Jeremy Corbyn

the paranoid delusions of Momemtum et al

The press have not been out to get him since day one and do some very unfair reporting - LSE genuine study on this so not paranoid lefty flapping

Whether you support JC or not its ludicrous to call it paranoia and bunker mentality - its lazy name calling/meme building- as there is some pretty ****ing clear evidence of plotting against him - not even jamby would have a bash at denying this evidence

I agree with your general points/broad thrust tbh but its not paranoia is it?

BTW with reference to this :

ninfan - Member

Maybe you could explain to me what Ukraine did wrong?

Maybe you could explain this :

ninfan - Member

the behaviour of the 'West' regards many of the former Russian republics has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical.

I don't care if people want to say that the Russians 'invaded', even when they didn't (they were already there, legally) - they have not gone in dropping bombs on people, they have not gone in there kidnapping people through 'extraordinary rendition', keeping people in jail for years without charge. Its laughable for the US to accuse Russia of propping up a 'puppet' administration in Crimea to do their will, given the corruption we and the rest of the 'west' have turned a blind eye to all over the region, let alone the monsters we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By comparison with anything the US have done over recent decades, Russia have been incredibly moderate and restrained - I can stand sure that if it had been US strategic interests that were threatened in the same way, we would have seen outright bloody carnage on the streets!

Russia played the game by 'our' rules, up until the agreement was violently cast aside in 'our' favour, and at this point they cried foul and did it their way - I'm not saying what Russia has done is necessarily good, I'm not saying its necessarily right, but realpolitik is involved, and the hypocrisy being displayed here by the EU and even more so by the US is staggering.

Posted 2 years ago

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ukraine-crimea-crisis/page/6#post-5863355

What's the problem there Ernie?

How does Russia being nearly as sneaky as the western powers demonstrate that Ukraine could have prevented Russian military action?

How would Jezza's “building up democratic relationships" have prevented it?

Well no, it's not paranoid in the sense that they know everyone is out to get him. I'm talking more about the obsession with Corbyn. It's all become far too personal, to the point where they think this isn't about the politics, but about Corbyn himself. My experience of the left, and to an extent grassroots politics, has always been one of people obsessing about hidden forces, infiltrators, plots, conspiracies etc. Obviously these things exist, but that's the nature of the game and you have to accept it rather than use it as an excuse for your own failure.

Momentum is a great example. To my knowledge it was set up to defend 'Jeremy's leadership' (I cringe every time I hear him referred to with just his first name). Not what it represents, not the wider movement or the people, or the policies, just 'Jeremy'. And anyone who dares question him is now a traitor, rightwing collaborator, hypocrite, or whatever else. If you ask me that has a distinct whiff of paranoia about it, or maybe it's just plain defeatism, which they left continually prove they're very good at.

Edit: Just had a look and the Momentum website offers the following mission statement [i]'Momentum exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign to increase participatory democracy, solidarity, and grassroots power and help Labour become the transformative governing party of the 21st century'[/i]. Seems to me the second sentence should read 'to keep Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party, no matter what'.

What's the problem there Ernie?

Well I asked you to explain.

So if Corbyn were to say [i]"the behaviour of the 'West' regards many of the former Russian republics has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical"[/i] and [i]"By comparison with anything the US have done over recent decades, Russia have been incredibly moderate and restrained"[/i] would you be supporting him ?

Do you think Corbyn should be saying that the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical and that Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained ?

Do you think that's the sort of thing Corbyn should be saying ?

I'm talking more about the obsession with Corbyn. It's all become far too personal, to the point where they think this isn't about the politics, but about Corbyn himself.

That'll be the plotters that you are talking about - it's all a very personal obsession with Corbyn, it isn't about the politics.

In fact they are all backing a rival who claims to be as radical and left-wing as Corbyn.

I think you'll find that Momentum would much rather talk about policies.

Do you think Corbyn should be saying that the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical and that Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained ?

But Jezza didn't say that

He said that Russia had been provoked

That'll be the plotters that you are talking about

Yes, those too. I really don't understand the obsession with him on both sides.

But Jezza didn't say that

Yes I get that, which is why I asked you if you thought Corbyn should be saying that "the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical" and that "Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained" ?

It's what [i]you[/i] believe. Would it help Corbyn to become the next PM ?

I really don't understand the obsession with him on both sides.

On both sides ? There's more than two sides - or do you think that the Daily Telegraph, for example, hasn't become utterly obsessed with Corbyn?

Everyone is obsessed with Corbyn - this thread has been going on for more than a year so far and now consists of 257 pages.

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

It's what you believe. Would it help Corbyn to become the next PM ?

If you think that what [u][b]I[/b][/u] believe would be an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister then you're even more deranged than I thought you were Ernie

In fact I think it's pretty clear that even [b]I[/b] would choose to vote (and have voted for) a prime minister with a belief system that is far more centrist than my own beliefs, because unlike leftie die-hards like yourself, I am prepared to understand that mine isn't the 'one true way'

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air

First time I've heard it called that.

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW.

ninfan - Member

If you think that what I believe would be an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister then you're even more deranged than I thought you were Ernie

Of course I'm not so deranged as to think that what you believe is an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister.

I'm just trying to make sense of your completely contradictory comments.

Perhaps I'm a little deranged for trying to do that eh ?

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn.

I'm sorry we were talking about why everyone is obsessed with Corbyn not whether he has some pretty glaring shortcomings.

Can you explain why everyone is obsessed with Corbyn and why there is a 257 page thread on him if he's just an ordinary politician with some pretty glaring shortcomings ?

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW.

He is not a bad leader the PLP just refuses to be lead by him for their reasons.

You could have the greatest manager in the world if the players wont try for him and then ignore him and then brief against him and perform poorly then the team will be harmed

Corbyns real problem is that the PLP have tarnished him as the view will be if he cannot convince them he cannot convince the voters
The PLP should be ashamed of the way it has acted to ignore the party
I dont know if JC would have worked but i do know this outcome of them in open revolt and him getting another landslide - which was inevitable - is the worst possible scenario for the party.
It was all so predictable

I guess whilst neither side wants to compromise - and I dont see one either- then it will be this which is electoral suicide- the lack of unity not the leader

"Loving the paranoia. Were you sent personally to make a stand against all these naysayers? I wonder what other internet forums the vanguard have infiltrated?"

I'm an individual, expressing my own opinions. Paranoia? The only paranoia is from the right, who are genuinely terrified of a left-wing threat to their status quo. Hence the constant, vicious attacks on Corbyn and the Left. Evidenced by the slurs of 'trotskyism', and people waffling on about tractor production and calling people 'comrade' as a term of insult.

Clod, in the spirit of sensible debate, here's some questions for you. Do you believe JC actually wants to be PM? Is this battle Momentum are fighting purely about him or about policy? If the latter, who is there to take up reigns of the left in the event of JC returning to his allotment?"

I think in the absence of anyone better within the PLP, Corbyn has accepted that somebody needs to make a stand against the Blairites, and try to drag Labour back towards the left, where it belongs. Blair and his acolytes totally undermined Labour's effectiveness as an alternative to toryism, and nullified it as a relevant political party. Corbyns appointment (by democratic mandate, let's not forget) has reignited the idea for an effective left-wing party in UK politics, and the need for ordinary people to become engaged with politics. In this, he has been tremendously successful. Maybe he is a 'reluctant' leader, but someone had to take up those reins, and he has done remarkably well, in spite of everything against him.

The deeper issue, is why Labour allowed itself to become a vehicle for careerist opportunism in the way it did. Why it ended up with people like John Mann, Hilary Benn and Chuka Umunna becoming such prominent figures. Finally, it seems the inevitable schism that needs to happen in order for a proper left-wing party to emerge once more, is going to happen. And as I've said, the Blairites are ****ing petrified and will resort to anything in the desperation to hold on to their careers. We've seen just how low they will stoop; Owen Smith basically destroying Angela Eagle's career in order to advance his own career aims. And the desperation of the Labour right, to use a manufactured corporate puppet in their attempt to oust Corbyn.

I stopped voting Labour when it was clear they were no longer a party which represented the ordinary people of the UK, and simply a means for careerist cuckoos to put themselves in the shop window for future lobbyist/consultancy/directorship positions. I stopped voting for them when it was clear they offered no credible alternative to tory policies. I stopped voting for them when it was clear they favoured supporting western military imperialism over Human Rights.

I'm now a Labour supporter once more, because of the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader. And I know many others, who had also drifted away, who are once again Labour supporters. The vast majority of us want rid of the Blairite cuckoos, and to get our party back. Maybe Corbyn isn't quite the person to take Labour forward into the future, but he is the person for right now.

"Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW."

The Blairites successfully purged the party of those committed to traditional Labour principles. Now, it's about purging the party of the Blairites. Who else do you think is suitable for the job?

I guess whilst neither side wants to compromise

But that's not true is it, Corbyn has been very willing to compromise, in fact his detractors have used his willingness to comprise as a stick to beat him with.

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

Why is everyone obsessed with Corbyn? Pretty obvious. We have a political pantomime where most recognisable players exited stage left, opps, stage right some time ago. Apart from a couple of folk playing the long game (ET) most of the other players are unknown, unrecognisable, insignificant and [s]militant[/s] Momentum are focused on old Jezza and its Jezza who can't lead the PLP. Not difficult.

teamhurtmore - Member

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

So you think that since the media have universally referred to a coup, or attempted coup, this betrays their paranoia ?

And there is nothing "exaggerated" about claiming an attempted political coup - that is precisely what it was.

He is not a bad leader the PLP just refuses to be lead by him

I was going to post something but my mind keeps sliding off this statement like it's some kind of zen mantra, the sound of one hand clapping... Is a leader with no followers a leader? (In parliament, where decisions are made and power resides.)

The media have a constant need to exaggerate events hence the fact that headlines often bare little if any resemblance to the actual article or the facts they are supposed to discussing.

Traitors, scum, coup, - all evidence of "disturbed" minds

But wonderful irony to host the two Labour Party conferences in Liverpool this year. Hard to find a more appropriate place for a re-run of history.

The use of the term coup by the media is an example of exaggeration and evidence of "disturbed" minds? Are you for real?

The Blairites successfully purged the party of those committed to traditional Labour principles. Now, it's about purging the party of the Blairites. Who else do you think is suitable for the job?

I've no idea who else is suitable. There's not much on offer is there? And whilst re-organising the party to be more democratic and less careerist is important, that's pointless if in the process the party destroys itself by obsessing itself with purges and hysterical arguments about entryists, trotskyists, blairites, careerists, traitors, red-torys, etc. As I've said, everyone needs to calm down, on all sides. Whilst a civil war may seem inevitable, it's really doesn't have to be.

"@clod I have to say I am amused with this user id turning up out of the blue 5 months ago and getting stuck in. When I posted the fact that 92% of the JLM supported Smith and just 4% Corbyn and your responce was to try and discredit the whole organisation. Why is that I wonder ?"

What has the length of time I've been a member of this forum got to do with anything?

And in what way have I 'discredited' the JLM? All I did, was show why they would be opposed to Corbyn. You posited the JLM as representing Jewish people in the Labour party, but they are just one organisation, and certainly do not speak for all Jewish people. I know several Jewish people who really cannot stand the JLM, and would be far more vociferous than I, about their true aims. Are they anti-Semitic? Maybe they're 'self-haters'?

As it stands, you've posted a deliberate lie about me, yet still failed to recognise this (although everyone else can see it!), and are persisting with an insidious attempt to label me according to your own particular rhetoric and ideology. And repeatedly failed to answer a single question put to you, about issues that actually are of importance to the discussion of real anti-Semitism.

Why is that, I wonder?

"As I've said, everyone needs to calm down, on all sides. "

Well, they started it! 😆

Just pinched myself and it hurt so yes Ernie I believe that I am for real

But let's rewind a few months

Labour misread the reasons for their GE failure - fair enough, people do that
Jezza include in leadership debate in order to broaden the debate - no players expect or want him to win, himself include
He wins and unsurprisingly proves ill equipped to do the job
Equally unsurprisingly this triggers a vote of no confidence and mass resignations
Jezza dugs in, the cuckoos arrive and the level of absurdity reaches highs not seen for thirty odd years or so
Labour in a pickle as there are no obvious candidates for the job
Err, that's it

No need for the exaggerate claims, the hyperbole, the violence etc

If you want to/believe that you can run the country (poor choice of words) the you do need to be able to see what is happening. It really is not difficult unless....

Just pinched myself and it hurt so yes Ernie I believe that I am for real

So why the need for the hyperbole claiming that using the term coup is evidence of "disturbed" minds ?

Get a grip ffs.

I'd rather not it hurts. Tried that a few minutes ago

How about civil war?? Does that work better? 😉

Does that work better?

I don't know - you are the one with the problem.

Is using the term civil war also evidence of a "disturbed" mind ?

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

civil war is the less hyperbolic term for coup 😆

Some times I love this place

my mind keeps sliding off this statement like it's some kind of zen mantra, the sound of one hand clapping... Is a leader with no followers a leader?

One of those neither side is covering itself in glory and what we need is some method of uniting the factions
I see nothing likely that will do this but its true that it is unlikely to involve JC as leader- its either that or start deselecting on a massive scale and that is not a solution either
However i remain incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of the PLP, whose number is tiny in comparison to all members, dictating to the party.

It's not about deselection it's about reselection.

Every 5 years the electorate are asked who they would like to represent them in parliament. It is therefore completely reasonable that party members should decide who will represent their party at that election.

If a sitting MP fails in their bid to be reelected it is not claimed that they have been deelected.

Reselected and reelected, not deselected and deelected.

How bout purged? Seems to fit better with the traitorous scum narrative.

true but its also semantics to some degree- god i hate folk who say that so forgive me.

The reality is some of the PLP have been threatened with not being re selected which is essentially de selected
We can label this how we please but i will use the language you have used as it is the more accurate term but both are a little misleading IMHO

using the term coup is evidence of "disturbed" minds

[i][b]coup[/b]
ku?/
noun
1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.[/i]

Which part of the democratic vote of no confidence in Jezza involved an illegal or violent (or inherent threat of violence) overthrow?

The term deselection is deliberately used because it has negative connotations.

But the suggestion being made by many is of mandatory reselection. How could you have mandatory deselection ? It makes no sense at all.

Definition of coup in English:
coup
Pronunciation: /ku?/
noun (plural coups /ku?z/)

1 (also coup d'état) A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government: he was overthrown in an army coup

2An instance of successfully achieving something difficult: it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract

I haven't heard a single person describe it as an attempted coup d'état.

It was an attempted political coup. Almost everyone accepts that, although there are obvious exceptions such as THM, and now apparently ninfan.

Although that is simply a reflection of their own personal political agendas - I'm sure that under different circumstances they would be both perfectly happy to accept the term 'political coup'.

Just wondering what this this thread will look like after Theresa has called a snap election on return from her hols and consigned the Labour Schism to an ineffectual rump for the next ten years.

Crocodile tears or lauding the triumph of the "Left" in an ideoligical transformation into a minority protest group?

Your view makes sense unlike Ninfans

Ninfan what was the legal procedure within the labour party that they were "democratically" following when they tried to ignore the wishes of the entire party and remove the leader from power? what was their authority to do this in this manner or keep him from the ballot?

What you gonna say next they were not plotting against him 😆

Your scribbles these days are utterly pathetic

To argue it was not a coup would involve arguing they did not try to get rid of him without electoral authority - i very much doubt you wish to even try to argue that - tbh I doubt even ninfan wants to try that one

I think the question assumes things have already degenerated, to a point where a NATO menber has been invaded, and asks if the UK, under Corbyn, would fulfill its NATO commitment. It's a yes or no question. Smith had no problem in answering yes, Corbyn it seems didn't want to ask the question, saying he wanted world peace instead - yeah, we all want world peace mate, but just answer the question.

If politicians answered all the hypothetical questions put to them there would no end to them, that's the beauty of a hypothetical question - you can change them is any way you want to catch out your opponent, they don't refer to actual real circumstances.

"Would you be prepared to go to war with Russia ?" is a pointless and rather silly question, just like answering "yes", or "no" for that matter, would be a pointless and rather silly answer.

It's a sad reflection on British politics that support for a politician might be dependent on their willingness to go to war with Russia.

I'm glad he didn't answer it. Let's focus on grown-up politics, although I know it's a novel idea.

Members of NATO are meant to back each other up. The softer this line gets the sooner the Baltic states are back with Russia. It's not trivial to ask a prospective PM where he or she stands on this.

As opposed to Theresa May. "Would you press the button?"... "Yes."

A hypothetical question with an unambiguous, straight from the shoulder response. Leaves any potential aggressor in no doubt that they'd risk their own annihilation.

As opposed to Jeremy's weebling prevarication.

No contest, hypothetically "unfair" enquiry or not.

OK you think "would you go to war with Russia?" is a sensible question. I think "I would rather we worked to create the conditions where going to war with Russia wasn't necessary" is a sensible answer.

You do realise we are talking about "going to war with Russia" here, don't you ?

Have you got the slightest idea what that would entail? If you have can you let me know, I'd be interested.

Mr Woppit - Member

As opposed to Theresa May. "Would you press the button?"... "Yes."

A hypothetical question with an unambiguous, straight from the shoulder response. Leaves any potential aggressor in no doubt that they'd risk their own annihilation.

😆 @ the claim that "any potential aggressor" bases their assessment on a TV/newspaper interview !

And of course Theresa May wouldn't be 'risking her own annihilation'!

Everyone wants world peace but reality is very different. I don't think it is just Russia are a threat. After all Kuwait was invaded and while not in NATO a coalition was put together to get Saddam out, Corbyn was against that. He'd have been happy to leave Kuwait to be screwed.

"As opposed to Theresa May. "Would you press the button?"... "Yes.""

Ah, Theresa 'I'd happily kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people' May.

I'd be quite happy not to have a prime minister who'd happily plunge the world into nuclear war. And I know May is simply spouting the kind of rhetoric that tub-thumpers enjoy, it remains disturbing that we have a prime minister who would ultimately make our nation less safe. I'd be very surprised if she's not already plotting her own Falklands war...

The softer this line gets the sooner the Baltic states are back with Russia.

He'd have been happy to leave Kuwait to be screwed

it's about standing with allies or at least saying you will. Reality may be more nuanced (even more nuanced than shouting 'nuke russia', probably), but it's reasonable to expect a leader to be able to answer these sorts of questions in a way that won't worry allies (not that anyone's actually worried given corb's level of interest in and chances attaining of power.)

"it's about standing with allies or at least saying you will"

More like sending a message to potential enemies that '**** with us and we'll nuke you'. Classic sabre-rattling.

[i]'Ok then, we'll just point even more nukes your way.'[/i]

Win-win, obviously.

It does make me laugh that, on the one hand, Corbyn is somehow being portrayed as being anti-Israel, and therefore directly supporting the destruction of millions of Jews, and yet, on the other hand, is apparently some kind of hand-wringing softy. How that squares up in the minds of some is baffling.

Its clear that any hint of nuance, and that maybe the world isn't that black and white from politicians these days from any camp just fails to have the reaction it should: of provoking debate about that viewpoint, instead of getting the knees to jerk.

There's plenty of evidence of that here.

but it's reasonable to expect a leader to be able to answer these sorts of questions in a way that won't worry allies

Then you say they dont care anyway FFS- so he scared them but they dont care...when you make your mind up perhaps e can discuss your view?

Do you think its just possible that your dislike of Corbyn has lead you to place where your comments are rather daft , contradictory and hypocritical drivel?

I don't dislike Corbyn (just what he's inadvertently done) but yeah, that's not mutually exclusive with my comments being along the lines of your assessment. Others will judge. I was saying he should be better prepared to answer these sorts of questions.

after Theresa has called a snap election on return from her hols and consigned the Labour Schism to an ineffectual rump for the next ten years.

Well apart from the fact that she doesn't have the power to call a new election, if she did, I think it could be a blessing in disguise for the labour party. Right now I think the only hope of JC giving up the leadership is to lose an election. That may allow the warring factions to reconcile (wishful thinking obviously) and rebuild. Unfortunately though it looks like this is going to drag on til 2020 😯

It does make me laugh that, on the one hand, Corbyn is somehow being portrayed as being anti-Israel, and therefore directly supporting the destruction of millions of Jews, and yet, on the other hand, is apparently some kind of hand-wringing softy. How that squares up in the minds of some is baffling.

Missed this. Godwin and out...

Missed this. Godwin and out...

Yup. Its heading that way, so....

I don't know - you are the one with the problem.

Indeed it is deeply problematic having no attachment to a party in disarray.

Is using the term civil war also evidence of a "disturbed" mind ?

Yes covered that several pages earlier. Its merely a shambles, and a self inflicted on at that, further exaggeration not required and quite insulting to those suffering from the effects of real coups and/or civil wars.

Not sure if that counts?

Had a leaflet off Corbyn this morning. "Jeremy Corbyn Winning Values"

Lots of agreeable content.

Had a picture of Clive Lewis on the back. The man has a lovely face.

Once again, it's not so much his policies, but just that he's really a bit second-rate as a leader:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/19/corbyns-leadership-unprofessional-and-shoddy-says-heidi-alexander

<insert usual "Guardian have been against JC since the beginning" comments here>.

johnx2 - Member

I was saying he should be better prepared to answer these sorts of questions.

I think you hve hit the nail on the head there - it's about giving the "correct" answer. Owen Smith easily passed the test by giving the correct answer, ie, "Yes I would attack Russia", it's what a professional politician is expected to say.

Corbyn isn't like that though, he doesn't think "now wait, what answer will get me a few more votes", instead he offers what he considers to be the best commonsense response with little consideration to how it might be interpreted or misinterpreted.

And that is precisely why some people like him and want him to be leader of the Labour Party and why some people are strongly opposed to him.

Who is right remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the slick well rehearsed PR researched answers delivered in a slick well rehearsed manner, as we have come to expect from professional politicians, is highly effective.

But it is also true that there is a massively growing weariness among the general population of self-serving and discredited professional politicians who can't be trusted, not even with their own expenses. Far more than might previously have been the case.

Corbyn offers an alternative to the Tory-Labour-LibDem drearily predictable political clones. Is the electorate, despite all the complaining and moaning, ready for this change? I don't know, possibly not. But I do know that greater honesty with less emphases on cheap political shots, soundbites, managed presentations, etc, is a step in the right direction.

I also know that Corbyn would not have stood a chance of becoming Labour leader 5 or 10 years ago. It is obvious that changes are occurring in politics, and not just UK politics. What no one quite knows is has much change has occurred, and at what pace it is occurring.

But Alexander clearly has a problem 😉

Alexander writes: “I wasn’t part of a plot.[b] I wasn’t part of a coup[/b]. I had tried hard to make it work. A leader who had been willing to engage, support, take difficult decisions and able to build a team might have made it work. But we didn’t have one, and in Jeremy Corbyn, as much as it pains me to say it, we never will.”

Instead just basic lack of competence for the job

Alexander writes: “I loved being the shadow health secretary but I hated being part of the shadow cabinet … I hated being part of something so inept, so unprofessional, so shoddy.”....Corbyn would regularly defer to his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, in meetings, and sometimes read from a typed script. “I saw first-hand 10 months of dysfunctional opposition and a Labour party let down the people it is meant to represent,” she writes.

Still coup sounds so much more dramatic than just crap at the job!

Right now I think the only hope of JC giving up the leadership is to lose an election.

I doubt he would quit even then; As in his mind he would still have the mandate of the Labour party, and he doesn't seem that interested in actually running anything just making slogans and pandering to the protest vote.

JC is a godsend to the Tories as most moderate people won't vote for him.

Alexander writes: “I loved being the shadow health secretary but I hated being part of the shadow cabinet … I hated being part of something so inept, so unprofessional, so shoddy.”....Corbyn would regularly defer to his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, in meetings, and sometimes read from a typed script. “I saw first-hand 10 months of dysfunctional opposition and a Labour party let down the people it is meant to represent,” she writes.

I don't see what's wrong with 'deferring' to his Shadow Chancellor- isn't he supposed to surround himself with strong people, skilled in what they do? Is it weak to change your mind based on your trusted advisers?

And I suspect 'reading from a typed script' is the same thing as a previous boss of mine used to do: he'd jot down thoughts while on the train, on the bog, on wherever, and read them out at meetings for soundings.

See, we're getting confused here over what I think is one of Corbyn's strengths: he seems to not be the archetypal authority figure we seem to associate with 'leadership'. This isn't media leadership and sounds like effective teamwork.

And maybe Alexander just couldn't cut it.

This line from the Guardian link above speaks volumes:

A source close to McDonnell said his attendance at the (NHS) picket line had been discussed with Alexander’s team in advance. “It wasn’t about undermining her, it was about keeping her honest.”

And maybe Alexander just couldn't cut it

She was not alone 😀

She was not alone

So true THM, so true, and I hope you'll take my point: there are more leadership styles than autocratic Thatcheresque ones- you as a business-person I'm sure must know that there are times when you alone have to call it, and times when you have to listen and consider.

People leave when they don't like jobs and how they're managed, and I suspect Alexander just couldn't adapt to that- same for others. It doesn't mean Corbyn is ineffective, it could equally mean that they're inflexible.

It also indicates to me that for far too long the LP has been 'managed' by 'strong' individuals with a very autocratic style- we knew that from the Blair books- and the current crop have 'grown up' expecting this. This way seem alien to them.

There are many different sytles true and I agree that delegation/deferring is not as sign of weakness and is often a sign of strength. But if she (and any other "traitor") is to be believed this is not the case here. Jezza is simply not up to the job. Perhaps that is why he didn't want the job in the first place?

Not really that difficult though is it?

Alexander writes: "I wasn’t part of a plot. I wasn’t part of a coup"

Don't they all say that ?

Which are the ones who claim to be part of a plot or coup then.......can anyone name them ? It would be fascinating to know.

Claiming they were not part of a plot to remove Corbyn does not prove that there was no plot to remove Corbyn. There clearly was.

The Daily Telegraph even reported the planned coup a fortnight before it was launched :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/ ]Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24-hour blitz after EU referendum [/url]

[i][b]"Asked how the coup could take place, another said: “Things go wrong, people have had enough, you start to see resignations and it spirals from there."[/i][/b]

Note the use of the word "coup" by the Daily Telegraph THM, even before it was launched. It's a standard English term, something which someone who purports to have some sort of university degree ought to know.

And I would add: believed is the operative word in this.

But if she (and any other "traitor") is to be [b][i]believed[/b][/i] this is not the case here.

Jezza is simply not up to the job

You read it as a stream of principled, disillusioned politicians reporting back from the battlefield about the Fleld Marshalls broken tactics, I read it as a bunch of careerist Blairites scared for their failed careers.

Which of us is right?

One thing a university education teaches you Ernie is to understand the source. Papers exaggerate, increasingly so. And the Torygraph as you have noted several times has been in Corbyn overdrive for some time.

But if talk of a coup makes you feel better, carry on. This whole episode has been about avoiding reality after all.

Cody, I used the term believed deliberately - see response to Ernie about recognising source - but when the bunch becomes almost the whole vineyard, the balance of probability tends to point you in one direction.

More importantly, opinion polls "suggest" that the great British public are siding her way too. Still who cares about them???

We ignore all reports, even opinion polls, at our peril THM, and I was of course aware that you used term with intent. You're precise with language I've found. But we must always ask the question: who is asking this question, and why? All our media is owned by someone, and that someone wants something, and so-

Anyway:

Could be you're right, and its an honourable consensus being reached within the LP, with principled individuals feeling that they can't operate under Corbyn any more.

But there again, I might be right- its just some vacuous aggrieved Blairites who aren't gonna make the big time.

But if talk of a coup makes you feel better, carry on.

Thank you that's most kind but I have every intention of doing so anyway - it's you who's got a problem with it and keeps bringing it up.

I'm sure the Daily Telegraph and all the other news providers who freely use the term would be equally delighted to hear of your generosity.

But we must always ask the question: who is asking this question, and why? All our media is owned by someone, and that someone wants something

Agreed ( plus the quality of our broadsheets is definitely deteriorating )

FWIW as I said before I think that the notion of Blairite, like its better known predecessor, rarely holds up to actual scrutiny. But an easy (some might say lazy) tag to apply.

Thank you that's most kind

It's a pleasure, these are tough times for you and we like to show solidarity with fellow forumites in their time of need.

THM.........You're precise with language I've found.

There must be two THMs on here, only one of which I can apparently see.

The myopia* explained?!?

(less precise use of term this time 😉 )