Thursday 30th June 2016

[frightful_oik]

Voters are important obviously, but the real point is that Labour cannot reach out to them effectively without strength on the ground.

It cannot thrive, or maybe even survive, as a "zombie" party dependent on rich donors and favourable media coverage. Tories can (at least for the time being)

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

[howsillyofme1]

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

So it's not the 'mouth breathing activists' who are the problem now, it's all those keyboard warriors who aren't activists?

Firstly mouth breathing is your statement not mine. These are not stupid people they just have a particular world view.

Secondly I am simply pointing out that real research indicates these activists are not particularly engaged when it comes to campaigning. Therefore the implicit assumption that their loss would destroy the Labour Party on the ground in the OP is not necessarily correct.

If they are members they have to pay subs so that indicates some commitment

It also takes only a few percent to get involved to make a difference as there are so many of them

You have to remember as well that the nature of activism has changed.....my cousin joined because of Corbyn but doesn't campaign for the local MP because it is Woodcock and he despises himy

[AngryAsWell]

Heza not very keen on Johnson it would seem

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pk1]

Excuse the intrusion but on the subject of Ruth Smeeth, there's a better video of the event

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 11366.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and many twitter TL's can tell the story but here's what Kate McCann's says:

Cannot believe what has just happened at Corbyn press conference. Jewish MP walked out of Antisemitism report launch in tears. Disgrace.

Quick take of Corbyn presser. Momentum man hands out deselection leaflets warning "traitors" will be found out. Refuses to give one to MP.

He then takes down @RuthSmeeth's name. Later, I ask Corbyn if he will denounce such behaviour, he says it is unacceptable.

Then Momentum man gets Q, accuses @RuthSmeeth of colluding with Telegraph journo (me) despite Corbyn warning that Jewish/media tropes banned

After listening to Q @RuthSmeeth leaves launch of antisemitism report in tears, visibly shaken. Momentum man later refuses to apologise.

He then approaches me to have a go about "witch-hunt media", accuses me of being a "trouble-maker" and a "racist". No apology to Ruth.

I should also add, Labour staffers at antisemitism report launch were v upset by what happened and asked man to stop handing out leaflet.

The leaflet McCann refers to is on the following 3 pages:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwkWAAA4R6_.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwlWIAA0tOa.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwmWMAAsZsL.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice he tells the Indy he is unconnected with Momentum ?

Go back & check the header from his leaflet.

FWIW claiming collusion with the media is an anti-semitic canard & one that apparently gets a mention in the Chakrabarti report.

[howsillyofme1]

Hi all

I would just like to summarise my opinions here so people don't misunderstand me, especially those of us who have been differing in the view of Corbyn (Willow, AAW, PF and Lefty Iam thinking of you in particular) - hope no hard feelings but I can be snippy

New Labour was a great breath of fresh air after the Thatcher years and it accomplished much. Sadly, it was let down by a lack of courage to go further (not a big problem but always lurks there), and eventually the move to the right basically down to the hubris of Blair and, of course, the way he acted about Iraq. Not just the 'what' but the 'how'.

The cracks began to appear in that 3rd term....the schism with Brown became impossible to hide and after the change of leader the Blairite faction tried its best to undermine the PM - David 'I am just about ready to challenge' Miliband at the forefront with some of the more authoritarias such as Reid and Blunkett (I cannot dislike Blunkett too much as I have great admiration for him overcoming blindness) always hovering about and the dead hand of Mandelson

I liked Brown but he was a flawed leader....he has shown his passion and intellect so many times and I admire him

I think we also underestimate the influence of Prescott - laughed at and treated as a figure of fun but I think the 97-10 Government would not have survived without him.....even now he is the ultimate loyalist

After Brown came the real problem. David Miliband was supposed to win but the more intelligent brother won.....on a difficult mandate. From that day he was never forgiven and his attempts at taking the party back to where it would be more comfortable - the Labour of the early 90s - were undermined by a constant dripping of innuendo and bile - usually through the Blair fanboys of Rentool and Hodges. The vacuum at the beginning not to counter the lies of Osborne and the acceptance of the flawed policy of austerity were a big mistake. He never stood a chance and I am sure the right-wing of the party were delighted when he lost in 2015. The triangulation of trying to position just to the left of the Tories was the modus operandi of the right of the party - never mind the place to where it took us

Then the 2015 election and it all came home to roost - actually the whole of the Labour movement and activists on the fringes turned against the party establishment and went for the old curmudgeon Corbyn. Why, because he was the only one clearly and absolutely against austerity. Those of us who voted searched for another candidate who would say the same and were sadly disappointed. I was not happy at being, to my mind, forced to vote for Corbyn but all I could see from the rest was more of the same. I also know Corbyn would stand up against the manipulative forces that still tried to operate in the shadows. Mandelson still lurks about and some of the MPs are, to me, ultra right wingers

The scary thing is we still see the triangulation from too many Labour spokespeople - too little clarity against austerity and trying to muddy it with immigration. Reacting tot he Tories rather than calling them out for the crooks and spivs they are. Reeves, Flint, Woodcock, Streeting, Kendall and the like are not people who I respect or admire

I personally think this lack of challenge of the immigration vs austerity impact is what cost the referendum...and the number of MPs talikng about immigration suggests to me they were not challenging this in their constituencies. pandering to a false premise in my view

And now we get to now. I would have liked there to be an option that would allow the same direction of travel as Corbyn started to be maintained under a leader that is more likely to win an election. I accept he has limited appeal. He is 66 years old, probably a bit cantankerous and no doubt difficult to work with. He seems to be fairly stubborn to say the least.

The problem is there is still no candidate who can replace him in my view. The fault of this may be down to the purges during the Blair years and noone from that side of the party to be allowed to emerge...I don't know. This attempted coup is starting to get ridiculous and it is becoming more and more likely there is a guiding hand behind it all. Frenzied is the word I would use now

It has all been done with the likelihood he becomes more unlikely to go without an election...one the PLP know they will lose because they cannot put up a credible candidate

To finish though I will explain why we need to follow through with Corbyn and his direction of travel. Now is not the time for triangulation or pandering to the Tories or the right. Times are going to get hard. Already the post-industrial towns are losing hope, have nothing left to lose and have reducing participation in votes. Their old supporter, the Labour Party, seems distant and the racists are moving in

Time will tell but things are bad now and I think will only get worse in the coming years. The Labour Party need to fight toe to toe with these racists and extremists on the right. The way to do that is not to pander to xenophobic ideas but to challenge them as they were challenged in the 30s. Most people are not inherently xenophobic but it is an easy default if they are frightened. Labour needs to be more interventionist and spend money on housing, infrastructure and even move back into having a coordinated industrial policy that supports these areas - and takes it from the richer ones who have done very well over the last 40 years

Heresy you say, no I say socialism as was practiced after the war....why wait for the war to come before we actually do something? It will never happen under neoliberal apologists who are blown in the wind by the noxious fumes that come from the press and the establishment - the press needs to be overhauled as well by the way

In order to do that we may have to move further left than we feel comfortable with but the pendulum has moved far to the right and it takes a while to equilibrate

[PorFavor]

From liveblog

Shami Chakrabarti, the chair of Labour’s antisemitism inquiry, has accused the media of spinning his comments at today’s event, which have seen him accused of comparing Israel with Islamic State.

The former Liberty chair told LBC radio:

I’m sorry that there are a few things that have been spun in the media...have kind of cast a shadow over two months’ really hard, open-hearted work...

I learned something today.

I’ll take my chances in the broadcast media...if things get spun in print, whether in the old-fashioned papers or online. Trust your ears or your eyes...it’s harder to spin in broadcast than it is in words.

“I read the leader’s speech five minutes before we went into the main room...I listened very carefully to what he said.

He reflected my report.”

His point was: when you have Jewish neighbours or friends, or Muslim neighbours or friends and something bad happens in the world, don’t ask them to be the first to explain or defend or condemn.]

Yes, I believe it was his point. But he didn't put it very well. In fact, he put it in such a way that he needed an interpreter (as evidenced above).

[howsillyofme1]

Excuse the intrusion but on the subject of Ruth Smeeth, there's a better video of the event

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 11366.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and many twitter TL's can tell the story but here's what Kate McCann's says:

Cannot believe what has just happened at Corbyn press conference. Jewish MP walked out of Antisemitism report launch in tears. Disgrace.

Quick take of Corbyn presser. Momentum man hands out deselection leaflets warning "traitors" will be found out. Refuses to give one to MP.

He then takes down @RuthSmeeth's name. Later, I ask Corbyn if he will denounce such behaviour, he says it is unacceptable.

Then Momentum man gets Q, accuses @RuthSmeeth of colluding with Telegraph journo (me) despite Corbyn warning that Jewish/media tropes banned

After listening to Q @RuthSmeeth leaves launch of antisemitism report in tears, visibly shaken. Momentum man later refuses to apologise.

He then approaches me to have a go about "witch-hunt media", accuses me of being a "trouble-maker" and a "racist". No apology to Ruth.

I should also add, Labour staffers at antisemitism report launch were v upset by what happened and asked man to stop handing out leaflet.

The leaflet McCann refers to is on the following 3 pages:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwkWAAA4R6_.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwlWIAA0tOa.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwmWMAAsZsL.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice he tells the Indy he is unconnected with Momentum ?

Go back & check the header from his leaflet.

FWIW claiming collusion with the media is an anti-semitic canard & one that apparently gets a mention in the Chakrabarti report.

So Corbyn wasn't involved by the way, and the anti-semitic comment was accusing of there being collusion with the media? Correct?

Why has she so swiftly and vehemently demanded his resignation over this?

[mbc1955]

So Corbyn wasn't involved by the way, and the anti-semitic comment was accusing of their being collusion with the media? Correct?

Why has she so swiftly and vehemently demanded his resignation over this?

Do we need to ask? Everything remotely controversial around Corbyn always has been and always will be distorted to his discredit. This has been so consistently applied that we should expect it.

[howsillyofme1]

From liveblog

Shami Chakrabarti, the chair of Labour’s antisemitism inquiry, has accused the media of spinning his comments at today’s event, which have seen him accused of comparing Israel with Islamic State.

The former Liberty chair told LBC radio:

I’m sorry that there are a few things that have been spun in the media...have kind of cast a shadow over two months’ really hard, open-hearted work...

I learned something today.

I’ll take my chances in the broadcast media...if things get spun in print, whether in the old-fashioned papers or online. Trust your ears or your eyes...it’s harder to spin in broadcast than it is in words.

“I read the leader’s speech five minutes before we went into the main room...I listened very carefully to what he said.

He reflected my report.”

His point was: when you have Jewish neighbours or friends, or Muslim neighbours or friends and something bad happens in the world, don’t ask them to be the first to explain or defend or condemn.]

Yes, I believe it was his point. But he didn't put it very well. In fact, he put it in such a way that he needed an interpreter (as evidenced above).

I didn't need an interpreter.....did you?

[RogerOThornhill]

Was this really only 4 days ago?



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1345455/b ... -campaign/

[howsillyofme1]

Excuse the intrusion but on the subject of Ruth Smeeth, there's a better video of the event

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 11366.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and many twitter TL's can tell the story but here's what Kate McCann's says:

Cannot believe what has just happened at Corbyn press conference. Jewish MP walked out of Antisemitism report launch in tears. Disgrace.

Quick take of Corbyn presser. Momentum man hands out deselection leaflets warning "traitors" will be found out. Refuses to give one to MP.

He then takes down @RuthSmeeth's name. Later, I ask Corbyn if he will denounce such behaviour, he says it is unacceptable.

Then Momentum man gets Q, accuses @RuthSmeeth of colluding with Telegraph journo (me) despite Corbyn warning that Jewish/media tropes banned

After listening to Q @RuthSmeeth leaves launch of antisemitism report in tears, visibly shaken. Momentum man later refuses to apologise.

He then approaches me to have a go about "witch-hunt media", accuses me of being a "trouble-maker" and a "racist". No apology to Ruth.

I should also add, Labour staffers at antisemitism report launch were v upset by what happened and asked man to stop handing out leaflet.

The leaflet McCann refers to is on the following 3 pages:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwkWAAA4R6_.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwlWIAA0tOa.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmMoVwmWMAAsZsL.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice he tells the Indy he is unconnected with Momentum ?

Go back & check the header from his leaflet.

FWIW claiming collusion with the media is an anti-semitic canard & one that apparently gets a mention in the Chakrabarti report.

I must admit I am a bit confused....can you help me as I don't want to be accused of defending an anti-semite

The anti-semitic comment was accusing the MP of collusion with the Daily Telegraph which is anti-semitic because she is Jewish and an accusation like this about Jews is considered anti-semitic because it plays into the meme that Jews control the world?

I am not Jewish and so can't claim to be sensitive to all their concerns but I have seen racism up close - and this is very different from what I have seen

Is it more racist that what Camerona nd others have said about Muslims and their condemnation of terrorism....don't remember screams from the media for him or them to resign...

Also, I would accuse many Labour MPs of colluding with the press at the moment....or are they all making up quotes from Labour sources. Do we have to check their religion before commenting?

I have seen an accusation that Hilary Benn and Angela Eagle have been colluding with Laura Kuenssgerg - is that ok because they are not Jewish? I just hope Kuenssberg isn't

I am not trying to undermine the need to react against anti-semitism but I would have more sympathy with the reaction if it hadn't been so clearly linked with a political motive

[ephemerid]

This is beyond ridiculous.

That's all I have to say.

(

[gilsey]

Front page of the Express.

Boris: I want to be your PM
http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have to find amusement where you can in these dark days.

[yahyah]

No shocking developments this afternoon then ?

Had an interesting MBCT session.
The therapist said many people are feeling unsettled and fearful at the moment. She has been feeling some of that herself, and it isn't just her patients that have been reporting it but friends, colleagues etc. All because of the referendum, and the division it has created. She wasn't unprofessional but lets just say it was obvious she supported Remain and was not a right winger. Maybe not surprising as she is a compassionate, intelligent woman.

So not surprising that people have had sleep/anger/depression/anxiety problems. Or feel tetchy with each other here. You'd have to be non human not to be affected.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Voters are important obviously, but the real point is that Labour cannot reach out to them effectively without strength on the ground.

It cannot thrive, or maybe even survive, as a "zombie" party dependent on rich donors and favourable media coverage. Tories can (at least for the time being)

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

There is no doubt Corbyn is popular with the members and the 3 pound brigade. It is indeed entirely possible he could win, despite not fulfilling the original criteria for a candidate to get on the ballot.

There is equally no doubt he is unpopular with the electorate. The MPs are generally a self interested lot and are opposing Corbyn because they are concerned that he is going to get hammered at the election. If they thought for a minute he was in any way electable his only opposition would be the 20 odd Blairite agitators.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Front page of the Express.

Boris: I want to be your PM
http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have to find amusement where you can in these dark days.

It is ok, Express readers won't notice he has given up for a few days, and then they will blame the EU.

[howsillyofme1]

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

There is no doubt Corbyn is popular with the members and the 3 pound brigade. It is indeed entirely possible he could win, despite not fulfilling the original criteria for a candidate to get on the ballot.

There is equally no doubt he is unpopular with the electorate. The MPs are generally a self interested lot and are opposing Corbyn because they are concerned that he is going to get hammered at the election. If they thought for a minute he was in any way electable his only opposition would be the 20 odd Blairite agitators.

What criteria for getting on the ballot?

He is the incumbent leader.....do you not think if they could keep him off they wouldn't even if it would be morally unacceptable

[Willow904]

Well, I was wrong about Boris, then. Looking more into the story, it seems he was definitely set to enter the fray last night and then, suddenly at the last minute, boom he's out. "Nobbled" perchance? Gove's connections worry me, rather. There's something quite rum here.

[AngryAsWell]

Early on today, a very short time after Corbyn said the now infamous words I said it would be held against him, sure enough that is happening. With a little more care (esp considering the event) with his words this need not have happened.
He did not stand up for one of his own MP's and in fact let the abuse (hackle, call it what you will) continue, afterwards he - or his office - did not even bother to enquire if Ruth Smeeth was OK after she left the room visibly upset. Not to enquire about her well-being is wrong, just plain wrong.

This is part of the reason why people say - and I agree - that he does not have the skills to be leader.

[fedup59]

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

There is no doubt Corbyn is popular with the members and the 3 pound brigade. It is indeed entirely possible he could win, despite not fulfilling the original criteria for a candidate to get on the ballot.

There is equally no doubt he is unpopular with the electorate. The MPs are generally a self interested lot and are opposing Corbyn because they are concerned that he is going to get hammered at the election. If they thought for a minute he was in any way electable his only opposition would be the 20 odd Blairite agitators.

This is an honest question TE. What do you think the role of members in a party political system should be?

[frightful_oik]

Here is the kicker though. Most of the Corbyn supporters do not get involved in actual campaigning. This means they live in a facebook bubble and do not hear the feedback from the voters. See Chi's post earlier this week.

If MPs thought Corbyn was popular we would not be where we are today. The blue touch paper seems to have been the recent experience on the ground in their constituencies. If you look at the local election results it is clear Corbyn is far less popular than Miliband.

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

There is no doubt Corbyn is popular with the members and the 3 pound brigade. It is indeed entirely possible he could win, despite not fulfilling the original criteria for a candidate to get on the ballot.

There is equally no doubt he is unpopular with the electorate. The MPs are generally a self interested lot and are opposing Corbyn because they are concerned that he is going to get hammered at the election. If they thought for a minute he was in any way electable his only opposition would be the 20 odd Blairite agitators.

Unpopular with the electorate in the sense of being neck and neck in the polls or unpopular with the electorate in the sense that he hasn't lost an election?

[yahyah]

Well, I was wrong about Boris, then. Looking more into the story, it seems he was definitely set to enter the fray last night and then, suddenly at the last minute, boom he's out. "Nobbled" perchance? Gove's connections worry me, rather. There's something quite rum here.

Maybe Murdoch had a negative story about Johnson tucked away for just such an occasion ?

[howsillyofme1]

Early on today, a very short time after Corbyn said the now infamous words I said it would be held against him, sure enough that is happening. With a little more care (esp considering the event) with his words this need not have happened.
He did not stand up for one of his own MP's and in fact let the abuse (hackle, call it what you will) continue, afterwards he - or his office - did not even bother to enquire if Ruth Smeeth was OK after she left the room visibly upset. Not to enquire about her well-being is wrong, just plain wrong.

This is part of the reason why people say - and I agree - that he does not have the skills to be leader.

Well that has me convinced - he has to go NOW

Oh come on!

Cameron was PM for 6 years - are you telling me he was a better 'leader'?

Cameron connected a respect Imam to ISIS, made sexist comments to MPs, used bullying at PMQ with his 'gang' screaming abuse....but that is a good leader...or if he wasn't a good leader it didn't stop him becoming PM

Perhaps as well if some of his MPs defended him he would be more likely to defend them........and if they didn't lie about what he said....Labour MPs were tweeting the 'ISIS' version of his speech

[minch]

Well, I was wrong about Boris, then. Looking more into the story, it seems he was definitely set to enter the fray last night and then, suddenly at the last minute, boom he's out. "Nobbled" perchance? Gove's connections worry me, rather. There's something quite rum here.

Maybe Murdoch had a negative story about Johnson tucked away for just such an occasion ?

Just one?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Can I just point out that given just how fucked up the Tory Party is right now a poll putting the opposition on level pegging is a disaster. Labour should be 20 points up.

Secondly in real elections Labour are far less popular than under Miliband. Yes UKIP create another party - But the Lib Dems no longer exist which balances it out.

[howsillyofme1]

Early on today, a very short time after Corbyn said the now infamous words I said it would be held against him, sure enough that is happening. With a little more care (esp considering the event) with his words this need not have happened.
He did not stand up for one of his own MP's and in fact let the abuse (hackle, call it what you will) continue, afterwards he - or his office - did not even bother to enquire if Ruth Smeeth was OK after she left the room visibly upset. Not to enquire about her well-being is wrong, just plain wrong.

This is part of the reason why people say - and I agree - that he does not have the skills to be leader.

Maybe if she hadn't twisted the words of an anti-racism campaigner into a form of homeopathic antisemitism in a deliberate attempt to hurt Corbyn...

I have tried to post about this but have been cautious due to the subject

I really could not see why this led to such a reaction? Is it that sensitive subject to the Jewish people - accusations of passing info to a newspaper?

I just remember seeing on the video that someone said to her just before then 'anti-semitism at an anti-semitism conference' and then she stormed out. Did I miss something more blatant?

I am a bit worried now because if I would normally never hesitate to accuse someone of working with the media or another institution but if that person was a Jew would it get me a reputation as anti-semitic?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Re opinion polls, lets not forget their methodology is significantly more anti-Labour since the last GE (for obvious reasons)

Under the old calculations, Corbyn's Labour would probably have had a small but significant lead in quite a few surveys.

[howsillyofme1]

Can I just point out that given just how fucked up the Tory Party is right now a poll putting the opposition on level pegging is a disaster. Labour should be 20 points up.

Secondly in real elections Labour are far less popular than under Miliband. Yes UKIP create another party - But the Lib Dems no longer exist which balances it out.

You may have not have noticed that the PLP is trying to destroy the leader - viciously.

On elections well he was leader when Khan won London major, he was leader when Bristol went Labour, he defended more seats that expected after 2012 successful election, he doesn't have Scotland anymore (thanks in a large part to Jim Murphy - not a Corbyn fan), decent performance in Wales. Managed to increase votes in some by-elections

Clearly you will say the ones where we did better were despite him and the ones a bit worse were because of him....

Hasn't done brilliantly but hasn't done badly either

This is with the backdrop of the Tories winning the election only a year ago, and the consistent character assassination by the media and some of his own MPs

[howsillyofme1]

Can I just point out that given just how fucked up the Tory Party is right now a poll putting the opposition on level pegging is a disaster. Labour should be 20 points up.

Secondly in real elections Labour are far less popular than under Miliband. Yes UKIP create another party - But the Lib Dems no longer exist which balances it out.

You are starting to lose credibility I am afraid...there is no nuance or countenance that you could be wrong - are you Hugo in disguise?

[howsillyofme1]

I see Johnson is now using the old 'I don't want to split the party' canard...with a dig at Corbyn

What you mean is that you will lose badly but you know how bad it is going to get and you want young Michael to take the blame....then Big Bold Boris of Bollocks will come riding in to renew our vows with the EU and start repairing the economy

[AngryAsWell]

Early on today, a very short time after Corbyn said the now infamous words I said it would be held against him, sure enough that is happening. With a little more care (esp considering the event) with his words this need not have happened.
He did not stand up for one of his own MP's and in fact let the abuse (hackle, call it what you will) continue, afterwards he - or his office - did not even bother to enquire if Ruth Smeeth was OK after she left the room visibly upset. Not to enquire about her well-being is wrong, just plain wrong.

This is part of the reason why people say - and I agree - that he does not have the skills to be leader.

Well that has me convinced - he has to go NOW

Oh come on!

Cameron was PM for 6 years - are you telling me he was a better 'leader'?

Cameron connected a respect Imam to ISIS, made sexist comments to MPs, used bullying at PMQ with his 'gang' screaming abuse....but that is a good leader...or if he wasn't a good leader it didn't stop him becoming PM

Perhaps as well if some of his MPs defended him he would be more likely to defend them........and if they didn't lie about what he said....Labour MPs were tweeting the 'ISIS' version of his speech

Today is just one example of his incompetence. What I can not forgive him for is his lacklustre EU debacle.
"One Labour campaign source said that the head of the LabourIn campaign, Alan Johnson, asked for a meeting with Corbyn in April and was told by his team that the only available date would be July."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... 571149bb1f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yahyah]

''I voted Leave as I was sick and tired of our government being controlled by unelected foreigners''

[Willow904]

Hi all

I would just like to summarise my opinions here so people don't misunderstand me, especially those of us who have been differing in the view of Corbyn (Willow, AAW, PF and Lefty Iam thinking of you in particular) - hope no hard feelings but I can be snippy

No hard feelings at all and you put your opinion very eloquently. And that's what we're all doing here, just sharing opinions. The fundamental difference between us, I suspect, is that I was pretty happy with Labour under Ed Miliband and would have been happy with more of the same. I actually voted for Andy Burnham because SpinningHugo called him continuity Ed. I thought Labour needed continuity of policy to be able to put across a consistent message, that any substantial change would just confuse potential voters still further. I have never agreed with Corbyn's priorities. I've tried to appreciate his good qualities, but I really can't like him and his speech on Saturday in response to a major political earthquake was just so completely inadequate it was difficult to take him seriously as the leader of a major political party. I perfectly understand that if you like Corbyn and share his priorities you would stick by him, just as I stuck by Ed, but I always accepted Ed's limitations and I just share my view so you can understand better Corbyn's limitations in appealing beyond his core base.

[howsillyofme1]

Early on today, a very short time after Corbyn said the now infamous words I said it would be held against him, sure enough that is happening. With a little more care (esp considering the event) with his words this need not have happened.
He did not stand up for one of his own MP's and in fact let the abuse (hackle, call it what you will) continue, afterwards he - or his office - did not even bother to enquire if Ruth Smeeth was OK after she left the room visibly upset. Not to enquire about her well-being is wrong, just plain wrong.

This is part of the reason why people say - and I agree - that he does not have the skills to be leader.

Well that has me convinced - he has to go NOW

Oh come on!

Cameron was PM for 6 years - are you telling me he was a better 'leader'?

Cameron connected a respect Imam to ISIS, made sexist comments to MPs, used bullying at PMQ with his 'gang' screaming abuse....but that is a good leader...or if he wasn't a good leader it didn't stop him becoming PM

Perhaps as well if some of his MPs defended him he would be more likely to defend them........and if they didn't lie about what he said....Labour MPs were tweeting the 'ISIS' version of his speech

Today is just one example of his incompetence. What I can not forgive him for is his lacklustre EU debacle.
"One Labour campaign source said that the head of the LabourIn campaign, Alan Johnson, asked for a meeting with Corbyn in April and was told by his team that the only available date would be July."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... 571149bb1f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You keep changing the direction of attack.....

Yes he could have done more on the EU side but I am doubting much that I read at the moment

I didn't feel during the campaign that he was off message and it was clear his opinions matched a lot of the voters, including mine

Project Fear was a rerun of the Scottish referendum......but it was clear that wasn't working this time. I knew it was true but the voters didn't react to being worried about it. I used it on friends and families and they didn't care....it was all about immigration

I would also ask where Hilary Benn was, or Alan Johnson....hardly saw either. And the ost likely person to be PM is someone we never saw during the whole campaign

He could never win though to be fair. If Remain won it would have been plaudits to Cameron from the PLP with a grudging ok but still moaning about Corbyn. If they lost he would get all the blame...none to the devolved Governments (what was Carwyn and his team up to....how did Stephen Kinnock lose Port Talbot)....the PLP are blaming him more than Cameron, he couldn't deliver his party which was the main problem

You do not know if he did enough or didn't - there is no control and no data to back it up.

I will come back to the point I keep making - Labour MPs have been triangulating about immigration since last week.....were they doing this with their constituents as well. Who was voting for Leave in the Labour hearlands....Labour voters or the 20% who turned out but didn't at the GE 2015?

Whatever the answer the reaction of the PLP, or even giving him anything more than minor chastisement for his role, is massively overblown and suggests to me a pre-planned activity......it would have been the mayoral, by or local elections if he hadn't won them

At the end though your decision and if you blame him for the result that is your prerogative

[howsillyofme1]

Hi all

I would just like to summarise my opinions here so people don't misunderstand me, especially those of us who have been differing in the view of Corbyn (Willow, AAW, PF and Lefty Iam thinking of you in particular) - hope no hard feelings but I can be snippy

No hard feelings at all and you put your opinion very eloquently. And that's what we're all doing here, just sharing opinions. The fundamental difference between us, I suspect, is that I was pretty happy with Labour under Ed Miliband and would have been happy with more of the same. I actually voted for Andy Burnham because SpinningHugo called him continuity Ed. I thought Labour needed continuity of policy to be able to put across a consistent message, that any substantial change would just confuse potential voters still further. I have never agreed with Corbyn's priorities. I've tried to appreciate his good qualities, but I really can't like him and his speech on Saturday in response to a major political earthquake was just so completely inadequate it was difficult to take him seriously as the leader of a major political party. I perfectly understand that if you like Corbyn and share his priorities you would stick by him, just as I stuck by Ed, but I always accepted Ed's limitations and I just share my view so you can understand better Corbyn's limitations in appealing beyond his core base.

Thank you for this

[PorFavor]

@howsillyofme1

Hello!

I've been away from the computer for a while so sorry for the delay - and sorry, too, to anyone else who may have responded to anything I've posted.

I enjoy the discussions we have - that's why I come here!

[howsillyofme1]

@howsillyofme1

Hello!

I've been away from the computer for a while so sorry for the delay - and sorry, too, to anyone else who may have responded to anything I've posted.

I enjoy the discussions we have - that's why I come here!

Thanks PF....we are of the same mind on most things...and probably are not too far apart on this. Unforunately there is quite a black or white situation developing and there is no place for grey opinions

I am just on the white side of the line and you are just on the black I think (with Willow and AAW)

[PorFavor]

And, what's more, I often find myself agreeing with points made by people with whom I generally disagree (on the leadership subject, particularly). Makes one furiously to think. (Where does that come from?)

[howsillyofme1]

And, what's more, I often find myself agreeing with points made by people with whom I generally disagree (on the leadership subject, particularly). Makes one furiously to think. (Where does that come from?)

Makes life fun

I would say though that some posters lack a certain nuance to their view

I think Miliband made the most telling contribution over the last couple of days and has been ignored amongst the bile

He very eloquently explained his reasoning and was very moderate in tone. He also, most importantly to me, accepted a need to maintain the direction of travel that he started and Corbyn has continued.....if only there was someone with the charm and eloquence of Miliband and the steel and sense of purpose of Corbyn

[RogerOThornhill]

How on earth is this acceptable?



"And if you weren't born here - we don't give a toss about you"

Oh, it's a parody account.



I'd bloody ban those.

[TechnicalEphemera]

No, it's because they think he's popular and that they will lose to him that they seek to unseat him unconstitutionally. They're frit mate. He'd be even more popular if these quislings stopped stabbing him in the back.

There is no doubt Corbyn is popular with the members and the 3 pound brigade. It is indeed entirely possible he could win, despite not fulfilling the original criteria for a candidate to get on the ballot.

There is equally no doubt he is unpopular with the electorate. The MPs are generally a self interested lot and are opposing Corbyn because they are concerned that he is going to get hammered at the election. If they thought for a minute he was in any way electable his only opposition would be the 20 odd Blairite agitators.

This is an honest question TE. What do you think the role of members in a party political system should be?

An excellent question.

In theory of course the Bennite position that members should decide policy, continually hold MPs to account and be the guardians of the party to stop it deviating from the true path is correct.

In reality such an approach is an unmitigated disaster, much like communism it doesn't work in the real world.

The problem is party members are all in their way oddballs, as is everybody on this board, myself included. They tend to be very politically engaged and pay relatively little attention to the views of the general population, where they notice such things they assume people care about the same things they do (which they don't).

So if members set policy the party moves rapidly away from the consensus view (the so called middle ground). There is excellent polling evidence (well not that excellent then) that this has happened to Labour since 2015. This evidence shows Labour Policy diverging from its voters views and then re-converging a bit but around 25% less voters.

It is no coincidence that periods of time where members/activists dictate policy have correlated with periods when Labour were utterly unelectable.

If you look at what has happened to the Republican Party in America it is perhaps less contentious and easier to see. The base has become white, angry, and very right wing, the Tea Party fed off this and became the proxy for the base, resulting ultimately in Trump. This is politically toxic, because the election constituency it satisfies is too small to ever win.

In the UK if the Tory Party members set policy, our justice system would look like the village council's in Hot Fuzz.

https://youtu.be/DnqPrDN77Xg

In general normal non political people don't like this stuff, I say in general because the Hot Fuzz approach might work in the Shires. Therefore to get elected in the UK you need a carefully calibrated mapping of your party's core values to the electorate. This sort of thing is bloody hard, and is typically beyond the ordinary membership of a party.

So as I see it the role of the members is to support the party in getting elected. They also provide a core value set, and should be able to provide a brake on the leader moving too far away from the core values. Most leaders in any party get into trouble when they move too far off the reservation, similarly though they are often forced to take politically unpopular positions when facing internal elections.

So a say in electing a leader, but not to the extent they can override considerations such as electability, and a voice to be taken under advice, which while not binding should make a PLP think twice before making radical direction changes. They should also provide input into policy, policy wonks may ignore it but they need to ensure they know what their activists think.

[PorFavor]

Quick covering response to those of you who asked whether or or not I needed an interpreter for Jeremy Corbyn's comment. Answer: no.

But I'm not disposed to twist his words against him. Others are, and he was foolish not to take into acccount that fact when he allowed them the scope to do so. His words were susceptible to being turned against him - and by extension against Labour. He misses the fact that the wider world contains people other than his well-wishers. There's a "Westminster bubble" but also a "Corbyn bubble".

Edited to add -

Foolish or arrogant?

[mbc1955]

How on earth is this acceptable?



"And if you weren't born here - we don't give a toss about you"

We'll bring in laws against race hate, but, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, they won't apply to all those dirty foreigners.

[TechnicalEphemera]

How on earth is this acceptable?



"And if you weren't born here - we don't give a toss about you"

I agree. Bloody scary and stupid. Since when did fascism become mainstream.

Mrs TE hates Gove because he is a Maoist, and May because she has no empathy.

Bring back Boris.

[RogerOThornhill]

As I've just discovered it's a parody account.

[howsillyofme1]

Quick covering response to those of you who asked whether or or not I needed an interpreter for Jeremy Corbyn's comment. Answer: no.

But I'm not disposed to twist his words against him. Others are, and he was foolish not to take into acccount that fact when he allowed them the scope to do so. His words were susceptible to being turned against him - and by extension against Labour. He misses the fact that the wider world contains people other than his well-wishers. There's a "Westminster bubble" but also a "Corbyn bubble".

Edited to add -

Foolish or arrogant?

Possibly neither.....perhaps a bit naïve but not too much

No matter what Corbyn said today they would have found something.....and it wasn't just the media it was Labour MPs who were tweeting wilfully misleading representations

[Hobiejoe]

As I've just discovered it's a parody account.

And yet very much plausible....

[RogerOThornhill]

This is the real tweet



https://twitter.com/TheresaMay2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really don't think parodies like that help right now.

[tinyclanger2]

I suspect than when Michael has sex, he's told whether or not he enjoyed it.

yeah - thanks so much for that enduring visual image

[TechnicalEphemera]

Bring back Boris.

I wouldn't go that far

Sorry, I will go and get some meds.