|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
This.
He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:
“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”
Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."
I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...
I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."
I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:
a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.
I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.
Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).
Actually, "keep it comradely" was Angela Eagle's pledge, the respect and unity one - which is more detailed - is from Corbyn.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for. ...
I agree. It's too bland. It does not go far enough. If the situation is as it is reported, he as leader should be threatening dire penalties for those guilty of bullying and intimidation. He appears to be a beneficiary of that sort of behaviour. For so long as he is not prepared to make threats, mean and act on them, it leaves him under the same cloud of complicity as to this day hangs over Dev in respect of the death of Michael Collins.
Apart from reporting abuse - which can lead to suspension or expulsion from the party, or reporting to the police - what else are you expecting ? There is no other mechanism, he can't very well go round and beat them up.
[ 23. July 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
Meanwhile, T.May got off to a roaring start as 'Thatcher #2' ... JC got a bit of a spanking, although I do hope for the day when he can turn the words, 'Remind her of anyone?!' back at May ...
Labour members are concerned, I think, both at what is said, and the way it is being said. Many long-term party-people agree with 85% of what JC says in terms of policy but are nevertheless worried that no one other than the left are listening to him... This is a real issue the movement must face.
The idea of a truly radical-left party winning a General Election in the UK can still seem far-fetched (though there are debates to be had about how many votes Tony Blair actually won by, say, committing to the Tory spending plans to get into office in 1997)...
I will simply observe for now that there certainly needs to be something 'in the air' among the general public; a sense of an ever more urgent need for a 'new beginning' in the way we re-organise our society / our whole attitude to the way decisions should be reached. Not expressing myself very well here, as typing off the cuff, but have this feeling that there is some kind of common thread in the successes of Atlee, Wilson and Blair. I too have my doubts about JC's place in their company,, but at the same time have heard nothing as yet from his rival, beyond Millibandish-triangulation ...........
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think I may have an answer to my question to Doublethink.
Here is the Labour Party rulebook for 2016 (You have to download the pdf.)
Chapter 6 refers to Disciplinary Procedures. It begins this way
quote:
The NEC shall take such disciplinary measures as it deems necessary to ensure that all Party members and officers conform to the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party.
Is the Code of Conduct now a part of "the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party"? Or does it need first to be ratified by an NEC meeting? Its enforcibility depends on its status. Is that clear?
(edited for bad link - B62)
[ 24. July 2016, 00:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.
But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned. However, he can't change the party rules himself - those are agreed by the NEC to which representatives are elected by party members.
Part of the problem, is that Twitter accounts, or Facebook, or email - do not necessarily give a person's real name nor is their any guarantee that person is a member of the party. Sock puppets and trolls are a thing.
The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.
[ 23. July 2016, 22:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, I know that the smearing of Corbyn has reached surreal proportions, but now you seem to be invoking psychic powers. "He knew perfectly well what he was doing, when he opposed ... He was happy to have them thrown to the mob."
I'm curious how you know what he knew about what he was doing, and that he was happy about people being thrown to the mob. Are you psychic, or are you smearing?
Well, I think the evidence that a non-secret ballot would lead to threats and intimidation is that Ms Baxter and others said they felt themselves at risk of threats and intimidation. Which suggests that Mr Corbyn either:
a.) Didn't believe her
b.) Didn't care
c.) Did care but thought threats and intimidation were a lesser evil than some other evil that he saw a secret ballot as possessing.
I'd be interested to know which of these options you feel casts Mr Corbyn in a good light?
Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
IIRC, Corbyn opposed secret voting in the NEC, because secret voting in the NEC is highly irregular.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, Johanna Baxter, the NEC member quoted in Sarah G's link, says something even more amazing:
Quote: "The only reason to vote against that [secret voting] is so the intimidation can continue".
This strikes me again as highly inflammatory language - 'the only reason' - how does she know that? 'Is so the intimidation can continue' - this suggests that Corbyn is actively organizing abuse and intimidation.
WTF? She continues: 'he showed his true colours in that vote', well that is, according to her interpretation.
Who is being abusive now?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I doubt it, both Angela and Jeremy issued codes of conduct / pledges about campaign conduct.
But I think abuse would come under the category in the rules described as "conduct prejudicial to the party". Jeremy has already proposed making the rules more explicit - it was a proposal arising out of the Chakrabharti enquiry into anti-semitism that he commissioned.
Yes I had a look in Chapter 2 and came to the conclusion that "prejudicial conduct" was the broad category of offence which might be used.
I think that means two things.
1. Both the Code of Conduct and the Pledge are not directly subject to disciplinary action if they are transgressed. Adherence to them is essentially voluntary.
2. "Prejudicial Conduct" is too broad. The wording of the current rule book needs to be beefed up - e.g. by including something like the Code of Conduct as part of the "standing orders of the Party".
quote:
The fact is, people are furious - furious about brexit, furious about the shadow cabinet resignations - a minority of those people are venting their spleen on social media. I think that comes from both sides of the party, and from people who aren't members at all.
I accept your general argument as far as it goes. (The feeling in the PLP seems to be a mixture of fury and frustration with Jeremy.)
But it does look as though the weight of the dogpiling, whether or not it is co-ordinated, comes from folks who support Jeremy. I hope they listen to him and stop. But under the current Rule Book, there is not a lot that can be done easily if they don't, provided they stay within the law.
I still think he should talk directly to his supporters, in very strong terms. He may be doing this in the rallies. That would be good.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.
I think the disproportion is simply because - example percentage - 2% of a larger number of people, is a larger absolute number of people. Whilst more MPs who receive abuse over the leadership, are going to receive abuse from that 2% because there are more MPs who are anti-corbyn.
Conversely, Corbyn supporters are unimpressed with being referred to as trots / rabble / dogs - hence the emergence of the trotrabbledogs hashtag. Nor did a labour mp claiming poor people aren't interested in politics, so disenfranchising them doesn't matter, help.
[ 24. July 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.
Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)
And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.
quote:
As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.
All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.
There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.
There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.
Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.
Fury is no excuse for misconduct.
[ 24. July 2016, 08:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
After reading the story of access to Seema Malhotra's office this morning it seems pretty clear that no matter what, the party is not going to unite behind Corbyn. It's just got simply too toxic for that. In the interests of party unity he needs to step down to defuse the situation.
There have been far too many resignations and it is a sad day for any party to come to a vote of no confidence in their leader. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, it can't be healed by Corbyn staying in place. IMO.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
He would be playing a blinder, however, were he to urge all his supporters to get behind Smith, in the event of Smith winning -- and then call upon Smith's supporters to match the offer .....
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.
Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is perfectly possible for the party to suspend people, and it has done so in the recent past. But it does require evidence.
Sure, but it takes a long time, and when a broad benchmark is being used, it's harder to determine what evidence is relevant. That's why I'm in favour of strong statements now. It's a pity that the two candidates cannot issue a joint statement endorsing the Code of Conduct and the Pledge and asking their respective supporters to respect both the word and the spirit. (I guess they could still do that despite the bitterness)
And if anyone wants to avoid the 'trotrabbledog' label then the right answer would be to follow these aspect of the Code of Conduct.
quote:
As a candidate I will treat all with respect, behave with civility and expect all who support me to do the same.
All Labour Party members and supporters should conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. This debate is about politics, not personalities, and personal abuse of any nature will not be accepted.
There should be no personal hostility and nobody should feel intimidated at any time. So no foul or abusive language will be tolerated and all candidates should be listened to with courtesy and respect at hustings, meetings and events.
There will be no tolerance of abuse on social media. All candidates should ensure that anyone who acts in an abusive way on social media is referred to the Party for investigation.
Like for example laying off using a hashtag which spins the myth at the same time as confronting it. Or maybe just laying off confrontational comments on social media for a while. And encouraging friends to do the same.
Fury is no excuse for misconduct.
I am following the code of conduct, it doesn't stop me being tarred with the same brush - see any amount of commentary on this thread for example. I am not using the hashtag, I have no friends doing so.
People are promoting 'block don't bicker' on Twitter. But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option. There a re already clone accounts on Twitter posting repeated attakcs on corbyn using exactly the same phrases and graphics. All that will happen if Corbyn supporters don't use Twitter is that it will get colonised by those making the opposite argument - and then the relative volume of messages / hashtags will become a story about how corbyn is losing support.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.
[ 24. July 2016, 09:26: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
He'll never step down. Corbyn & his cohorts have been waiting all their lives to get control of the Labour Party, and now their chance has come they won't just let it go.
Yes, that's how it seems to me but if the Labour Party is to survive that's what needs to happen.
Realistically is it likely to split? In theory it's possible that it could, and that the hard left would take over what's left of Labour, and a new party for the moderates might form, but does anyone think that a split is at all likely?
If we had a sensible electoral system, a split would be inevitable, and healthy IMO.
If Corbyn is re-elected, as he will be barring something earth-shaking, then a split is likely. The centre-left/soft-left breakaway group will probably try all kinds of shenanigans to try and claim ownership of the valuable Labour brand, but I don't think they'll succeed. In the long term, there could well be a larger centre-left party, possibly in alliance/merger with the Lib Dems, but that raises all sorts of other issues that will take many, many years to work through. In the meantime, the Tories have the next election, and the one after that probably, in the bag.
In about 10 years time the Tories will have succumbed to the scandals/exhaustion/running out of ideas that afflict all parties that have been in power too long. A unifying centre-left person (who may not yet be an MP) will then have every chance of winning a general election.
That's best case, as far as I can see.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But not engaging in social media during an election campaign is not a realistic option.
Dunno. Couldn't both candidates call for a social media truce on the grounds that the dogpiling is prejudicial to Party unity, regardless of who wins?
I think you and I agree (probably) that the current levels of media dogpiling are prejudicial to the Party. I reckon Owen and Jeremy would do themselves and the Party a favour if they stood up together in front of this runaway train and shouted "STOP"!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It really isn't option, especially in terms of reaching the younger members of the party. We are now a country where the first announcement the chancellor was leaving office was on Twitter - you can't take it out of the equation it just won't work.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In which case, what the Hell is the point of the Code of Conduct?
I'm not talking about stopping tweeting and FBing. I'm talking about pleading to party members to stop using these media to vent, foster emnity and distrust. A joint appeal for better conduct along the lines of the code, when using social media.
This stuff is doing very great damage to party and to prospects of future party unity. The bitterness will linger on.
And the Tories cannot believe their good fortune.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.
I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive? I don't have any evidence of this, except anecdotal, but you don't have to be a genius to wonder why the right-wing media are so against him?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd be mighty suspicious of those who wanted to have a rare non-open ballot (because that's what it is), and think they didn't want to justify their decisions in public.
Unless there is any possibility that they really are being harassed and bullied. If that is true then it becomes understandable that they might want to vote in secrecy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
And 40 female MP's have vivid imaginations? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also wonder if the constant smears against Corbyn, led usually by the Guardian, are counter-productive?
Since Murdoch's press was able to destroy Kinnock, make Blair, destroy Gordon Brown, destroy Miliband and deliver Brexit without any serious counter-productivity I doubt the Guardian joining in on this occasion will tip the wagon over.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So all complaints against Corbyn are without any foundation and the vote of no confidence is basically founded on jealousy and fear of his abilities?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, they're all true. He killed Bambi's mother too.
Seriously? There's no part of you that wonders if there might be something to it? I desperately wanted Corbyn to succeed and still do to some extent, but I find it very hard to ignore the accounts of those who have tried to work with him.
It's very hard to know exactly what is going on amidst the maelstrom and it is crystal clear that the press is profoundly unfair on Corbyn. But that doesn't make him necessarily innocent. But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But you're so sure that you can brush off the suggestion there might be something difficult about Corbyn's approach to cabinet with a sarcastic one-liner?
No. He's a politician of principle, which probably makes him more difficult to work with than say, many of his predecessors.
But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.
The metric here isn't difficult to ascertain. The PLP are completely and utterly out of touch with the membership of the party, who have always been more leftwing than the elected politicians. Over the last twenty years, with the rise of New Labour, those who voted Labour have been less and less the 'traditional' Labour voter.
There was always a tension here, and that tension has now snapped. Those who voted for Blair no longer see the point of a right-centre Labour party when they can vote Tory. Those who didn't vote for Blair but will vote for Corbyn also don't see the point of a right-centre Labour party.
The anti-Corbynists in the PLP literally have no base. They're stuck in the middle of no-man's land. They can go back to their own trenches, where they now risk being court-martialled as traitors, or they can defect en masse to either form their own party, or join another.
But they have brought this on their own heads, in very great part by their own lack of situational awareness and bone-headed pride. I have zero sympathy for them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?
This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Remember that Corbyn was never supposed to win the leadership election. That the PLP were so entirely wrongfooted by their own members was simply a symptom.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I'm reasonably certain I'm much closer to the truth than all those who are insisting he's a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.
I don't think those are the only choices though. I think he's probably a very principled socialist and I share many of his views. I also give him a lot of credit for being one of the few senior voices against bombing Syria.
However his handling of the anti-Semitism didn't seem very sure footed to me. I can see how if I was a Jewish MP experiencing anti-Semitism I would feel incompletely supported. He was very slow in bringing Ken Livingstone to heel. Having a chancellor who is caught on camera saying "fucking useless" doesn't seem all that professional even if it was accurate.
And I don't think stories like this and this one can be easily dismissed.
It seems to me that given the problem is, as you say, there is a split party that Corbyn has two alternatives. He either develops a consensus and brings the Blairites on board with posts in the cabinet and policies that take account of their views as some sort of middle ground, or he sticks to his principles, declares "my way or the high way" and tells them to get behind him or find another party.
He has tried to do the former but without any compromise on his part. Compounded by not being fantastic at handling the media and either personally lacking in management ability or lacking a team that is, it hasn't worked.
If he made it completely clear he had no truck with Blairites or the centre-left, intended no compromise, didn't want any in the cabinet and was going to run a socialist outfit and go to the people for a mandate I would have complete sympathy with that and it would be consistent. I suspect it would be suicide, but it would be consistent. The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.
The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I have come to feel that we are suffering from a massive universal outbreak of an overweaning sense of entitlement.
The universal id has been unleashed, ears are stopped, and everyone is screaming that they will have what they want and no one can stop them.
A perfect recipe for catastrophe.
The rarefied tips of the Labour party are feeding essentially off the Westminster consensus, then they have no legitimacy as the national expression of the party - they draw their legitimacy from their membership of the political elite, not of the party, and that is a very dangerous situation. It fosters disaffection with the political process itself, which is the last thing that our current situation needs: reconnection, not further disconnection, is vital to the future of the country, at all levels.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well I think that's the choice. Either socialist principles or compromise. Personally I think that a compromised labour party is a better choice than the conservative and the idea that one might as well throw in the towel is slightly fundamentalist in thinking. I respect those that want to keep the pure socialist faith, I just don't think they are going to be in power anytime soon in the UK.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yeah but.... Hasn't all this cods-wallop only only come about because of Cameron's stupid bloody Referendum? I mean how deep was the ferment prior to whispers of a snap Election?
This thing of his own MPs turning against him might yet turn out to be a failed coup. If JC survives the Leadership challenge then who's to say he isn't the right person to take on the challenges facing this Country once May's promises of a Brave New World have come to nought.
Interesting point about the referendum. There also seem to be seismic shocks in different political parties and European countries.
Of course, you could argue that the ferment goes back quite a ways, at least to the 2008 economic crash. And there seem to be paroxysms across different countries, see Trump. But also, the Middle East collapsing, not sure if this connects.
Is there a 'cause' or a set of causes? Dunno, it's tempting to develop a thesis about Götterdämmerung, but I will leave that to you young whippersnappers.
I know this is an old one, but I still like it: the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum a variety of morbid symptoms appear. (Gramsci).
[ 24. July 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.
The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The approach of sticking to socialist principles and expecting the parliamentary labour party to join in isn't internally consistent.
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party? As somebody else said earlier, we might as well all vote conservative and be done with it.
The treatment of Corbyn by the press and media has descended beyond bullying. This is a sad day for British politics.
Yes, it is also interesting in a way, not just as a political development, but a cultural one. It strikes me as a sign of great morbidity a la Gramsci, but of course, nobody knows what it points to in the future, if anything.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it goes back to Blair's decision to back Bush in the war against Iraq. That decision completely alienated the grass roots from the labour party leadership. The MPs largely went along with Blair and are all tainted by that decision.
The Kinnock/Smith/Blair trajectory had tamed the hard left and maintained a consensus despite the deep rift because being in power was more fun and people weren't ready to split the party over it. But once it became impossible to retain power that consensus broke, and all bets were off.
Hasn't this partly produced Brexit also? I mean, the deprived areas voting Leave not only felt that deindustrialization had left them high and dry, neglected, with poor housing, crap jobs, poor services, poor NHS, but also that Labour wanted their votes, but didn't really bother that much about their lives. So Brexit enabled people to say fuck you to both Tory and Labour.
Of course, Corbyn has capitalized on the post-Blair disillusionment; whether anything more productive ensues, whether from him or someone else, dunno. It's all like a huge kaleidoscope, bloody hell, remember them?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.
Probably disaffection has a lot to do with Brexit, but given Corbyn's attempt to campaign for stay I don't think it is part of the Blair=>Corbyn shift. I suspect that immigration was the defining issue leading to disaffection over Brexit.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?
Do you believe that Jeremy's views on socialist principles and their relationship to policy are the only possible views that a good socialist can hold?
Good socialists can and do disagree on means even when they agree on ends. We always have done. Policy gets hammered out to accommodate different understandings of what is best.
The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.
[ 24. July 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness to Blair I think he did well for the NHS, for education and for the minimum wage. People may well have felt annoyed but the administration under Blair was genuinely trying to help and did some good things. Iraq was the alienating event, and Corbyn capitalizes on it massively as being very obviously the guy who got it right on the defining issue.
I'm not too sure about (wider than the party members) the denial is still great.
Would agree Blair/Brown did some good things with the 3 obvious bad things (Iraq, PFI, crash stuff) being done with the support of the Tories and dividing his own party (&Lib Dem's). Likewise to be fair there's some good things* of Cameroon** but these have either been in word only, or with the support of Labour and Lib Dem's against his divided party.
*Obv in this case selection bias makes this really inevitable .
**It's vaguely interesting to see a Tory friend's digging at him and George, after years of apparent support (pre referendum campaign). The Hunt reaction looked a bit 1984 too (but that may have been misreading on my part).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The PLP MPs belong to the Labour Party, supported the manifesto and were elected accordingly. Their vote of no confidence is about competence much more than principles or policies.
Yes; but isn't an issue that the ground has moved leftwards under them since their election?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
As I understand it, what has happened is this:
* the current PLP consists of people elected on a manifesto that was fuelled by the last reheated, tired remains of Blairism, through the twin filters of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. IMHO, a lot of Labour's current problems lie with the fact that EM did not seriously consider the need for the party to consider seriously the alternatives to Blairism which had gained popularity over the course of his tenancy.
* the 2015 GE declared that those remains had rotted, and were no longer capable of carrying out their magic, i.e. of convincing voters who had no intention of ever voting for anyone other than a Thatcherite that Labour was safe. Thank God for that, say I: it cannot be the future of any left-wing party to allow its agenda to be dictated by the Daily Mail.
* JC's election was the firstfruits of that tired, limp manifesto being consigned to the fires of history. Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster. They now want to do a stitch-up, so that they can continue as they are, and they don't have to fight real enemies.
* the referendum happened so early precisely because DC saw that Labour was still focused inwards, and he didn't seriously think that it would have the Tories fighting each other to the death. He was, sadly, spectacularly right about the first, and, equally sadly for him, spectacularly wrong about the second.
I think I have accounted for every element of the current mess, and why the only way out is through. This mess of a leadership election cannot lead the Labour party back to 1994: that would be a tragedy. Those begging for a "progressive alliance" would do well to remember that no progressive manifesto is available in the pages of the Daily Mail or the Murdoch press. Centrists need to go through some serious detox before they will be credible.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.
What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankly My Dear
Shipmate
# 18072
|
Posted
Their ignorance of how much closer Corbyn's appraoch to the EU was to the public sentiment than their own approach ???
Posts: 108 | From: Telford, Shropshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
