelectable to his supporters. Then put up a candidate that appeals to Corbynistas, they have still failed to take on board what makes Corbyn so popular.

They really aren't, we were told this years ago and when they got rid of the hard left mob in the early 90's and within 5 years they were winning landslides across all four corners of England, Wales and Scotland.

 

The only thing making them unelectable is attaching themselves to a sect of people who the vast majority find politcally abhorrent, Alf said you need 10million+ votes to win an election, with the upcoming gerrymandering and with Scotland gone Labour will probably need 12,500,000 votes and in every day that passes under this lot the number of previously centre ground swing voters become staunch Tories and the tradtional working class vote who are even mroe repulsed by the "right on, liberal London based metroplitican middle class" politics than Tories are quite probably are transferring their votes to UKIP.

 

Would you see the Conservatives as electable if they were took over by Farage and his hardline UKIP sect from five years ago? Of course you wouldn't, this is exactly the same but in reverse.

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

They really aren't, we were told this years ago and when they got rid of the hard left mob in the early 90's and within 5 years they were winning landslides across all four corners of England, Wales and Scotland.

 

The only thing making them unelectable is attaching themselves to a sect of people who the vast majority find politcally abhorrent, Alf said you need 10million+ votes to win an election, with the upcoming gerrymandering and with Scotland gone Labour will probably need 12,500,000 votes and in every day that passes under this lot the number of previously centre ground swing voters become staunch Tories and the tradtional working class vote who are even mroe repulsed by the "right on, liberal London based metroplitican middle class" politics than Tories are quite probably are transferring their votes to UKIP.

 

Would you see the Conservatives as electable if they were took over by Farage and his hardline UKIP sect from five years ago? Of course you wouldn't, this is exactly the same but in reverse.

 

Possibly true, but Corbyn has a lot of support which the Labour party will lose if the oust him with this political coup, for Labour to get the 10/12 million to win the next general election they need to unite the Corbynistas and the Blairites and the rest and stop splitting the party all  they are doing is alienating the voters that would support Corbyn and disenfranchising the moderates that now see both sides as an absolute mess. If they did pull off this coup, which seems unlikely, they could turn it around by the next election, but if they fail then what? Another leadership contest in 12 months after another year of infighting and squabbling? Or abandon the Labour party causing a host of by-elections that could eat into Labours position as opposition?

 

Whatever you think of Corbyn he hasn't been allowed to fail fairly, he has been hamstrung from the start by his own party and his supporters will not see his failings until  he is given a fair chance to fail.

 

With the your UKIP question we didn't have to see that because the Tories wouldn't let that happen, Cameron played a political blinder in offering the referendum. He appeased the Eurosceptic elements of the Conservative party and the electorate and won himself another term in office, unfortunately it spectacularly backfired on him. This is what the labour party should have done, as support for Corbyn grew they should have offered something to get that support on side, such as a place for Corbyn in the Shadow Cabinet or supported him as Deputy Leader, not hand him the keys to the party, but they were too slow in realising where his support was and how big it was. It appears to have backfired.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

Possibly true, but Corbyn has a lot of support which the Labour party will lose if the oust him with this political coup, for Labour to get the 10/12 million to win the next general election they need to unite the Corbynistas and the Blairites and the rest and stop splitting the party all  they are doing is alienating the voters that would support Corbyn and disenfranchising the moderates that now see both sides as an absolute mess. If they did pull off this coup, which seems unlikely, they could turn it around by the next election, but if they fail then what? Another leadership contest in 12 months after another year of infighting and squabbling? Or abandon the Labour party causing a host of by-elections that could eat into Labours position as opposition?

 

Whatever you think of Corbyn he hasn't been allowed to fail fairly, he has been hamstrung from the start by his own party and his supporters will not see his failings until  he is given a fair chance to fail.

 

With the your UKIP question we didn't have to see that because the Tories wouldn't let that happen, Cameron played a political blinder in offering the referendum. He appeased the Eurosceptic elements of the Conservative party and the electorate and won himself another term in office, unfortunately it spectacularly backfired on him. This is what the labour party should have done, as support for Corbyn grew they should have offered something to get that support on side, such as a place for Corbyn in the Shadow Cabinet or supported him as Deputy Leader, not hand him the keys to the party, but they were too slow in realising where his support was and how big it was. It appears to have backfired.

 

How are you going to unite the Blairites and the Corbynistas? They believe in completely different politics, Corbynistas won't vote for Blairite policy and vice versa, It would be as silly as me trying to unite the Conservative and Green vote, one side has to go and they have to make that decision as a party soon.

 

His supporters treat him like a religious leader, this is a cult, there won't be a time where he has a fair chance to fail, if he loses they'll blame Red Tories, Blairites, The Daily Mail, the BBC etc - you only have to look now at the level of delusion they have where they defend him putting his own views on Trident across instead of the parties in a national debate and the fact most of them think he did a good job in the EU campaign, he's already proven to be the worst political leader of a major party we've ever seen and his supporters think he's doing such a good job they are prepared to pay £25 to see him carry on, he's even managed to lose the Daily Mirror, something I doubt anyone else could have done

 

I've seen some descriptions of Cameron's decision to hold a referendum in the last few months but "a political blinder" is certainly a first.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

 

How are you going to unite the Blairites and the Corbynistas? They believe in completely different politics, Corbynistas won't vote for Blairite policy and vice versa, It would be as silly as me trying to unite the Conservative and Green vote, one side has to go and they have to make that decision as a party soon.

 

His supporters treat him like a religious leader, this is a cult, there won't be a time where he has a fair chance to fail, if he loses they'll blame Red Tories, Blairites, The Daily Mail, the BBC etc - you only have to look now at the level of delusion they have where they defend him putting his own views on Trident across instead of the parties in a national debate and the fact most of them think he did a good job in the EU campaign, he's already proven to be the worst political leader of a major party we've ever seen and his supporters think he's doing such a good job they are prepared to pay £25 to see him carry on, he's even managed to lose the Daily Mirror, something I doubt anyone else could have done

 

I've seen some descriptions of Cameron's decision to hold a referendum in the last few months but "a political blinder" is certainly a first.

That decision prevented any in fighting in the conservative party between the pro EU and Eurosceptic members as well as pulling the rug from under UKIP, that one decision swung the election as they put out a united front. At the time it was an astute move and he just didn't think he could possibly lose the referendum.

 

If the Blairites and Corbynistas can't be united then they shouldn't be in the same party.

 

Do you think it will get to the point where MPs will start quitting the party? How many do you think would leave?

[Guest MattP]

46 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That decision prevented any in fighting in the conservative party between the pro EU and Eurosceptic members as well as pulling the rug from under UKIP, that one decision swung the election as they put out a united front. At the time it was an astute move and he just didn't think he could possibly lose the referendum.

 

If the Blairites and Corbynistas can't be united then they shouldn't be in the same party.

 

Do you think it will get to the point where MPs will start quitting the party? How many do you think would leave?

I still think the thought of an Lab-SNP coalition won the election for the Conservatives but we'll agree to disagree.

 

If it gets desperate and any chance of removing him is forlorn then all of them should go, they'll probably face deselection anyway if they stay, last count 180 odd said they had no confidence in him and he's managed to lose a few more resignations since then, this wouldn't be an SDP style departure, they'll be in a srong position, they'll immediately become the opposition and be able to have six questions at May every week, they'll be able to have the access to the broadcast networks that the opposition gets.

 

They can then send Jeremy and his 20 odd remaining alllies to the backbenches where they belong.

 

[Finnegan]

Alf, that post deserves some kind of award.

[Raw Dykes]

15 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

(post)

Spot on. *applause*

[Guest MattP]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/77559/conor-mcginn-i-can-no-longer-tolerate-jeremy

 

In a statement sent to PoliticsHome, Labour MP Conor McGinn accuses Jeremy Corbyn of trying to "bully him into submission"

Quote

I have known Jeremy for over ten years and before becoming the MP for St Helens North I worked closely with him as a Labour activist in his constituency.

When Jeremy was elected leader of the Labour Party last September, I agreed to serve on his frontbench as a Whip out of respect for his mandate, a sense of duty to the party and loyalty to the warm personal relationship we had always enjoyed.

In May, during an interview with The House Magazine, I outlined my views on a range of issues, including the need for Labour to reengage with our working class base. I mentioned Jeremy in this interview only once, when I respectfully suggested that he had a challenge to reach out beyond his comfort zone and his own constituency to traditional Labour voters across the country.

I was on a Parliamentary delegation to Washington DC when this interview was published. Several news outlets picked up on my remarks and focussed on what I said about Jeremy.

I was informed during a telephone call from the Whips Office that Jeremy, on seeing these news reports, had initially asked for my resignation and then considered sacking me, but subsequently reconsidered and through his media spokesperson he wanted me to apologise and retract my comments. I refused to do this. I did, however, text Jeremy to make clear that there was no offence intended in what I said, and reiterated that our friendship was important to me and that I was proud of the campaigning we had done together. I asked to meet him on my return to Parliament.

The following week, on my return, I again asked to meet Jeremy. I received no response. I was then informed by colleagues in the Whips Office of something that I have not made public until now, frankly because I find it shocking and embarrassing, and almost unbelievable.

It transpired that Jeremy, in deliberations about how to respond to my interview, had said that he intended to ring my father to discuss it with him and ask him to speak to me about it. The Leader of the Labour Party was proposing to address an issue with one of his own MPs by ringing his Dad. Jeremy does not know my father so I can only presume that because of the much-publicised fact that my father was a Sinn Féin councillor, Jeremy felt that they would share a political affinity and was proposing to use that to ask my father to apply pressure on me. Thankfully, others dissuaded Jeremy from taking this course of action. The call was not made, and it would not have been well received.

In the last fortnight, Jeremy's supporters have subjected me and other Labour MPs to a torrent of abuse and threats. In my constituency, a group of people gained access to my shared office building under false pretences and filmed themselves protesting outside the door of my office, in an incident that has been reported to the police. They threatened to disrupt my surgeries and events I was attending, requiring me to have a police presence at those last weekend.

Last week, a Twitter account using the name Frank Ryan posted a privately-taken picture of Jeremy and his legal team adding "with JC and the core team". The same account subsequently posted late on Saturday night that I was a "traitor" and no longer welcome in my home village of Camlough, county Armagh. To date, I have not had any answer from Jeremy about his relationship with this person or an explanation about how s/he obtained the photograph.

When I watched Jeremy's interview on Newsnight last night, I am afraid I could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy of him talking about a kinder, gentler politics when I knew for a fact that he had proposed using my family against me in an attempt to bully me in to submission because he didn't like something I said. That is why I have reluctantly and sadly chosen to make this information public now.