UKC

Spineless puppet of his masters or Machiavellian schemer with a masterplan?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36633238

Either way, he's cost the UK (and the wider world) dear. We've had enough of his student politics 'idealism' nonsense - this is the real world, politicians say and do things that have consequences. He must go.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whatever his failings, blaming Corbin for the referendum is absolutely ludicrous.

In reply to Donald82:
He is absolutely to.blame as much as Cameron. He was on holiday FFS before the election. Pathetic, probably dishonest performance. Did he do a single debate? Make any attempt.to show a united front with other leave supporters? Spell out a clear message?

In reply to Donald82:

Try this too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36633238

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's exactly this short termism that is wrong with politics. Corbyn has been around for a matter of months. The reasons for people feeling disaffected have been being created over the past 30 years.
Maybe Corbyn's approach of being honest about his principled views help prevent it from being a bigger vote for leave.

In reply to Donald82:

When asked what he thought of the EU, he said '7 out of 10' - and he was supposed to be on the Remain side!

And when asked about immigration - the issue above all that the referendum was fought on - he said he could see no reason to limit it.

The Left always had an issue with the EU, and that's where Corbyn's heart lay.

In reply to Donald82:
He is 100% to blame for his invisibility and ineffectiveness.

In reply to MG:

That's ridiculous for many reasons. Here's some -

1. The referendum was called not due to popular demand or the interests of the country, but out of party political interest and the assumption it would not be lost

2. Number ten limited what the remaining campaign could do, because they were sure they would win and their main concern was uniting the tories afterwards.

3. Corbyn had a sensible message many would agree with. He doesn't like the EU but campaigned to stay in because it's better than leaving.

4. A high proportion of labour voters voted in. Over 60 percent I think. Maybe a lot of these labour voters responded to that.

5. Corbyn is not the British tabloid press

In reply to Donald82:



And how do you know this?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Name someone who gives it ten out of ten. Would you have honestly prefered him to lie and say he thought it was perfect.
Remember Cameron was the one who claimed that he would walk away from the EU if his, rather modest, demands werent met and as soon as they werent started prophesying fire and doom if we did walk away.


If you are referring to his speech a couple of weeks back. What he actually said was that with free movement he didnt think it was an option. Which is correct. I guess he could have lied then as well.

In reply to MG:

How do I know that over sixty percent voted stay?

In reply to Donald82:

The argument "it's sort of OK" delivered when he wasn't on holiday to small audiences was about it. Utterly useless.

Your other points don't relate to Corbyn.

In reply to MG:

They relate to things that are far more to blame than Corbyn.

In reply to MG:


How do I know that over sixty percent voted stay?

In reply to KevinD:

"Well m'lord and members of the jury. KevinD is a rogue with a string of previous convictions, I don't trust him an inch and he has BO. However, he is my client and. probably innocent. Oh, I need to catch a bus"

I'm guessing you wouldn't want this lawyer to defend you? There are good and bad ways to make an honest argument and present a case.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



What Kev D said

In reply to elsewhere:

Most labour voters voted remain.... so it seemed to work okay, no?

But either way it's way down the list of things to blame for us brexiting.

In reply to MG:



And yet there's no real evidence that his message didn't work. Labour voted in and who else is going to listen to corbyn.

In reply to MG:

He should go though. Or come up with some damn good ideas pronto.

In reply to MG:


What a sensible analogy, oh wait my mistake it was nowhere close. I have to admit I find the anti corbyn fanatics, like yourself, just as hard to understand as the pro corbyn fanatics.


There is also a good reason why people are disillusioned with politicans and thats because of their reputation for bending the truth at best and lying at worse.

In reply to Donald82:


Again, how do you know? And anyway, it's the ones that didn't that are relevant. I doubt many waverers were convinced by Corbyn.

Unless Labour MPs manage to oust him, we will have this ineffective fool "opposing" the likes of Johnson when it comes to negotiations for leaving the EU.

In reply to KevinD:


It's pretty close really. His "advocacy" was so ineffective as to probably be counterproductive (or perhaps not, see link higher).

After the referendum you still find it hard to understand why I and others are dismayed there is no effective opposition!?

In reply to wbo:

I'm saying he should have opposed the loopy Tories, not appesed them!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's really quite extraordinary that he utterly failed to engage with the disaffected low income classes who should be his natural constituency. Clearly his views on immigration are a problem for him but he has strong views on what the EU can do to to protect these people, but a complete inability to project these views. He seems to restrict himself largely to small scale speeches to his existing support groups, won't work the the media, and could make a gift of the winning lottery ticket sound dull.

Everyone, quite rightly, is pointing out that brexit is not going to magically solve these peoples' problems. He is the man who should have been shouting loud and clear why not.
The left should be one of the the big winners from all this but he is managing to blow it.

In reply to MG:

Someone's polled voters and it was reported on the news. It doesn't seem a contentious point but sure you can check it using Google.

I think he's pretty ineffectual too btwell and hope he's out before the next election.

In reply to MG:

Polling. This data is easily found online. 63% of labour voters voted remain. Conservative remain vote was around 40%. SNP 64%. Yet Corbyn is the only one receiving any flack!!!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I agree that corbyn has to go. When labour heartlands like Wales and large parts of the north of England have voted out, then it is clear that their voters are just not listening to the leadership.

In reply to msp1987:

Hardly. Cameron has lost his job, in case you missed it. Note the thread title!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The tabloids, which influenced people to leave, have been and are
doing the same for Corbyn.

I'm also sick of labour MPs behaving like this, which bland mass produced MP would we get instead?

I wish the lot of them would just get on with it.

Toby

In reply to MG:


It really isnt. Like I said you really do come across as nutty as some of the pro Corbyn supporters.


nice weasel words there.
I saw that link. It comes across as a rather selective hitpiece on behalf of a future leadership campaign.
It would have been rather foolish for him to pretend that Europe was perfect. Only an absolute idiot would claim that and it would have undermined him to do so.


Who would you suggest as a replacement? Benn, Kinnock or another of the identikit Blairite generation of MPs?
Do you really think any of those would address the disillusioned masses who spent the last 20 years being ignored whilst the swing voters were targeted. Often at the expense of those core voters who were assumed to just line up and vote.

In reply to wynaptomos:


Or that the leadership isn't listening to its voters.

In reply to MG:

The real villain is Cameron, as he offered up,a referendum to appease euro sceptic voters and persuade them to vote Tory last time around. He played Russian roulette and has legged it as the smelly stuff hits the fan.

In reply to KevinD:
Good replacements are tricky to find for either party, I agree. How have I got to the point where I think Sturegeon is talking most sense...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




As long as he continues as Party leader, he will continue to be the Tories greatest assest.

In reply to MG:


That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read on the whole subject. Corbyn failed to do anything useful in the campaign, and this is important given who voted Leave. But Cameron is obviously responsible for the whole situation - he called a referendum that we didn't need, which ran the risk of catastrophe, and *his* decision has screwed us all. The lies of the Leave campaign were the next big deal. You can't honestly believe what you wrote there, because it's total nonsense. Just because you voted for him, that doesn't mean Cameron hasn't single-handedly caused the biggest f*ck up in UK politics for decades.

Corbyn, of course, needs to go.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm not absolving Cameron of anything. As you say, he didn't need to call it. However once it was called Corbyn (unlike Cameron) had the power to swing the result and didn't. He could have made the case well and wholeheartedly. He didn't; he was on holiday. No way would this have been lost with Milliband or even Brown as Labour leader.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The referendum wasn't conducted along party lines. The failure was on the part of BremaINers of whatever political persuasion. If he runs again I'm quite sure he'll win again as he offers an alternative to the politician-by-numbers that infest Westminster.

In reply to MG:


I'm not that convinced. A lot of what's been reported (whether it's representative or not I don't know) shows that people voted Leave to stop Muslims coming to the UK, etc. You can't make a case to these people, they don't have any idea what's going on.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Corbyn has a long history of EU scepticism, he voted "out" in the first referendum;


July 2015 – “Brutal”

“If the EU becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think it will lose a lot of support from a lot of people.”

June 2015 – “Colonies of debt peonage”

“[If] Greece leaves both the eurozone and the EU its future would be uncertain, but at least it could be its own. … There is no future for a usurious Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage.”

January 2015 – Undemocratic

Public opposition to the EU’s TTIP treaty is “a cri de coeur for democracy and for the right of people to elect a Government who can decide what goes on in their country.”

April 2013 – “Worst of all worlds”

“Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating rail services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either. What we have is the worst of all worlds.”

February 2011 – Human rights abuses

“We have EU trade agreements with a number of countries that include a human rights clause that has not been enforced or effected. Is it not time for us to look again at the whole strategy for the region?

May 2005 – “Simply crazy”

It is morally wrong [to] pay farmers to over-produce… then use taxpayers’ money to buy the over-production, so it is already a double purchase, and it is then shipped at enormous public cost across the seas to be dumped as maize on African societies. … The practice is simply crazy and must be stopped.”

October 2003 – Morally Unjustifiable

“[W]e are now exporting 40 per cent of the world’s sugar and subsidising it to the tune of €500 per tonne. That is not justifiable in any moral or other sense. We are driving cane sugar producers in Africa and elsewhere out of business so that European sugar can be dumped on their markets.”

May 1993 – Opposition to Maastricht

“I am sure that [Labour MPs] will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”

March 1993 – EU Army

“[W]e are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for? … Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be “to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union”. What exactly does that mean?”

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The memorable straplines from the campaign are "Take Control" "Take Control of Our Borders" "Independence Day" and "7 and half percent"...
Corbyn sabotaged the Remain campaign. I believe he did it on purpose because of the Far Left's "anti-globalisation-big businessman" agenda. I'm beginning to wonder if he really is a good bloke after all.
He may win a leadership election but he will be leading a Labour rump party and this time it will be permanent.

In reply to Toby_W:

which bland mass produced MP would we get instead?

Oh for a bland, competent, pragmatic adult instead of the parade of clownish, egotistical man babies we have set free to ransack our humbled nation
And it is men as flipping usual

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I think I chose my words badly, yours are better.
Cheers
Toby

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So we have Brexit, Cameron reisiging, market chaos, and yet again Corbyn contrives to get to to the top of the news with Labour internal wrangling no shadow cabinet and his refusal to resign.

His behaviour is verging on treachery!

In reply to MG:

Is this good?

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/27/corbyns-new-top-team-actually-has-...

There is to much going on, my little brain is tired out.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Interesting snippet in Private Eye's "Number crunching" column;

6 Former leaders of the Labour party who signed a joint pro-remain letter in the week before the referendum.

1 Current leader of the Labour party who didn't sign it, and won't appear on the a platform with members of other parties either, (except Hezbollah, Sinn Fein etc.)

In reply to MG:


There's some interesting info here:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

In reply to Big Ger:

Tell me how this is Corbyn's fault?

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg

What level of 2015 Labour voters would have been enough, for you to say "good job, JC"?

In reply to krikoman:

How about enough to win the referendum. And its not just Labour supporters he could have talked to. It was the whole country. He did essentially nothing. Deliberately it would seem. Anyway, he (or the Labour Party) are clearly going to go now.

In reply to krikoman:

Why are you asking me that?

In reply to MG:


And what are you basing, "he did essentially nothing" on?

Is this because he wasn't on the telly?

In reply to Aly:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

One interesting stat, would be how people that didn't vote in the General Election voted.

In reply to Big Ger:


Because I'm interesting in what you have to say, obviously. You seem to be the fount of vast knowledge I thought you might shed some light on what a good and bad job is.

In reply to krikoman:

Oh, you're another obsessive. Ah well.

In reply to Big Ger:


Which is why he was honest (remember honesty?) when he said overall he's in, but it needs some reform.

In reply to krikoman:


He seemed to stick to his tried and tested modus operandi of talking live to his existing supporters. He won't use the media. The media is the primary route for a politician to get his or her message to to the wider public. He appears not to be interested in doing that.

In reply to MG:


Apart from he was out campaigning. He didnt get the level of press that the overgrown children did but that doesnt mean you can claim he did nothing.
He didnt stand alongside Cameron but then why should he? It is clear he a)doesnt believe in the tory vision for Europe and b)their rather unpleasant campaign tactics.


evidence?


Sadly it is probably going to happen either way. The extreme Blairites dont seem to have thought about the lessons of the referendum at all. They think the tactic of ignoring labour voters to chase the swing voters is still going to be effective.

In reply to Big Ger:


Ah! I see, well just dodge the question then if you like.

Unfortunately, blaming Corbyn but not being able to come up with a valid answer for what he should have done doesn't help your argument.

In reply to krikoman:


I don't think he was honest, I think he had deeply held anti-EU views, as are held by many on the hard left. I think he was only paying lip service to the "remain" vote.

But we'll never know will we?

In reply to krikoman:



Please quote what I blamed Corbyn for?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think you'll find the media were busy with Boris and Cameron, oh and JCs shirt button was undone once too.

The media talk ABOUT JC but don't want to know what he has to say!

Unfortunately, it's being said enough times that people are starting to believe it, even some who should know better in the Labour party. If they think they'll win the next leader election, they are in for a shock, once again misreading the electorate.

In reply to Big Ger:


sorry I thought your post 22:34 Mon, was a dig at JC.

Re-reading I can see it's in full support, I do apologise.

In reply to krikoman:

No worries, and thanks.

In reply to krikoman:


Not true. New organisations were complaining that they couldn't get him to be interviewed and he is notoriously bad at just doing the necessary "soundbites". I understand that he doesn't trust the media and I understand why but he has to engage with them. He also has to accept that the media has a duty to ask difficult questions and politicians have a duty to accept that.

Did you watch the "Vice" documentary? He even managed to antagonise and disillusion the sympathiser who made it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think Corbyn has scored a serious own goal by not engaging with the media enough but given that it is almost overwhelmingly hostile to him, I can also absolutely see why he won't play the game. Double bind.

In reply to krikoman:


Well, if the parliamentary Labour party has to rely on the media for their view of Corbyn, maybe that's the problem.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


You don't think, some of them have been against him from day one then, that they'd made their minds up about him and not listened or given him a chance?

That they've refused to work with him and taken every opportunity to try and bring him down.

They showed their colours almost immediately once the DEMOCRATIC leadership went to JC. Not good enough for them, let's bring him down. Of course Blair and the media were only too ready to help in that.

In reply to krikoman:


Look, he can't have it both ways. Either he needs the PLP and the media and he meets them halfway by perhaps developing some communication skills, pretending to be sociable and behaving like a grown-up, or his strategy is that he doesn't need them, in which case he'll be fine because his overwhelming support among right-thinking people will see him through.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I predict PM May will make him a Lord in the near future for services to the conservative party. 40years of deep cover on the back benches, continually opposing the labour leadership, then he is voted in as leader and destroys the labour party from within. I hope he is appropriately rewarded. Perhaps a knighthood, his anti royalist stance was probably all part of his cover too.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well look you.

They, the PLP, can't have it both ways, either they have a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader or they don't. Much as with the referendum, I don't like the result but it's what we have to work with now.

You can't really pick and choose which bits of democracy you want because it's not democracy then, is it?

In reply to krikoman:

You seem to think that having a party leader directly elected by the party membership is the only sort of democracy. It isn't. It isn't even the best way, just as having a yes/no referendum on a highly complex issue based on simplistic, misleading and plain dishonest information isn't sensible democracy.

In reply to krikoman:

MPs primary duty is to their constituents who elected then, not to the Labour party members. Similarly shadow cabinet members are there to oppose government and offer alternatives, not to shore up Jeremy Corbyn.

In reply to MG:


Well said.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Very good. He was the guy who called the referendum that barely anyone wanted, and who had no plan for what dto do if the "leave" side won - oh hang on.

It's as stupid a claim to make as Trump supporters blaming Obama for gun crime and related massacres.

In reply to MG:


But that's bolllocks, how can my Conservative MPs primary duty be about me?

the theory is great but it doesn't happen.

I live in a Conservative safe seat, they could put a blue tie on a squirrel and it would get elected, so where is MY democracy?

The closest I get is choosing local leadership, which again is thwarted by the Conservative hordes.

My other option is voting for the leader of my party, this is where I do have some democracy but that's not good enough for you.

Whilst I agree the referendum was a shambles, and was handled badly and there was misinformation and lies, it was democratic. It should have been stated it was only a mandate that we don't HAVE to act on if that's what's going to happen.

And if MPs primary duty is to their constituents, why are Labour MPs who got shit results, 27% in one case, resigning from the Labour Party and blaming JC. Why didn't she either change the proportion of votes or support he constituents?

In reply to krikoman:


It's not, it's about all their (100000) constituents. You are just one of these. They attach to a party too, mostly, but that is secondary.

In reply to krikoman:


Have you tried asking them?

In reply to MG:


I love the way this claim gets trotted out. Especially when its being used to try and argue to get rid of a party leader since they wont win the next election with them.
Do you really think Hillary Benn, a born and bred Londoner, would have got elected in Leeds if he had turned up as an independent?
The majority of them (there are rare exceptions) are elected due to their party.
In close elections the way they sell themselves personally may push them over the line but if they turned up by themselves they would be sitting next to the BNP bod at the back of the count.

In reply to KevinD:

Of course people vote based on party allowance. When push comes to shove however (as now) most MPs do recognise their first responsibility is to the their constituents and will defy the party. There a few party whores.of course, who krikoman seems to approve of.

In reply to MG:


Really? Remember one of the accusations which gets thrown at Corbyn is that he was a rebel for going against the party.
Which bearing in mind they were tedious subjects such as going to war, whether to investigate the war and so on seems odd since I suspect his constituents were in favour.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Oh FFS!!! No I thought they should be able to read my mind, and then make policies around that.

Yes I've asked them, and in every case I got near stock response I'd expect from a Conservative.

In reply to KevinD:


To finish the question that was posed at the time: how can he hope to command loyalty and maintain discipline within the parliamentary party?

In reply to MG:


Then where's my democracy? Where's MY say on what happens?

This is EXACTLY why we are out of the EU, because people thought their voices weren't being heard, no one cared and that they didn't matter.

Just about the only Labour leader that has made any effort to listen to the people gets vilified and blamed for the mess we're in now!

Well no the shoe is on the other foot, it's the MPs that don't want to do what the people have voted for, the House of Common over the mainly, but the Labour party is doing the same internally.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Why shouldn't he if he's democratically elected?

If the Labour party have rules and they elect someone following those rules, by a pretty big margin too, then how come they think it's alright to ignore that mandate.

While I agree you can change your mind, there are many who have been out to bring JC down since he was elected. People are free to vote against whatever they like, but against everything your leader supports, then you're in the wrong party.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

So what's the best form of democracy?

In reply to krikoman:




You are the Janus face of Postman Pat, aren't you?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I hope not!

I'd rather not be anyone's J Anus if it's OK with you

I might come across as a rabid JC follower, but I just don't think he's been given a chance either, by the media, the public (based on what the media tells them, mostly), and worse by his own party.

My overall outlook on life is that people should have a fair crack at the whip and I don't think he has.

It beggars belief that people can blame Corbyn for this clusterfuck we're in now.

In reply to krikoman:

One that works, for a start. One where you elect someone you trust to make decisions about things you don't fully understand on your behalf seems a sensible compromise.

Things you might not fully understand could include... well, let's see. How about the complex geopolitical, economic and cultural implications of leaving the EU; or how to balance admirable political idealism with the practical constraints of running a government, inspiring the loyalty of a parliamentary party and the support of party membership in the choice of a party leader?

It can be a mixed constituency, I don't have any problem with the membership having some say but the parliamentary party has to have a decisive voice because they have to work with and have confidence in the leader. Not so keen on union block votes either.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The flaw there is when the parliamentary party has become divorced from the rest of the party. There has been the habit of parachuting in central office candidates onto the local parties.
If you dont have the local membership involvement then the MPs are basically in their own little world and have to seek alternate sources of campaign support (not just cash but the legwork) which will inevitably end up being special interest groups.

In reply to krikoman:


There I completely agree with you. A lot of the Leave votes in the referendum were protests from people who never imagined they would ever be in a majority. I think a lot of the membership votes for Corbyn were the same. They just wanted to stick it to the smug, third-rate time-serving usual suspects who thought they were entitled to the job, and I have to confess when I heard the result I cheered.

But the novelty wore off pretty quickly and now we don't have the luxury of a principled but inept leader of the opposition working (being charitable) on a 4 year master plan to rebuild the party before the next election. We probably have about 4 months.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


and how do you fix the problem of people in safe seats not feeling as if they can make a difference?

In reply to MG:

And how does your "supporting your constituents" sit with this?

https://twitter.com/search?q=Angela+Eagle&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5...


Search for Aaron Bastani, it's about the lovely Mrs. Eagle and her loyalty to her constituents.

Edit just in case you can't find it,
"Please see the content of the email issued to Angela Eagle today as instructed by those members of Wallasey CLP who attended the AGM. Hello Angela At the CLP AGM on Friday 24th June 2016, delegates asked me to write to you to ask you to reject the motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. The meeting was overwhelmingly behind Jeremy continuing as Labour leader. Your appearance on TV during the post referendum programme was mentioned. Your response in putting the question of his leadership aside to deal with the issues was welcomed. The idea that the Labour Party would rather miss the chance to capitalise on the splits in the Tory party by in fighting was not acceptable to members. On behalf of the constituency I would ask you to make a clear public statement of support for him.

Regards Kathy Miller & Kathy Runswick Secretary & Chair Wallasey CLP"

In reply to krikoman:


It's very difficult, as I'm sure Angela Eagle found, but at some point an MP might have to choose between what her constituency party tells her and what's in interests of the party and, ultimately, her constituents.

Of course, she risks deselection but sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

In reply to krikoman:

That is from the local Labour party, not her constituents.

In reply to krikoman:


I can't. We have a tradition of tolerant democracy respectful of the views of minorities but there's no perfect system. You can't always have an MP of the party you'd like, but a decent MP (the great majority of them) won't hold that against you.

In reply to KevinD:
.


And his constituents seem happy with that. Other MPs constituents don't though, hence the lack of supportfir him as Labour leader

In reply to MG:


evidence?

In reply to KevinD:

I'm one of his constituents and speak to my neighbours; odd, I know but I do. What do you want to know?

In reply to KevinD:

Polls suggesting 25% plus of labour voters in 2015 wouldn't now support him.

In reply to MG:


Lets leave aside the easy jab about how well the polling companies are doing at the moment.
Do you have any useful context for that soundbite. Which survey was it. Was it him or the Labour party, what about other potential leaders and so on. Also the breakdown by constituency.
I assume you have it all to hand so you can check if the MPs are actually representing their constituents or not.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


I was asking about MGs rather random claims rather than about him.

In reply to KevinD:

No of course not. Try the polling companies if you are that interested.

In reply to MG:


So your claim about them being against him because they are representing their constituents is based on what exactly?

In reply to KevinD:

News reports and resignation letters of cabinet ministers.

Face it. He's crap, and done for, or the Labour Party is. Or possibly both.

In reply to MG:


So your evidence for the ministers being valiant defenders of their constituents is, ermmm, the ministers themselves.
Glad that was cleared up.


Sadly probably the labour party. Its quite impressive that after seeing continued comments from the public about a out of touch political class the labour MPs immediate response is rather than launch a leadership contest, which they could end up losing, is instead to try a coup so they can ignore all those boring members and get on with labour the blair central office way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's similar with immigration being a key reason to vote leave, when it's required to fill the demographic hole and as part of free trade with the EU.

The people voting Leave because of immigration might be disappointed.

In reply to KevinD:


Maybe they felt it was important for the members to understand to what extent their "leader" has lost the support of the parliamentary party? I must confess I hadn't realised he had lost 80% of them. What genuine leader who cared about the party wouldn't resign in that circumstance?

In reply to KevinD:

........ instead to try a coup so they can ignore all those boring members and get on with labour the blair central office way.

To be fair to them, that way did see the labour party in power for quite a long time, which means they were voted for several times in succession. I think many labour MPs and voters would happily settle for 10 years+ in office.

In reply to Moley:


Depends what you have to sacrifice for that. Again when you look at those disillusioned former labour voters a contributing factor was Blair ignoring them and chasing the swing voters. There was the accompanying collapse in party membership as the disconnect between parliamentary party and actual party got larger.
Not really what you need, i would have thought, when you are trying to deal with an increasing wave of ill feeling towards politicans and a belief that they are an out of touch group.

In reply to MG:


Are these the same polls that predicted an IN result or maybe the same ones that predicted a Conservative loss in 2015?

In reply to krikoman:

It's yougov. Stick your head in the sand if you want

In reply to KevinD:


The irony seems to pass a lot of people by on this reasoning.

I'm amazed how many people have been influenced by the media against JC, some of them quite intelligent people, who take what they are give as evidence.

"He didn't bow low enough", "his tie's not done up right".

He's the only one that actually gave facts, rather than scaremongering in the lead up to the referendum.

If that's the sort of politician you want then you deserve all you get.

In reply to MG:


and they got this referendum so right didn't they?

In reply to krikoman:

To within a few percent
.

In reply to KevinD:

I had to laugh at this. There was interview with a young Momentum supporter sating Corbyn was the only politican looking at social housing and a voice for that issue.Wake up, its an issue on most politicans lips. There is nothing radical about JC's ideas.

As commentators have pointed out with Clinton and Sanders, in 95% of issues they are putting forward the same/virtually similar ideas.

Most politicans are not out of touch.One or two maybe.

If you want to believe in the " messiah", fine.

I think the SNP's move to becomne the opposition party is absolutely brilliant.

In reply to krikoman:

You are amazed people are influenced by the media? Using the media to influence people is Jeremy Corbyn's job.

In reply to neilh:


I had to laugh at this. I am not a major fan of his. I think he was useful at making Labour rethink the direction it had went but not a leader as such. However sadly the parliamentary party seem to have ignored any hint of unrest and are charging on regardless.

as for Clinton/Sanders. 5% is a f*cking big difference. Shall we look at the genome for examples? Also I dont recall seeing much talk about either on here. From my knowledge of the US side of things it is the Sanders supporters (and many others) simply dont trust her. Both her hawkish attitude and links to various businesses make people doubt how serious she is.

What there does seem to be is a very active PR campaign against Corbyn. Its a shame those in charge didnt put their effort into the referendum really.


Lets see. Strong party membership. Policies left of what Labour offered.
Oh but absolutely no capability to become the opposition party. Thats not an insult to them because its their design.

In reply to krikoman:




I like Corbyn's politics and I like the fact he presented an honest case for staying in the EU (shame it was ignored totally by the press), but I have seen no evidence to suggest that he could persuade a Tory or Lib Dem voter to vote Labour. Listening to Margaret Beckett on R4 this morning, it doesn't even sound like he talks to any Labour MPs who don't agree exactly with his way of thinking. It also sounds like the team around him consider the Labour party itself collateral damage in maintaining his leadership, which is unacceptable. There must be candidates who are palatable to both the PLP and a large proportion of those who voted for Corbyn as leader, but the Momentum social media juggernaut is trying to paint anything but Corbyn's continued leadership as reverting to "red toryism".

In reply to elsewhere:


By the way they lap it up believe all the shite they are fed.

Here's a little for instance Laura Kuenssberg ,

Intimated that Andy Slaughter was a staunch support of Corbyn on the grounds that he called Corbyn a “comrade” and now he's left means the leader is losing his trusted supporters.

Yet Andy did this,

He voted for replacing Trident.
He voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war.
He nominated Yvette Cooper for the Labour leadership.


Hardly a comrade is he?

In reply to krikoman:


What is the point of Jeremy Corbyn if he cannot attract those voters?








So he can't retain support of MPs who were prepared to work with him despite differences.
Not a formula for a strong opposition or forming a government.

In reply to KevinD:

And a strong leader for the SNP who comes across very very well to a wide spectrum of people.. there is a message in that....... its upto you to listen to the message.

In reply to krikoman:


Anybody using the term "comrade" in 2016 unless ironically needs their head examined.

In reply to Postmanpat:

on Sunday morning on R5, they had Dan Jarvis and John Mcdonne lin the same interview. And McDonnel kept calling Dan " Comrade".

I think John Pinnear who was interviewing them could barely stop laughing.

In reply to elsewhere:



Where's the with him bit?

In reply to krikoman:


All those MPs such as Andy Slaughter who worked with him to form the shadow cabinet but Corbyn could not retain.

In reply to elsewhere:

The new shadow education secretary, somebody called Pat Glass, has resigned 48 hours after being appointed. Is that a record?!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Leader of The Opposition - Job Specification

1) Leadership.
2) Attract voters.
3) Influence politics.
4) Form shadow cabinet aiming to be next government.
5) Attract party members.

Corbyn fails on all except the least important (party membership).

Edit: an afterthought
6) Knows when to go for the sake of the party.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry comrade, I'm not allowed to agree with a capitalist like you.

In reply to elsewhere:

Meanwhile, " Jess Phillips screams at Corbyn's right-hand man Seumas Milne (called him a "c*ck"-good for her!) after a left-winger "threatened to take a blow-torch to her neck "

Must be Corbyn's "kinder, gentler, new kind of politics"

In reply to Postmanpat:


Andrew Neil confirms this is indeed a new record, beating an unnamed Tory who lasted six days

In reply to elsewhere:


I think Corbyn should step aside now, but don't you think that we've had quite an impressive number of U-turns in the last year on key bits of Conservative policy. Let's not forget Corbyn voted against the shameful welfare bill.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Cameron to Corbyn in the commons "For heavens sake man go!" which makes it almost impossible for Corbyn to do so and presumably helps the Conservatives enormously as a consequence so maybe clever strategy on Cameron's part?

In reply to Trevers:

That could be just as much down to a slim majority, conservatives who were not happy and not prepared to follow whip etc etc.

In reply to Postmanpat:



While I don't condone this :-
Is this the same Jess Philips that accused John McDonnell of missing a vote on a financial bill because he's protesting outside.

Who was then given evidence that he was inside voting and asked to remove or amend the quote.

Said, "NO" nice to see her, moral compass and honesty.

In reply to neilh:


I agree, and no I don't think they're all down to him, but he's made more noise on austerity policies being divisive and exacerbating inequality than any other prominent Labour figure in recent years.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Why should he be pressured to go?

The membership elected him, the membership should vote him out!!

He works for the membership and the electorate, not for the MPs, the MPs work for him and the electorate (supposed to at least).

In the absence of the electorate being able to vote, I for one don't want to see a good man lose his job because some people have convinced others, the membership (democracy) got it wrong.

I've wait god knows how long for a politician I can trust, I don't want to lose him now due to back stabbing bastards who don't represent me.

In reply to Trevers:

Are you really certain about that? there is alot of noise from this constantly from all sides. Believe it or no the Conservatives are just as much concerned about it-- Willetts etc etc.

In reply to krikoman:

Nobody denies he is a good man, far from it.But he is just not upto scratch as a leader, that is the critical part.There is a huge difference.

In reply to krikoman:

Neither do I. I want him gone because he is not up to the job.

In reply to elsewhere:


Based on what?

He ONLY got 65% of Labour party votes to vote IN?

Are have also made up the minds of the electorate for them that he's not electable?

In reply to krikoman:


No he didn't. They voted that way despite him. His campaign consisted of a couple of half-hearted speechs before going on holiday and active efforts to confound the Labour In effort.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-allies-sabotaged-labour...

In reply to krikoman:

I think Corbyn makes an absolutely brilliant leader of the Labour Party and I hope like hell that he sticks to his guns and is their leader at the next General Election.

By the way I didn't and don't vote Labour.

In reply to MG:


evidence?

In reply to KevinD:

I am sure if you try hard you can use google to find the surveys going back in time where support for Out among labour voters is around 30%, almost exactly the number who voted that way. Corbyn had no positive effect, possibly the opposite.

In reply to MG:


You are making claims. Its for you to support them with evidence.


dear f*cking god this is getting tedious. You just keep repeating the same claims without giving evidence.

I could give a summary of the problems of your claim but it will be wasted. You are the equivilent of the 350 million for the NHS types. Just keep repeating it.

In reply to KevinD:


I don't really care if you believe me - its easy to google. Also you are clearly not actually interested in the evidence but are just using repeated requests, that you ignore when provided, to deflect criticism of your dear Jeremy.

But in case I am wrong, try
John Curtice, Britain Divided? Who supports and who opposes EU membership, The UK in a Changing Europe, November 2015, p 11.

In reply to krikoman:

Scottish Labour no longer official oppostion at Holyrood
Invisibility during the brexit campaign
Complete leadership failure when he did nothing Fri/Sat/Sun after the result.


See MG response.


I agree with Scottish Labour on his electability.

In reply to m0unt41n:



And how're the Tories getting along with the economy and one-nation government? :P

In reply to elsewhere:



You're making a massive leap of logic to assume that Corbyn is responsible for that. I don't remember Scottish Labour doing particularly well during the 2015 general election.

In reply to elsewhere:


And for how much longer at Westminster if they don't sort themselves out?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-official-opposition-labou...

In reply to MG:


Once oh f*cking gain. I am not a major fan of Corbyn. It is just unlike you I am not a rabid opponent of him who could just as easily switch sides to be a rabid supporter for all the attention paid to facts.
I also find it fascinating that there has clearly been a lot of effort put into this coup. Possibly time which could have been better spent campaigning instead. Its also concerning that the PLP approach is to try and avoid actually giving the party members a say. Looks like they learned f*ck all from the referendum.

Reading that. Wildly varying polls but trying to average them out.
First thing that stands out is the figures dont match your claim, unless you mean p12.
For the polling as an average there is a small increase in support at the referendum. For the social studies/election study no real change. However the same is true of the other parties.
So as information goes not much use. A single snapshot also isnt much use. We dont know how much it changed inbetween.

You come across the same as the Brexiters. Randomly grabbing information and presenting it as facts to support your aims.
Make a good case against Corbyn as opposed to just pulling numbers out of your arse. Aside from anything else I would love to see an explanation why its all Corbyns fault as opposed to the MPs inability to campaign. Several of those prominently against him did well below average for the Labour constituencies.

In reply to KevinD:
I can't do more. I lead you by the hand to polls from several respected companies showing Labour Leave support at between 21 and 33% six months ago. It was 35% or so in the referendum. Somehow you think this shows Corbyn effectively convinced Labour voter to support Remain.

I have never said anything about it all being Corbyn's fault. Just that he singularly failed to do anything constructive and is therefore as much to blame as Cameron, and others.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Haven't we got a classic Catch 22 situation here?

The PLP want him gone - presumably because they don't think they stand a chance in the next General Election with him as leader (and lots of them will therefore lose their jobs) - and the Party membership want him to stay.

Putting political ideology and democratic principle to one side, unless Corbyn resigns, the only outcome seems to be the break up of the Labour Party.

This would almost certainly cast both factions of the party into the same political wilderness as the Lib Dems, and consign the country to suffer years of a completely unrestrained right wing Tory nightmare.

Bearing all this in mind, wouldn't the Labour Party therefore be doing all their supporters - and the country as a whole - a huge favour, by taking their collective heads out of their collective arses, and adopting a slightly more pragmatic approach to this problem?

In reply to MG:


Well you could try some facts to back up your claims.



ermm no I didnt say that. You really do seem to have basic comprehension problems. I am arguing against your claim that he made things worse (with suitable weasel words) is unprovable. That is all.
The remain figures also, generally, increased.

It is unclear either way what impact if any he had. It is then even more unclear why he would be the one to blame as opposed to some of the utterly invisible people now campaigning against him. If he should fall on his sword then so should they.


yes. you have repeatedly.
had the power to swing the result and didn't
His behaviour is verging on treachery!
They voted that way despite him.
Corbyn had no positive effect, possibly the opposite.


Which is a moronic position.
Cameron is the one who chose the referendum for personal gain in the first case.
He also ran a campaign which he knew Corbyn would be unable to ally himself with.

In reply to Goucho:

Is not the present situation similar to when the SDP split from Labour except the revolt now is more pronounced

In reply to Goucho:


Yes.
The PLP and the Labour party are in a head on collision cause.
Problem is I am not sure there is any easy solution. It would be easier if those PLP members had been selected by the local parties so could get their support. Mostly though they were central office candidates and so dont have that close ties. They certainly dont seem comfortable with their chances hence why they are trying to force him out instead of going into a leadership contest which he would probably win.
Not sure how it would work if the PLP decide they dont care about the membership. Apart from anything else that would hurt like hell next election when they dont have anyone out canvassing for them.
Unfortunately it doesnt look like there is any good compromise between the two.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Technically yes, but the Labour Party doesn't have any big beasts anymore like Owen, Rogers & Williams on either side of the argument.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

If there was someone inspiring to replace him, I might care more, but as there is not, it is just a side show of no consequence in comparison to everything else that is going on.

In reply to KevinD:






Which considering we might well have a General Election within 5 months is a bit of a worry either way

In reply to KevinD:

No that would appear to be you. Above I claimed "They voted that way despite him." You asked the evidence. I give it to you and you dispute it to deflect matters, as I knew and said you would. You also seem to struggle with the meaning of "all".

In reply to KevinD:

Another fan of re-selection, I see.


It's unlikely that this is the situation at all. The unions seem to want to back JC but that may not continue for ever. The LP membership doesn't consist of only YS and Momentum, plus the SWP that has transferred its allegiance from Respect and, save for YS, I wouldn't fancy them canvassing for me if I was a Labour candidate.

In reply to Jim C:


Wasn't one of the reasons Labour lost the last election, because the average voter - the one you have to win over in order to win - thought Milliband was a bit too left wing and lacked gravitas as a leader and statesman?

And now the party members think they can win an election with a leader who is even more left wing and has even less gravitas as a statesman?

Just a thought?

In reply to MG:


Apart from you havent provided any evidence to support your claim. You also made much stronger claims.
However lets stick with this one.
First of all looking at table 1 for the dates it looks like most of the polls were done after he was elected as leader.Not by much but for it to be useful we would need to know the figures before hand. We would need to know if they were trending up or down prior to his selection.
Secondly and most importantly. They dont support your claim that they voted despite him. We dont know. He could have lost votes or he could have managed to pull some back which had been lost.
Thirdly. If he is going to be accused of anything it would be useful to see if he was outperformed by other party leaders and also campaign leaders.

Anyway I am bored of this now. You are clearly a anticorbynite fanatic and frankly as tedious and illogical as your opposite number. I would be curious to see whether he did have any impact and how it compares to others but you are incapable of providing it. I doubt most of the others shouting about it are either. Its just a stick to bash him with.

In reply to KevinD:

Asking for PhD level discussion is ridiculous. Those figures are robust. They suggest, incidentally, Cameron was little more effective. But at least he tried...

In reply to Mike Highbury:


You dont. As it happens I am really unsure about it. Its the problem of our political system with the confusion between individual MPs and the parties.
I think the MPs should be accountable not only to the central office but also their local party members. Perhaps if more emphasis was put on the local parties we would end up with MPs who are better representative of those areas as opposed to someone parachuted in. Or maybe not.
That said my actual preference would be for proper MP recall to be available for everyone (strange how that got forgotten in the coalition promises).


He did get the support from about 50% of the full members. So if they start hemorrhaging then the party is in problem. Support already collapsed over the Blair years. Without that there is more emphasis put on the big donors not just for direct cash but also to replace those volunteers with workers.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Just wondering, the public see the public face of Corbyn and admire him or hate him, that is the image we have of him and that bases our opinion.

Now seeing as he's getting through MPs in his cabinet so fast some don't even stay long enough to pick up their first pay cheque, do you think there may be a side to him that is not quite so easy going and "nice" when it comes to working alongside him?
He doesn't seem to generate a lot of loyalty and affection amongst his MPs, if he was that good a bloke I'm sure a few more would stand by him? Parliament and parties may be a bear pit with divided loyalties, but it is ridiculous what is happening with Corbyn.

This is just a thought that crossed my mind, I don't have proof or evidence - or even really care.

In reply to Goucho:



The problem with the PLP is that they are far, far more interested in being Parliamentarians than representing the Labour Party. And they have seized upon the result of the referendum to attempt to remove a leader voted in by the party membership.

Now personally I didn't see Eagles, Benn * or the other young pretenders out there making a vocal case for 'Remain' before the vote. Surely it is logical for them ALL to resign for having failed to deliver what they wanted.



*His father must be spinning in his grave so fast that I'm surprised he hasn't surfaced in Australia yet.

In reply to Andy Say:


Just because you didn't see it happen doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I think the blue-on-blue battle was way more interesting to the media and attracted much more attention, so Labour didn't really get a fair crack of the whip in terms of media coverage.


Why? It's not as if he was great party loyalist if the party wasn't agreeing with him. And it's quite possible that Tony Benn would have been a Brexiteer.

In reply to Goucho:



Or perhaps they realise they have not a hope in hell of winning anytime soon, so they want to keep a little longer the comfort blanket of someone extolling the ( unelectable) policies that they like to hear
(when it does not matter as far as winning elections, as it does not exist)

In reply to Moley:

Of course, it could also be said of Corbyn that he never showed much loyalty to the party before he became leader - he was always one of the most prominent rebels, regularly voting against the party whip. he of all people should understand the idea of voting against the party leader. I'd like to be able to support Corbyn, but it's clear that there is no way he could lead a Labour Party to victory in an election.

In reply to tony:


So that absolves Corbyn. If no-one was listening to Labour how can he be blamed?


Because Tony Benn was at heart a socialist who was willing to stand up for what he thought even if it meant being banished to the outer fringes and vilified by the media (until he became, after neutering, a tolerated 'elder statesman'). And I think that you might find that his battles were with the PLP rather than 'the party'.

His son is a pathetic

In reply to KevinD:

There is an such an act but since it's not one that you approve of, this makes me think that you would prefer re-selection after all.

In reply to krikoman:

He ONLY got 65% of Labour party votes to vote IN?

As per the other thread: According to the Ashcroft poll, 63% of people that voted Labour in the last election voted to remain. i.e. You can't claim that 65% of Labour voters voted to remain in the EU in the referendum.

In reply to krikoman:





Bloody lefties. All as bad as each other

In reply to Andy Say:


ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg

Firmly in the Leave camp.

Haven't you got a Jew to blow up?

In reply to FactorXXX:


Bear in mind as well, that, given the low number of Labour voters in the first place, 63% is a disaster.

You only need to add UKIP numbers to the Tories to see how bad it was. This was Ed Miliband's problem too, he set his sights far to low.

In reply to Andy Say:
I read that Callaghan saw through tony Benn.

He would not resign on a socialist principle as it would mean losing his chauffeur driven ministerial cars.

Classic.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I am not sure what you are babbling about. However considering your previous guess as to what i think was bollocks I suspect this one will be as well.

In reply to KevinD:

If, as you say, that MPs should be accountable to party members, then re-selection is the simplest mechanism for doing so. Another method might be for the MP to consult the constituency party on which way to vote on significant matters which is, incidentally, how we ended up with Corbyn being nominated.

Second, you said that there isn't an act for the recall of MPs, but there is.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I went to a talk by John Curtis (UK's premier academic pollster) on Tuesday evening.

One of his main conclusions - not Corbyn's fault. Got as many Labour voters to vote remain as Sturgo got SNP to vote remain. Votes were very much on class/education lines and no party got through that divide.

My take from his talk was the main faults were as follows. (Faults in terms of things people actually did, rather then socio-economic forces) -

1. being sure they would win in the first place
2. getting a rubbish deal in renegotiations
3. remain running a bad campaign (remain were winning at the start, losing at the end)
4. leave running a good campaign (noted they provided a problem and a solution - where as remain just said things will be worse if we leave, no positive case for things getting better if we stay)

In reply to FactorXXX:



OK I see your point, well done for pointing that out, I was round to the nearest 5% but I take your point.

Would 65% be job well done then, and his 63% shit. I'm still wondering what level of support most people would think is satisfactory.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


I was thinking of the proper version as proposed by Goldsmith, amongst others. Not the needs them to be criminal or suspended by the commons before being considered.

In reply to Goucho:


Of course it would but, when you're a democracy and JC was elected democratically following the rules for the election, how do you then countenance the fact his opposition are now saying, "Well we don't like the result of the contest and we're want someone else".

It's partly why JC got elected in the first place, it's about principles and honesty. We ALL knew, there were people plotting against him since he won, Yvette Cooper got 17% of the vote and she still thinks she'll be a good leader.

As in the referendum people thought there votes didn't count, if the leadership is taken away by the traitors in the party it only serves to confirm this view.

I agree it's not what any Labour supporter wants but, it's always seemed to me that those people who didn't get what they wanted 9 months ago have worked AGAINST JC rather than with him, and that's not how it should be.

It might be time the Labour party has to split, those that listen to there electorate and those that want to be an MP.

In reply to Donald82:

LEAVE told bigger and better lies too!

In reply to Donald82:

Well he may be a leading academic but hearing Corbyns lukewarm '7/10' comment, and even more his response to the totally predictable question about immigration, almost put me off voting to remain, let alone anyone else.

I'm not sure that a 'polling academic' isn't a contradiction in terms...

In reply to krikoman:



not sure how happy the party will be if their 'elected leader' only has a 100 MPs after 2020 though. It depends on priorities? They can be a very minor party, doing only what party members want, or they can do what the MPs and several more millions of voters want and be a decent opposition.

In reply to krikoman:


I presume by electorate, you really mean paid up members of the labour party? It is the electorate who vote in the MPs, they are one in the same.

In reply to krikoman:

OK I see your point, well done for pointing that out, I was round to the nearest 5% but I take your point.
Would 65% be job well done then, and his 63% shit. I'm still wondering what level of support most people would think is satisfactory.

You're missing the essential point (again). The statistic in the Ashcroft poll refers to voters in the 2015 election. Therefore, to use it as a soundbite in support of Corbyn's performance in the referendum is incorrect.

In reply to KevinD:

Yes, I feared you might. Can you imagine what such a world would be like? The MP would be looking over their shoulder constantly, wondering what the headbangers in their constituencies are thinking and how a misstep might well lead to a recall and vote on their fitness to represent. Remember, on single issues, how and why people vote one way or another could be motivated by any blasted thing and rarely the matter in hand. And it won't be everyone eligible who votes, just those with the will to do so; which is fewer and fewer the more elections are held.

But I must say I'm impressed with your resilience given where asking the people what they think has got us.

In reply to Mike Highbury:



I admire yours and others belief that the voters should be ignored (hey I can go in for hyperbole and exaggeration as well) and occasionally thrown a bone to make them feel wanted.
There are, of course, ways that the recall can be made so it cant be triggered easily. Obvious example would be both high turn out and then a threshold. So not easy but still an option and might make people think they have a bit more of say rather than only being counted every five years.

It is clear that there is a massive seperation between a large part of the population and the politicians. Understandably so since they have been mostly ignored whilst the "centre" ground are chased at the cost of the core voters. Sooner or later those people spot they are being taken for a ride and start looking for alternatives.
I am not sure what the answer is but sadly it looks like the PLP not only dont know either but are desperately burying their heads in the sand over it. They dont seem to be asking why Corbyn is popular amongst their members but simply how they can stop his popularity counting.

In reply to FactorXXX:


It seems to be OK for the other parties to use the figure (the SNP did just fine with it), besides it's the most recent one we have, unless there's been another GE I didn't hear about. So how do you decide what Labour voter voted?

Besides all that, we're constantly being told JC has lost touch with the core Labour values and no body could vote for him, turning the EU ref. into personalities, yet if you look at the figure it discounts that bullshit argument.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



And how you reconcile voting IN when there are problems with the EU, wastage is massive, 4 days a month they move to Strasbourg because they can't stop the French wanting it there. The rest of the time the building is empty!!

Would you rather he'd said, "if we come out it'll be world war III", or, "I we stay all of Turkey will want to live in England". Just how honest do you want your politicians to be?

In reply to summo:


No I mean the people who live in my street and in my home town, those who've not been listened to for decades, those who think their vote doesn't count, those who, like me, have been waiting for a politician with some integrity and some honesty. That's what I mean by the electorate, believe it or not they STILL support JC against the Labour MPs currently stabbing him in the back.

In reply to summo:


The paid up members of the Labour party who voted for and want to keep J.C in are not the electorate. They are not in touch with Labour voters who want him out. He should realise it's time to step down for the good of the party and country. Labour will never win an election or form an effective opposition with him as it's leader. This is why the M Ps want him to go. I don't think Angela Eagles will be any better either.

In reply to krikoman:
Besides all that, we're constantly being told JC has lost touch with the core Labour values and no body could vote for him, turning the EU ref. into personalities, yet if you look at the figure it discounts that bullshit argument.

You've got nothing to compare it against though, so it's impossible to know if Corbyn's involvement in the Remain campaign increased or decreased votes. That's why it shouldn't be used as evidence that he has done well in the campaign.
Edit: You're also assuming that each MP in either campaign, only influenced voters for their own party.
By all means, state that '63% of people that voted Labour in the last election voted to remain' as that appears to be fact.

As an aside, why do you think that traditional Labour strongholds voted to leave and why the apathy from younger voters, who again are more likely to be Labour voters?

I see yet again Corbyn gets himself in the news for saying something stupid on a day with numerous open goals available to make the case for the opposition.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I can't get my head around the voting in Wales, especially the south Wales valleys (labour strongholds) virtually all voting Brexit - except Cardiff which was strongly remain - especially bearing in mind the funding that goes into Wales.
All seems to me a bit odd and contradictory to the rest of UK?

"Accounting for the variety of estimates that we do have available, the annual investment received by Wales could be an estimated £653-747 million per year, compared to an estimated annual contribution of £630 million. So, based on this method, Wales does seem to receive more financially than it contributes."

In reply to Moley:

I don't really understand it either but there's an argument to say that the more funding the EU provides to any UK region outside London, the less the Tory government feels the need to spend UK taxpayer money on that region, so they either cut taxes or siphon the funds instead. Leaving most Welsh regions still poorer than the UK average and therefore keen to vote for anything that changes the status quo. Again it has very little to do with the EU and everything to do with divisive domestic policy.

In reply to Moley:

Depends what the funding actually does. Does it do something worthwhile or does it go into vanity projects,like new roads which then do not create jobs .

In reply to john arran:

I think you probably have it, or something similar. I can only think it is the "protest vote" against the government (except Cardiff, wealthier?), but I do wonder whether emotions have overridden logic here.

I'm sure in the future this whole referendum will provide many, many students with lots of thesis, discussions and research projects trying to analyse what on earth occured and why. And the fat lady hasn't sung yet!

In reply to neilh:


That would be entirely subjective to individual: conservation, job creation, public transport, roads, sports facilities, historical conservation, culture. The list is near endless and one persons passion and need is another person's bollox.

Hers some. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/19-things-european-funding-done-...

In reply to john arran:

I don't really understand it either but there's an argument to say that the more funding the EU provides to any UK region outside London, the less the Tory government feels the need to spend UK taxpayer money on that region, so they either cut taxes or siphon the funds instead.

Just Conservative Governments?
Or, successive Governments including Labour?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Monty Python.....What did the Romans ever do for us?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?CMP=share_btn_fb

In reply to Mr Moac:

That's my point, jc got the job from the labour party, not the voting electorate. I guess the longer he stays in post, the better it is for the nation, it gives other parties a chance to sort themselves out.

In reply to Moley:

Think the Welsh International Climbing Centre and surrounding area had massive EU funding.
Not sure if the locals appreciated it though...

In reply to summo:

I don't see how it's better for the nation if the Conservatives win by a landslide and have no real opposition. How/ why are the Labour Party so out of touch with the voters who would vote Labour if J.C. is replaced? The M Ps seem to have a better grip on reality than the party. I think J.C. is still in the 70s his politics are so last century. It's the voters that put parties in power not party members.

In reply to Mr Moac:


Opposition has value, but I'd happily never see Labour in office again. If the price to pay for that is no opposition I'd accept that. I'd prefer to see the rise of the LibDems, or some defections from Labour across to the LibDems, or perhaps a new party as happened in the past with previous problems in Labour. I see the value in coalitions, LibDem/Con, as a greater number of MPs from more diverse backgrounds have more say and influence.

In reply to Goucho:

They lost the election because they failed to get that many votes in Scotland but I would argue that the scottish independence referendum was still high on the agenda to maintain pressure to forge a good deal. That vibe has now receded and I predict the people, at least in Scotland, will focus much more heavily on the manifestos which should contain a few new and attractive concepts eg constitutional reform to compensate for certain values { green and social justice} that we formerly relied on EU to give us.

In reply to Mr Moac:


Apart from they do get votes. What they dont get it is the swing voters who are the ones who decide who wins.
However if you chase the swing voters you run the real risk of ignoring your core constituents which ends up with them feeling all pissed off and looking for alternatives, any alternative.

In reply to MargieB:

I forgot to add: If you look at the EU vote in Scotland { admitedly not the 80% of Scottish referendum more like 60s%}
3 regions polled the 62% overwhelming EU stay proportion - but all the other regions were in the region of the 50% - with varying degrees above. The turnout shows a certain complacency >OK. BUT the figures of those who voted show a range of Reluctant EU, Reform EU to Passionate for EU.

I think this translates into Corbyn, strangely enough! In Scotland at least. Despite his lack of charisma { unlike Nicola Sturgeon who has mastered this aspect of politics} I think he's got something else the Scots like, direct honesty.

In reply to KevinD:

It depends what you regard as core. Momentum types and the loonier fringes of UKIP are hardly core to Labour or the Tories. Pandering to them simply loses elections. They may wander off if you focus on the centre ground but so what?

In reply to Moley:

Well it looks to me as though local voters have expressed their views on the subject.Having visted numerous art/cafe centres in various part of Wales which were EU funded over the past couple of years , I can well understand voters frustrations.

In reply to MargieB:
' I think he's got something else the Scots like, direct honesty.'

As exemplified by him pretending to support the Remain cause while actually having a solid track record in being in the Brexit camp? (Albeit for different reasons from Farage et al.)

He was so honest that he accepted the benefits of being in the PLP for 20+ years, while consistently failing to support it in good times and bad.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

He exemplified a critical approach. That has an element of support in Scotland . Real enthusiasts would vote SNP. My point is he has a relevance in Scotland to make people vote for him, and you could argue he is untested in the general election role because before our focus of attention and mode was on scottish referendum. That vibe has now receded. He has an appeal here, I believe. This is an observation.

In reply to MargieB:

I do understand his appeal, and I accept your observation that it has resonance in Scotland. There are demagogues that attract popular support by being shouty, funny and appealing to the lowest common denominator - Farage, Johnson - and there are those who attract support by telling their audience what they want to hear ('It's all the fault of the bankers/big business/media').

In reply to FactorXXX:


And NOBODY has any evidence that JC wouldn't gain votes in a GE, it's what the media is saying and everyone's starting to believe it.
This is the same media that said we'd be still in the EU.

Look at the Conservatives now, how the f*ck would you pick one of those bastards to lead the country? They've nearly ALL lied to the country, to YOU! and yet one of them will be in charge, treacherous back stabbing bastards. And yet everyone's still all to happy to condemn JC. I really don't get it.


NO I'm not yet the media seem to blame JC because he only got 63%!!! I'd like to know what a good percentage would be, no one seems to be able to answer that, except to say "His aspirations should have been 100%"


It's just a trifle long winded, and as we all know what we're talking about is just easier, so if I say 63% of Labour voters, you can add the, "in the last election" part. Since we don't no know how many Labour voters there are.


I don't know all the reasons, but some of them might be, "they don't think they have a voice", "they don't understand the question", "they listened to the lies and bullshit we got from the media", "They don't believe anything a politician says", "the perceived threat of immigration", "To take back control (what ever that means)"

Take you pick, I don't happen to think it was based on a balanced argument, because all we got we superlatives from both sides of the argument.

Ironically JC was one of the few voices that put forward a reasoned and honest arguments for staying in, but he's been vilified for that.

Your welcome to your lying, cheating, back-stabbing, treacherous, disloyal MPs and what's happened last week will only get worse.

In reply to Mr Moac:


Where do you get these "facts" that voters won't vote for Labour if JC is it leader???

HOW do you know this, because it's simply not true of the people I know.

Stop believing what you're told and start thinking for yourself, ask where this message is coming from and for what purpose?

There is absolutely no evidence of this, Labour won 4 local elections and have won two mayoral competitions. If things were are bad as we're being told would that have happened?

In reply to KevinD:



Which is what happened in the last election, the Labour party had become so Conservative Lite the pissed off their core ( an majority ) voters.

I don't understand what people fear about JC, unless it's his connection with the common person.

In reply to krikoman:



In answer to the above, I am basing these "facts" on the views of the people I know as are you. I do think for myself and have always thought that he is the wrong man for the country. Besides we can have someone who gets his clothes from a charity shop in power.

In reply to krikoman:

They actually won 4 majoral elections with Corbyn at the helm

Jeremy Corbyn seems to be a once in a lifetime leader, who else in British politics could attract 10000 people to a rally with 24 hours notice? His appeal to young people is huge, for the PLP to throw away this oppurtonity would be a massive mistake.

The truth is that the majority of the PLP would rather the Tories stay in power than have a socilaist labour government. It is sad to see. If we give up the opportunity the left in the UK will not have any say for generations. Jeremy is a man of integrity and his resilience is admirable. He needs to stand firm for a while longer and ride this out!

In reply to msp1987:

Maybe it is because they are MP's who have constituiencies away from London, and they have just seen an " out" vote driven by the population outside London. And maybe they are getting feedback form their weekly surgeries, that there is a different view out there to JC.

In reply to neilh:

So when he wins support and elections in the London area people can't say we shouldn't take that into account because its not an industrial heartland. When he piles on votes in Industrial Heartland byelections he is criticised for only speaking to his own supporters!

In reply to krikoman:

>
You mean his connection with all those "common, uneducated thickies" outside London who don't want more immigrants??

In reply to msp1987:

Its a fair point, although as I understood it in the by-elections its was due to the good local MP's as well.And where does Sadiq Khan fit into the London isse on JC?

Still the labour party got feedback from the industrial heartland MP's - like Burnham - that their message on immigration need to be modified.

In reply to msp1987:


Just about anyone? Including some random on Facebook who thought it might be an idea to hold a protest against the referendum result in Trafalgar Square, and then had to cancel it because at least 50,000 people signed up to attend, and the authorities got a bit worried...


Really?

I'm all for honesty and pragmatism, but a leader has to inspire confidence that they know what they're doing. I've never got that impression from seeing the few interviews he's prepared to do. If you want to engage the country, you have to interact with the media; you can't simply rely on going to meetings of activists; that's preaching to the converted.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Since when has Corbyn, been anti-imigration.

In reply to Mr Moac:


So you base you future PM on looks then?

You are welcome to Mr Pig-f*cker, he's always smartly dressed.

In reply to krikoman:


I was being ironic!!! He doesn't connect with them, partly because he barely tries, but largely because his metropolitan liberal pro-immigration values don't appeal to them.

In reply to neilh:


And is all the populations outside London Labour then?

And I that why Ms. Eagle decided to go against he local labour branch when they asked her to support JC

In reply to krikoman:

Maybe her local Labour voters or constituients /not members are giving her a different message to the one you want to hear.

In reply to krikoman:
NO I'm not yet the media seem to blame JC because he only got 63%!!! I'd like to know what a good percentage would be, no one seems to be able to answer that, except to say "His aspirations should have been 100%"
It's just a trifle long winded, and as we all know what we're talking about is just easier, so if I say 63% of Labour voters, you can add the, "in the last election" part. Since we don't no know how many Labour voters there are.

You can say it how you like, it still doesn't prove if Corbyn has had any influence on the referendum one way or the other. One of the reasons why you admire Corbyn is for his honesty and not resorting to dodgy statistics, etc. but you seem quite happy to do the same in your defence of him.


I don't know all the reasons, but some of them might be, "they don't think they have a voice", "they don't understand the question", "they listened to the lies and bullshit we got from the media", "They don't believe anything a politician says", "the perceived threat of immigration", "To take back control (what ever that means)"
Take you pick, I don't happen to think it was based on a balanced argument, because all we got we superlatives from both sides of the argument.
Ironically JC was one of the few voices that put forward a reasoned and honest arguments for staying in, but he's been vilified for that.

Strange, you readily use the '63%' statistic to say that Corbyn must be doing a good job in the UK as a whole, but when it comes to the opposite results in Labour strongholds, there are somehow other contributory factors at work.
You then go on to say that Corbyn was one of the few voices that put forward a reasoned and honest arguments for staying in. Surely, if he was that good, then he would have been able to have an influence on those areas above any other.

As for the rest of your post, quality rant and maybe it's a shame that Corbyn doesn't share some of your passion...

In reply to krikoman:


I don't usually see the Evening Standard, but this piece yesterday by Rosamund Urwin captures my view perfectly:

"Parallel worlds of the clown and the fool

Prior to the EU referendum, I had a theory: that Jeremy Corbyn would vote Leave and Boris Johnson Remain. After all, Corbyn’s defence of the Union was so half-hearted he scrubbed out pro-EU lines from speeches, while Boris’s dream scenario was surely a narrow “in” victory: it would have rendered Cameron a lame duck but without unleashing economic pandemonium. Hence our ex-mayor having the look on Friday of a boy who only meant to rock the dinghy, not capsize it.

“Jezza” and “Bojo” are a great study in contrasts. A man undone by his unshakeable idealism and another whose arch-cynicism has propelled his career. One who seems not to care about being Prime Minister, the other who cares for nothing else. The fool and the clown.

But there’s a similarity too. It takes an extraordinary egoism, bordering on solipsism, to be willing to sacrifice the party you’ve represented in parliament for 33 years out of a sense of moral superiority, just as it does to sacrifice national stability at the altar of your ambition."

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Found this interesting http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-ma...

In reply to FactorXXX:

John Curtis, UK top pollster, thinks it wasnt JC's fault. Not that that means he's doing a good job overall, but apparently 63 for labour was decent given so he at least didn't mess it up.

In reply to Donald82:
John Curtis, UK top pollster, thinks it wasnt JC's fault. Not that that means he's doing a good job overall, but apparently 63 for labour was decent given so he at least didn't mess it up.

What is that 63 compared to?
If you've got nothing to compare it to, you don't know if it's improved, stayed the same or got worse.
Therefore, you can't use it to say that Corbyn did well in the EU referendum discussions.
Additionally, if you're using the magic 63 as an indicator of how well Corbyn did in the UK as a whole, then what does that mean when the results were reversed as they were in many Labour strongholds?

In reply to Mr Lopez:
It's as old as the hills, this was going on in the 70's as well when the moribund labour right was being challenged by virtually anyone who showed any spontaneous interest in joining the party. The old guard assumed that anyone who disagreed with them was from the Militant, which probably became a self fulfilling prophecy in some areas.
The Labour Party badly needed to be recalibrated leftwards and that bit makes me struggle with the present coup. It was obvious from day one that the PLP was completely traumatised by Corbyn's election and would plot to get rid of him on every pretext.

That said, the student politics accusation has enough truth in it to hurt. He's not a leader, he's been a committed, contrarian back bencher all his days. He probably does need to go but a blairite candidate ( what should we call that, the war criminal group?) would be equally fatal - what we need is a left wing leader who's prepared to get his hands dirty with matters of state. Any suggestions?

No, I've no idea who that might be either.

In reply to FactorXXX:

My understanding of his take on this is... The vote wasn't split left right, it was split by education/class (but more by education). Given labour's demographics 63 percent was decent. He noted also it was 1% less than the SNP got, and pointed to various failings of Cameron and the leave campaign.

More generally, he's a well respected academic and, from other comments he made, not a Corbyn fan at all. So I assume he's looked at the numbers in depth and reached a reasonable conclusions rather than just thinking 63 is better than what the tories got or more than half or some such nonsense.

Then again, as Gove says: experts, who needs em?

(As above, this just suggests he didn't mess it up. Not that he did good)

In reply to FactorXXX:




It is slightly less than the Labour support for EU membership six months ago...

In reply to MG:

It is slightly less than the Labour support for EU membership six months ago...

Got a link to the data?

In reply to Donald82:

My understanding of his take on this is... The vote wasn't split left right, it was split by education/class (but more by education). Given labour's demographics 63 percent was decent. He noted also it was 1% less than the SNP got, and pointed to various failings of Cameron and the leave campaign.

Sounds interesting, got a link to the information?

In reply to FactorXXX:

See 14.55 post Wed above.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I went to talk at Glasgow uni. He has a blog though. Not sure if he's posted there - http://whatukthinks.org/eu/

I think he has one called what Scotland thinks too.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

This, from the Mash, I thought was hilarious and very close to the bone,:
The lack of anything making any sense deepened yesterday as Jeremy Corbyn vowed to fight on as Labour leader by painting faces on household items and appointing them to the shadow cabinet.

Flanked by an anglepoise lamp in a wig and a toaster with a smiley face, the Labour leader said he would continue leading whatever is left of the party, before handing over to his new press secretary Henry the hoover to answer any further questions.:

In reply to krikoman:


No I don't. But in a "leader" a dress sense/look is relevant, one has to project a sense of importance a certain gravitas relevant to a position of authority. I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea
.

Just curious to know who Mr Pig-f*cker might be?

In reply to Mr Moac:

Cameron. A reference to an alleged incident from his university days at Oxford, which I am fairly sure, having a small knowledge of the alleged participants, did not happen.

jcm

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Found this interesting
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-ma...

Do you think that is 100% trustworthy?

In reply to FactorXXX:



As opposed to the rest of the news outlets?

In reply to factorxxx:


Seems legit. But not particularly surprising - surely just how politics works

In reply to Donald82:

The canary is basically the daily express for left wingers though isn't it? I wouldn't put too much trust in it...

In reply to Mr Moac:



I rest my case!!!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Saw this today.

"In the new language of corporate power, when we call a candidate "UNELECTABLE" we simply mean they cannot be bought"

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Sure. just that story seems more likely to be true than not. It's not surprising to me that politics and the media might work like that. The facts are easily refutable. It's been updated to correct where they were wrong. Bias media report the truth when the truth suits them....

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Or is it another side of the story, that you'll never get to hear otherwise?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'd have to disagree, coming from a small northern town I can say that the only party's that canvass and campaign in the town centre regularly are ukip and the bnp . Barnsley is a northern labour town but Corbyn isn't their kind of labour leader, in all honesty if someone brash who looked like they could fight and had spent time 'darn pit' told them to vote remain they probably would have.

In reply to krikoman:

http://imgur.com/ezGxmIF

Private Eye on "The Canary"

In reply to Big Ger:
You've also got to see Corbyn from a Scottish perspective. Here, in Scotland, I think I detect a Caesar Syndrome in Nicola Sturgeon whereby she uses language that equates herself with Scotland { a function of her idealism} . But that may be" too tall a poppy" for Scottish voters and Corbyn could very well be the appealing antidote in a general election.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Having seen Corbyn speak recently, I think the real problem with him is that he has integrity, conviction and a commitment to social justice. He's been holding the line for 30+ years. The same cannot be said for 95% of other serving politicians.

Politicians are only described as being "electable" once it's known they can be bought and that their principles are up for grabs.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Someone elsewhere commented that Corbyn's idea of arguing for Remain is to point out that this would guarantee fair and equal treatment for all non-British EU citizens living in the UK. This may be principled - but not appealing to your townsfolk I suspect.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


It's not very often we see him get to speak, unless it's in real life, the media seem to be more concerned with his shirt buttons and how low he can bow.

In reply to MikeTS:


It depends on which town and the people there, not everyone's a racist!

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Other explanations are available. Some might say it's easy to have honesty, integrity and conviction so long as there's no danger of having to actually achieve anything.

On two of the biggest issues since he became leader he has totally floundered: his policy on Trident would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic; and the fact that he didn't have the bottle, integrity and/or political nouse to declare himself an Brexiteer, but instead gave such half hearted support to Remain that I still believe he made a significant difference to the outcome. Not in a good way.

In reply to krikoman:

The media cannot seem to get him on tele. This morning on R4 was classic - it was JD speaking. Surely it should be JC????And yet some of JD's economic messages are quite good.Just not sure that JC has the balls to tackle the media. As a minimum JC should be speaking on the BBC and ITV, in a way its his responsibility to do so as it comes with the territory.

I can well understand why the PLP have backed off him as a leader. It was pointed out at the time of the election that he was basically a backbench MP who voted against the labour whip on a lot if issues.I suppose it has now come home to roost.

The PLP do not really have to put forward a leadership candidate, they can just sit back and wait and wait and wait.Probably their best option.

Meanwhile the country has no effective opposition.Not good.

In reply to krikoman:


Do you honestly think that he isn't regularly asked to be on TV and radio?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm sure he is, "Dear Mr. Corbyn would you like to come on our program and discuss the tightness of you top collar button during ............."

In reply to Big Ger:



is this not happening then?
"A new database reveals how GPs are receiving tens of thousands of pounds in consultancy fees from the pharmaceutical industry, while recommending their drugs to patients. The Telegraph reported last Wednesday that 52% of these payments have not been included in the database because the recipients won’t reveal their names. Doctors are allowed to keep these deals under wraps because of the right to anonymity guaranteed by the Data Protection Act.

You might be thinking this isn’t such a big deal. They’re not doing anything illegal. They’re just protecting their right to anonymity. But when a pharmaceutical giant like GlaxoSmithKline refuses to work with those who refuse to be included in this database, this means that there is clearly a risk involved in this level of secrecy. Indeed, the risk could be massive."

In reply to Postmanpat:



The BBC has admitted to bias against him just today I think (probably unintentional)?

In reply to Big Ger:


In a later issue it was cleared up that it is indeed independent, and that contributors don't get paid more the more clicks they get, removing the need for alarmist and (as a consequence) inaccurate articles.

So now you know.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Would agree,

Newsnight, Question Time, Any Questions... perfect places for the leader of the opposition to air his views against the Tories. Any person who is willingly leading their party with a sound reasoned argument should have nothing to fear, it must be pretty high up in their terms of reference or job description.