I think the point is that Labour are not campaigning for No Brexit.
Their manifesto says this quite clearly.
I have a grudging respect for Corbyn on this.
My point was that Brexit and it’s mess is of more importance than who is in power. Taking 5 weeks out of the time remaining to muck around with the seating plan at Westminster is of lesser importance than ensuring business can still operate after March 29. Let the Tories take the fall for their internecine feuding and ensure that anyone who supported the unfolding drama is held responsible for it (JRM, Brexit Bulldog and Bojo I’m looking at you).
Those in Solihull & West Mids who voted out are just starting to get an idea of how ‘project fear’ wasn’t anything but a warning of the fallout to come.
It is and an election is a waste of time as it will solve nothing as there is no parliamentary majority for brexit. An election and some key anti brexit independents with the right political alignment would make that a certainty,
So it's a bluff at most.
The real options unfold after the vote on the deal, people need to just try and keep some calm until then, try reciting your local teams first XI, you don't want you Archie Gemmill scoring against Holland in 1978 moment coming too soon.
Gosh - Jezza HAS been busy !!!
Don't be ridiculous, Corbyn wouldn't use Google to search for antisemitic materials.
He'd get them direct from the source - his old paymasters at Press TV. https://www.theredroar.com/2018/06/iranian-press-tv-pushing-labour-antisemitism-conspiracy-theories/
https://www.adl.org/blog/irans-press-tv-continues-to-broadcast-anti-semitism-as-news
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-press-tv-2012-11927924.amp
https://order-order.com/2018/09/26/proof-corbyn-lied-press-tv-appearances/amp/
Aah yes - reliable sources.
It is hard to believe that anybody could be so ridiculously stupid as to still believe and even push the idiotic lie that Corbyn is an antisemite, but here we are again.
Why not, the IRA one is old hat and the political stuff doesn't seem to be working well enough.
The next line of attack is criticising what vegetables he grows on his allotment and what they must symbolise.
I'd expect him to be planting artichokes, but maybe in his neighbours allotment.
If you look at those with most to loose from him getting into power it should provide a nice short list of where the next attack comes from.
"Aah yes – reliable sources."
What bit in the cited sources is untrue? The bit that Corbyn was in the pay of Press TV or the bit that Press TV is anti-semitic?
The bit that Corbyn was in the pay of Press TV or the bit that Press TV is anti-semitic?
The bit where at least Order Order is one of the most right wing rags going, has a complete hatred of anything more left than thatcher. You take 2 things and make a really big assumption in the middle, remember JHJ and pictures of famous people standing next to each other being evidence?
We get that you disagree with the source's viewpoint, but what bit in the cited sources is untrue? The bit that Corbyn was in the pay of Press TV or the bit that Press TV is anti-semitic?
The bit where that makes him anti Semitic.
None of the sources said he was anti-Semitic.
You realise that when I suggested he'd be getting anti-semitic materials from Press TV, that was irony, right? Maybe you don't understand English irony...
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-have-no-sense-of-english-irony-1.468795
Maybe you don’t understand English irony…
rolls around laughing, might have missed your subtly there, try a smiley next time 🥓
in the pay of Press TV
You mean he received payment for a contribution to Press TV? That's pretty normal, no? Would you prefer he worked for free?
I would have preferred that he didn't work for the propaganda channel of an oppressive, fascist regime at all.
"rolls around laughing, might have missed your subtly there, try a smiley next time 🥓"
Is...is that an emoji of bacon there?
Anyway, shall we get back to Policy?
Given 72pc of his members don't want Brexit, how can Labour Leadership justify a pro brexit stance?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-72-per-cent-of-labour-members-want-jeremy-corbyn-to-back-peoples-vote-poll-a4028096.html
Trump and Corbyn are wrong, stimulus at this point in the cycle is not a good idea:
https://www.ft.com/content/c059d13b-e3d4-4fe2-85c9-d55bd6494fec
Yep the failure to represent the party view despite riding into power on the claim of democratising the party is an abject failure on his part at its first important test, and IMO is the main reason he should go.
But again trying to tie Corbym's policy's to Trumps is just pathetic mudslinging, and any one making that clam just embarrasses themselves.
Yep the failure to represent the party view
The last time the party expressed a view in a structured way was at the conference last summer. Or should policy be changed on, say, a weekly basis in accord with the latest polls.
I would have preferred that he didn’t work for the propaganda channel of an oppressive, fascist regime at all.
You must be mixing it up with Fox
Trump and Corbyn are wrong, stimulus at this point in the cycle is not a good idea:
Is this the same post you put up last week? Trump's stimulus is like a drunk with a shotgun trying to juggle chainsaws.
The last time the party expressed a view in a structured way was at the conference last summer. Or should policy be changed on, say, a weekly basis in accord with the latest polls.
The party wanted support for a second referendum, the leadership sidestepped them by not ruling it out, while clearly never supporting the idea, and still not doing so even at the 11th hour.
Trump’s stimulus is like a drunk with a shotgun trying to juggle chainsaws.
That may be true, I don't know enough about it. But as you can hear from the FT podcast, the people who know are saying the problem is not with the targeting but with doing it at this point in the cycle.
But again trying to tie Corbym’s policy’s to Trumps is just pathetic mudslinging, and any one making that clam just embarrasses themselves.
Which isn't that same as saying it's incorrect. 😀 Trump's economic policy and Corbynomics are exactly the same core idea: "Spend loads of cash, but don't worry because that will boost the economy and GDP will pick up." If that's wrong I'd love to hear how.
Given 72pc of his members don’t want Brexit, how can Labour Leadership justify a pro brexit stance?
"Party members" is not the same as "Labour voters", HTH
I would have preferred that he didn’t work for the propaganda channel of an oppressive, fascist regime at all.
You must be mixing it up with Fox
Which harks back to a point that was made earlier in the thread. Corbyn refuses to share a podium with people who he thinks are a tiny bit fascist if you squint and misquote them a bit, but willingly offers a platform to people who are actual literal fascists.
"You must be mixing it up with Fox"
When Corbyn's conduct is indefensible and the truth is awkward, you simply try sixth form whataboutery.
Corbyn's work for the Iranian government and Press TV are totally incompatible with the Labour Party's principles. Had Corbyn worked for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which has a significant degree of editorial independence, and which Trump reportedly despises for that reason), he would never have become leader of the Labour Party. But here we are...
“Party members” is not the same as “Labour voters”, HTH
So he's been wrong when he cites party democracy as a reason to do something? Voters are the body who count?
(I'd agree with you, if that's what you're saying.)
I don't know why the present contradiction between Corbyn and his follower comes as any great surprise to anyone. He's always been totally disinterested in representing anyones views but his own. And he believes he's right about everything and hasn't changed his opinion on anythign in decades, particularly the EU. He's inherently hostile to it as an institution
He's been happy to pay lip service to democracy while people broadly agree with him. Now that they don't, he gives them the same 'I know best' attitude that saw him rebel against the leadership over the last decades
He's no more interested in the opinions of his fabled 'membership' than he was in the opinions of Blair or Peter Mandleson. He's no intention of changing his position simply because everyone else disagrees with him.
He's always been a fraud. Its just that until know a lot of the naive and gullible have been wanting to believe otherwise. I just hope that the scales have now fallen from peoples eyes and they can see him for what he is... a self-serving charlatan who has no interest in representing anyone elses opinion other than his own
And as for his Brexit stance? Nicely summed up by the Mash yesterday...
Everyone dying to ask left-wing Brexiter what ****ing planet he’s on
Given 72pc of his members don’t want Brexit, how can Labour Leadership justify a pro brexit stance?
The only thing you need to know about labour's positions is that the party put forward a policy at the last conference, and this was voted on and approved by the membership. So far the leadership has followed that policy to the letter. If they depart from it, I'm sure the membership will be given an opportunity to hold them to account. For reference, the policy is below:
That's all very well but surely they should change their policy every week based on a survey of a few Labour party members.
He’s always been a fraud. Its just that until know a lot of the naive and gullible have been wanting to believe otherwise. I just hope that the scales have now fallen from peoples eyes and they can see him for what he is
Don't assume that your own obsessive and bitter view is the correct one. Remember, it is just your opinion, it is not actually true.
When Corbyn’s conduct is indefensible and the truth is awkward, you simply try sixth form whataboutery.
Maybe but I find it hard to summom the will to respond constructively to someone who describes writing an article or two as being "in the pay of Iran".
And he believes he’s right about everything and hasn’t changed his opinion on anythign in decades
You owe me a new irony meter!
"describes writing an article or two as being “in the pay of Iran”."
Corbyn didn't write articles for Press TV and I didn't say he was "in the pay of Iran". From your response, we can tell that you're neither familiar with the facts nor bothering to read what's written.
So far, of the Big Hitter Corbynistas on here denying Corbyn's anti-semitism, we have:
- one who takes the "la la la not listening it's all fake" approach (you)
- one who posts pictures of bacon, which seems like rather a BNP way to discuss anti-semitism https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn/page/453/#post-10432772
- one who thinks that there's a Jewish conspiracy to spread lies about Corbyn https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn/page/452/#post-10430977
🤔
Don't forget the others who have simply seen no evidence of it. I don't need to deny it, you need to prove it as it is a point you are making/believe in.
He’s always been totally disinterested in representing anyones views but his own.
Not seen his latest vid then?
Doesn't look the views of a person who is motivated by self-interest. He's bothered about both the screwed remainers and the screwed brexiteers. That puts him in the sensible camp to me.
And that's the way forward.
Any detail on how he does that once the tax take goes through the floor as the economy contracts/crashes in the wake of the Brexit he’s facilitating?
I only came back onto this thread to see if TJ had answered my 3-line-whip question yet.
what bit in the cited sources is untrue? The bit that Corbyn was in the pay of Press TV
Corbyn’s work for the Iranian government and Press TV
I didn’t say he was “in the pay of Iran”
and then:
we can tell that you’re neither familiar with the facts nor bothering to read what’s written
Boring.
I've heard he banged some black chic.
Betamax (Corbs always a stickler) sex tape soon to be released on xhamster.
"Boring"
Eh. I suppose we can add to that list that you also don't know how quotation marks work, DrJ. There's a big difference between the regime and the country.
If you ever get interested in such boring questions like "how do you reconcile Corbyn taking thousands of pounds from a fascist theocracy with Labour values?", do pop back and let us know.
Some say he breaths through his ears and on Wednesdays he eats nettle soup with bumblebee jambalaya.
I'm assuming there are leave labour supporters. What is their opinion of jc?
I smell a general election in the air
Let the monstering commence....
Let the monstering commence
On the plus side it might give singletracks Labour* moderates some new lines to try.
*by Labour I mean wanting Labour to do their personal bidding without necessarily bothering to join the party.
Interesting how these stories lead with the fact that she's jewish and ignore that she's one of those linked to the threat of a breakaway party...
No denying that she's been a target of terrible antisemitism in the past but seriously, "I don't want to be in this party" is a pretty good reason for the party to want to kick her out. She is not their boss, she is their rep.
I wouldn't want her representing me, put it that way, and how do you go into a general election with a member that might take your votes then run off with them?
How does LB's 'disloyalty' compare with Corbyn's own incredibly weak voting discipline?
Someone with his background and voting record just cannot command, let alone demand, loyalty.
Also, McDonnell castigating the hate campaign against the alleged anti-semite Jackie Walker, but just hours earlier encourage 8.5 months pregnant LB to declare her loyalty to avoid abuse is astounding.
The hypocrisy beggars belief.
andrewreay
Member
How does LB’s ‘disloyalty’ compare with Corbyn’s own incredibly weak voting discipline?
When did Corbyn ever threaten to form a breakaway party? She's not being told to "declare her loyalty to avoid abuse", there's a long way between "loyalty" and "literally leaving the party and forming another rival one". Nor is a no confidence vote "abuse", that's 2 different matters (abuse shouldn't be tolerated but the vote is just democracy)
And it's not Corbyn that's doing it, so what does his voting record have to do with it? It's her local party. You know, the people who choose who their candidate should be.
Someone with his background and voting record just cannot command, let alone demand, loyalty.
Leaving aside the fact you managed to skip over the fact it was her local party and had sod all to do with Corbyn rather than just regurgitating the old Corbyn undisciplined votes have you actually bothered to look at the cases where he did rebel. Heaven forbid someone vote for holding an inquiry into a dubious war.
I think you'll find he found more than the topic of Iraq to vote against. Take a look and the number of times he rebelled and the sheer variety of topics. There weren't more than 500 separate parliamentary votes on the Iraq war.
Fine for him to follow his conscience, rather different for everyone else now he's in charge.
For comparison, Tom Watson's record (first) followed by Jeremy Corbyn's (Sourece: The Public Whip)
Tom Watson
From To Party Rebellions
9 Jun 2017 Lab 1 vote out of 202, 0.5%
8 May 2015 3 May 2017 Lab 1 vote out of 228, 0.4%
6 May 2010 30 Mar 2015 Lab 8 votes out of 610, 1.3%
5 May 2005 12 Apr 2010 Lab 5 votes out of 952, 0.5%
7 Jun 2001 11 Apr 2005 Lab 6 votes out of 961, 0.6%
Jeremy Corbyn
From To Party Rebellions
9 Jun 2017 Lab 1 vote out of 241, 0.4%
8 May 2015 3 May 2017 Lab 2 votes out of 258, 0.8%
6 May 2010 30 Mar 2015 Lab 46 votes out of 909, 5.1%
5 May 2005 12 Apr 2010 Lab 238 votes out of 949, 25.1%
7 Jun 2001 11 Apr 2005 Lab 172 votes out of 729, 23.6%
1 May 1997 14 May 2001 Lab 77 votes out of 889, 8.7%
andrewreay
Member
Fine for him to follow his conscience, rather different for everyone else now he’s in charge.
Once again with feeling- voting with your conscience is defensible (and you'll notice he's taken no action whatsoever against people who've voted against him).
Insisting you have the right to local party loyalty and complaining about a no-confidence vote, while talking about abandoning your party- their party- and forming a breakaway rival party, is quite different.
Or, to put it a different way- you can't rationally defend someone for threatening to break away from their party, and at the same time criticise her party for wanting to break away from her. She's said she doesn't know if she wants to represent them any more but they're supposed to back her to the hilt? And that's where Corybn's voting record becomes relevant- he, the known rebel, still had the support of his local party members and his constituency. She can't say the same.
I smell a general election in the air
Let the monstering commence….
Giggle. Too right. What are they scared of?
Dangerous hero - backfired on twitter that one. Apparently he can't tell the difference between Heinz baked beans and Tesco home brand. Now I would mark him down for that as Crosse and Blackwell are the best.
And that’s where Corybn’s voting record becomes relevant- he, the known rebel, still had the support of his local party members and his constituency. She can’t say the same.
Well, there was no vote so we don't know what the constituency thinks on her role. We do know the views of one old boy who tabled the vote. He'd gone on record as saying LB should be: “exposed for the disruptive Zionist she is”. I'd like to hope that this isn't a widely held view in Wavertree.
We do know how the constituency voted in the referendum, and LB is supporting her constituents in this respect.
andrewreay
Well, there was no vote so we don’t know what the constituency thinks on her role
Well, no- we know they voted for her as a representative of the Labour party, now she's threatening to leave the party.
Or, to put it a different way- you can’t rationally defend someone for threatening to break away from their party, and at the same time criticise her party for wanting to break away from her.
*If* the reason the party want to break away from her is that they consider her a "disruptive Zionist" [1] *then* I think it would be reasonable to defend her for wanting to break away from the party and also criticise the party for wanting her out.
Take a look and the number of times he rebelled and the sheer variety of topics.
I have. For the mix of subjects any idea whether they were free votes or not? Rather important for your claim.
Also have you seen the sheer number relating to specific subjects eg ID cards and the Iraq war (plus the aftermath eg whether to have an inquiry and if so how)?
Also, which of these did he go against his local constituency party?
Fine for him to follow his conscience, rather different for everyone else now he’s in charge
Can you name the people he has kicked out of the party? You do realise it was the local party who did it not him? Indeed he was on the record as saying it was wrong.
Free vote easily resolved by comparing with Tom Watson's rate. Hence the inclusion of his data as a comparator above. Check Paul Flynn if you want another.
JC has consistently said nothing. Instead, John McDonnell goes on the airwaves demanding a statement of loyalty from LB when she's about to give birth.
Nice.
Free vote easily resolved by comparing with Tom Watson’s rate
No it really isnt. Try again.
JC has consistently said nothing.
No. Try again.
I have plenty of issue swith corbyn but the headlines that have come out of this book so far seem not to be of any relevance
His first wife is apparently quoted as saying, "Throughout the four years of our marriage, he never read a single book"
If this is true, he should be off to the Tower quicksmart.
I have plenty of issue swith corbyn but the headlines that have come out of this book so far seem not to be of any relevance
Agree, unlike this from the article you cite:
There are sound reasons to doubt Corbyn’s suitability for this historical moment. One can criticise his absenteeism from the fight to limit or avoid the horrors of Brexit (and I have), and the refusal to stamp down on anti-semitism that allowed a distasteful minor problem to mushroom into a serious threat to his credibility.
Free vote easily resolved by comparing with Tom Watson’s rate
No it really isnt. Try again.
Since 1997 about 150 free votes (all readings). Source Free vote summary Sept 2018
Corbyn voting against party whip >500.
Tom Watson 21.
At best, you could say Corbyn has 'only' voted against his party whip about 350 times. And Tom Watson would be less than 21.
So with ID cards and Iraq (say 10 votes in total), JC had found 340 other issues worthy of disloyalty to his own party. 😀😀😀
But there is good news now that I see the shenanigans in Wavertree are going to be investigated. Just rather typical that the announcement comes from Tom Watson and not JC.
Stealth edit for shout/about and worthy/worthy
So with ID cards and Iraq (say 10 votes in total), JC had found 340 other issues worrhy of disloyalty to his own party.
See at this point we all get to be a bit conflicted, on one hand we demand out MP's represent us at a constituency level and then we think they should do exactly what their leader wants. We would have a much different type of government if rebelling was the norm and voting for what you believe in was considered what we do. We can turf you out after 5 years if you went on to not represent us.
But right now we are in a position where JC is too polarising, there are too many who will not vote for him for any number of reasons, most of them absolute bollocks and spin from the likes of the Mail, he is an easy target and unfortunately unable to really defend himself. He may have started moving the labour party in a direction the members want but he isn't going to deliver it. They need somebody who can articulate and get a message across without the baggage. To make that happen he needs to have the self awareness to step down and nominate a successor to his followers.
Vote for policies. Vote Green.
But right now we are in a position where JC is too polarising, there are too many who will not vote for him for any number of reasons, most of them absolute bollocks and spin from the likes of the Mail, he is an easy target and unfortunately unable to really defend himself.
And yet when someone DOES defend himself against the mainstream media, we deride him as the "Twitter President". Tough situation!
So with ID cards and Iraq (say 10 votes in total),
Rather more than that. Given your choice of 10 its pretty clear you arent interested in looking at the record in any sensible way. So I will leave you to it.
They need somebody who can articulate and get a message across without the baggage. To make that happen he needs to have the self awareness to step down and nominate a successor to his followers.
Three main problems with this. Firstly Labour was badly hollowed out under new labour so finding a suitable replacement is likely to take time. They need to bring in a new crop of MPs and then have them develop for a while.
Second I am not sure anyone has absolutely no baggage and the hard right press will just throw shit until some sticks and, sadly, the useful idiots will act as their agents.
Corbyn does have rather a lot of baggage but just look at what they managed to do with Ed Miliband.
Third there is the problem of getting the message across. Outside of election time it is a tad difficult.
He may have started moving the labour party in a direction the members want but he isn’t going to deliver it. They need somebody who can articulate and get a message across without the baggage. To make that happen he needs to have the self awareness to step down and nominate a successor to his followers.
Agree. He should know that he needs to go. Use the same methods as before in run up to election but have someone who is better with media (actually thinks about the impact of how they act/what they say and how it could be twisted) and has less baggage (I think it would be hard to find anyone who didn't have less baggage)
Vote for policies. Vote Green.
Voting on policy is very compelling but in reality the small parties can promise the moon on a stick safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to deliver. So if you vote based purely on policy you'll always end up voting for a minority part with no chance of power. If they do gain power somehow, they can't deliver their unicorns (see Liberals and tuition fees).
finding a suitable replacement is likely to take time. They need to bring in a new crop of MPs and then have them develop for a while.
Agree. Labour have a real succession problem. Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell were the last of their wing of the party. It's entirely possible they just isn't anyone with a similar outlook to take over. That's going to keep Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell in their jobs for a fair while yet. Maybe the Battle for Labour hasn't been lost for good. A more moderate candidate might win simply because Momentum can't find anyone suitable.
the useful idiots will act as their agents.
Corbyn does have rather a lot of baggage but just look at what they managed to do with Ed Miliband.
Yes, picking the wrong Milliband there again....
just look at what they managed to do with Ed Miliband.
Err, nothing. They had nothing on EM. You know a candidate is blameless when the best the media can did up is a chance comment his dad made 7 decades before.
In contrast Corbyn is the gift that keeps giving.
He should know that he needs to go.
True, and I'm sure he'd be the first to agree with you. But to be replaced by who? This is the problem Momuntum and Corbyn have and if it had an easy solution Corbyn/Abbot/MacDonnel would have been able to bow out long ago. Instead they're stuck.
In contrast Corbyn is the gift that keeps giving.
He "keeps on giving" in the context of a certain agenda. For example, when it's taken for granted that all ragheads are terrorists it's hard to present a sensible view on Iraq, Syria, Palestine as being anything other than sympathy for murderers. Which is how we ended up with Blair.
Vote for policies. Vote Green.
This, times a bazillion, and the Liberals never gained power so they were never able to implement their policies in full. Propping up the tories in coalition doesn't count.
Vote for policies. Vote Green.
If we had PR, then I’d totally agree. But we don’t, we have this stupid bipartisan system with the current incumbent party being demonstrably both incompetent and evil, to varying degrees. So I’ll always go with the least worst option. And whilst I do have my doubts about Corbyn’s potential effectiveness as a leader of the country, I did take the time to read the last Labour manifesto and a lot of that chimed as reasonable and achievable.
Anyone else spot this beaut yesterday? A full page advert in the Observer? But this is definitely not a cult, and the iconography isn't remotely Stalinist at all...
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7831/47218228962_5ba687aaaf_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7831/47218228962_5ba687aaaf_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2eWvLpU ]WTAF?!![/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/14162682@N00/ ]bin lid[/url], on Flickr
And to answer the obvious next question, Avaaz is apparently 'the campaigning community bringing people-powered politics to decision making worldwide'
And to answer the obvious next question, Avaaz is apparently ‘the campaigning community bringing people-powered politics to decision making worldwide’
Funded by one person: George Soros!
The only thing I saw in the news about Corbyn yesterday was the fact that he'd been punched in the face by a rightwing protester half his age. Seems a bit weird though why an anti-brexit nutter would punch someone who is both a racist and a hard brexiteer. Strange times.
Not heard about that but reading up he wasn’t punched but someone ‘placed an egg on his head’.
Jezza should have gone full Prescott 😃